BACKGROUNDS: What is the optimal way for the middle esophageal cancer? It is still controversial. In this study, the clinical outcome of middle thoracic esophageal cancer with either intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis was analyzed in our department. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 205 patients who suffered from middle thoracic esophageal cancer were divided into two groups. In group A, 91 patients received intrathoracic anastomosis above aortic arch after esophageal resection via single left thoracotomy, and in group B, 114 patients received cervical anastomosis after esophageal resection via right thoracotomy and median laparotomy. Data of these patients were collected, and morbidity and mortality were analyzed retrospectively. Survival rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between groups were performed with log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox model to look for independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: Postoperative complications occurred more frequently in group B, such as hemorrhage (p = 0.011), wound infection (p = 0.032), and temporary paresis of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (p = 0.001). Morbidity of anastomotic leak was higher in group B (8.8 vs. 2.2%; p = 0.048), but the associated mortality was not increased. The extent of radical esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy was much greater in group B; therefore, longer esophagus was resected that reduced the cancer residual rate, and more positive lymph nodes were detected that enhanced the accuracy of clinical staging. Fortunately, more patients received adjuvant therapy after operation in group B, and the 5-year survival rate was improved. CONCLUSION: Anastomotic leak rate was higher in cervical anastomosis but with lower mortality. The 5-year survival rate was improved in cervical anastomosis group. The present data support the assumption that cervical anastomosis is a safer and more beneficial procedure for patients with middle thoracic esophageal cancer. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUNDS: What is the optimal way for the middle esophageal cancer? It is still controversial. In this study, the clinical outcome of middle thoracic esophageal cancer with either intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis was analyzed in our department. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 205 patients who suffered from middle thoracic esophageal cancer were divided into two groups. In group A, 91 patients received intrathoracic anastomosis above aortic arch after esophageal resection via single left thoracotomy, and in group B, 114 patients received cervical anastomosis after esophageal resection via right thoracotomy and median laparotomy. Data of these patients were collected, and morbidity and mortality were analyzed retrospectively. Survival rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between groups were performed with log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox model to look for independent predictors of survival. RESULTS:Postoperative complications occurred more frequently in group B, such as hemorrhage (p = 0.011), wound infection (p = 0.032), and temporary paresis of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (p = 0.001). Morbidity of anastomotic leak was higher in group B (8.8 vs. 2.2%; p = 0.048), but the associated mortality was not increased. The extent of radical esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy was much greater in group B; therefore, longer esophagus was resected that reduced the cancer residual rate, and more positive lymph nodes were detected that enhanced the accuracy of clinical staging. Fortunately, more patients received adjuvant therapy after operation in group B, and the 5-year survival rate was improved. CONCLUSION:Anastomotic leak rate was higher in cervical anastomosis but with lower mortality. The 5-year survival rate was improved in cervical anastomosis group. The present data support the assumption that cervical anastomosis is a safer and more beneficial procedure for patients with middle thoracic esophageal cancer. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Renata Tabola; Katarzyna Augoff; Andrzej Lewandowski; Piotr Ziolkowski; Piotr Szelachowski; Krzysztof Grabowski Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Jennifer Straatman; Nicole van der Wielen; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig; Joris J G Scheepers; Miguel A Cuesta; Misha D P Luyer; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Frans van Workum; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Donald L van der Peet Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joerg Lindenmann; Nicole Fink-Neuboeck; Christian Porubsky; Melanie Fediuk; Udo Anegg; Peter Kornprat; Maria Smolle; Alfred Maier; Josef Smolle; Freyja Maria Smolle-Juettner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 4.584