Literature DB >> 24022437

A decade analysis of trends and outcomes of partial versus total esophagectomy in the United States.

Mehraneh D Jafari1, Wissam J Halabi, Brian R Smith, Vinh Q Nguyen, Michael J Phelan, Michael J Stamos, Ninh T Nguyen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the trends and outcomes of partial esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis compared with total esophagectomy with a cervical anastomosis.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical approach in the management of esophageal cancer.
METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, yearly trends of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent partial and total esophagectomy were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality between partial and total esophagectomy. In addition, outcomes were analyzed according to hospital volume, with low-volume centers defined as those with fewer than 10 cases per year and high-volume centers as those with 10 or more cases per year.
RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2010, 15,190 esophagectomies were performed for cancer. There was an overall increase in the number of esophagectomy procedures performed (1402 to 1975), with a concomitant reduction in the mortality rate (8.3% to 4.2%), particularly for partial esophagectomy. Partial esophagectomy was the predominant operation (76%). Most operations were performed at low-volume centers (62%), with a recent shift of cases to high-volume center. Compared with total esophagectomy, partial esophagectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (16 ± 6 vs 19 ± 9 days; P < 0.05), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (5.8% vs 8.3%; P < 0.05), and a lower hospital charge ($119,339 vs $138,496; P < 0.05). On multivariate regression analysis, total esophagectomy was associated with higher serious morbidity (odds ratio, 1.39; P < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.67; P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted outcomes between low-volume centers and high-volume center.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of esophagectomies performed for esophageal cancer has increased over the past decade accompanied by an overall reduction in mortality, particularly for the partial esophagectomy approach. The predominant operation in the United States continues to be partial esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis, which was associated with lower morbidity and in-hospital mortality than total esophagectomy. Hospital volume at a threshold of 10 cases per year was not a predictor of outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24022437     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a1b11d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  18 in total

1.  Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs. open esophagectomy: a matched case analysis in 120 patients.

Authors:  Torben Glatz; Goran Marjanovic; Birte Kulemann; Olivia Sick; Ulrich Theodor Hopt; Jens Hoeppner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Perioperative outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a mid-volume institution in the era of centralization.

Authors:  Silvio Däster; Savas D Soysal; Luca Koechlin; Lea Stoll; Ralph Peterli; Markus von Flüe; Christoph Ackermann
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Preoperative Glycosylated Hemoglobin Levels Predict Anastomotic Leak After Esophagectomy with Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis.

Authors:  Akihiko Okamura; Masayuki Watanabe; Yu Imamura; Satoshi Kamiya; Kotaro Yamashita; Takanori Kurogochi; Shinji Mine
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  [Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer : Evolution of management and prognosis over the last 3 decades].

Authors:  T Glatz; G Marjanovic; K Zirlik; T Brunner; U T Hopt; F Makowiec; J Hoeppner
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 5.  Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Balamurugan A Vellayappan; Yu Yang Soon; Geoffrey Y Ku; Cheng Nang Leong; Jiade J Lu; Jeremy Cs Tey
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-22

6.  Consideration for Esophagectomy in Patients with Prior Bariatric Surgery.

Authors:  Ninh T Nguyen; Eric Kim
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.129

7.  Effectiveness of intervention with a perioperative multidisciplinary support team for radical esophagectomy.

Authors:  Yuji Akiyama; Takeshi Iwaya; Fumitaka Endo; Yoshihiro Shioi; Motoi Kumagai; Takeshi Takahara; Koki Otsuka; Hiroyuki Nitta; Keisuke Koeda; Masaru Mizuno; Yusuke Kimura; Kenji Suzuki; Akira Sasaki
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the stomach increases neovascularization of the gastric conduit in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer.

Authors:  Thai H Pham; Shelby D Melton; Patrick J McLaren; Ali A Mokdad; Sergio Huerta; David H Wang; Kyle A Perry; Hope L Hardaker; James P Dolan
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-05-29       Impact factor: 3.454

9.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: Chinese experiences.

Authors:  Miao Lin; Yaxing Shen; Mingxiang Feng; Lijie Tan
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2016-08-04

10.  Gastric Per Oral Pyloromyotomy for Post-Vagotomy-Induced Gastroparesis Following Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Mark J Anderson; Megan Sippey; Jeffrey Marks
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.