Literature DB >> 24891305

Transhiatal versus transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a 2005-2011 NSQIP comparison of modern multicenter results.

Wesley A Papenfuss1, Moshim Kukar, Kristopher Attwood, Venkata R Kakarla, Soni Chousleb, Steven N Hochwald, Steven J Nurkin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The surgical approach to esophageal cancer continues to be controversial. A transthoracic approach is often advocated for better oncologic staging and improved survival. A transhiatal approach is often preferred due to a perceived decreased operative morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) participant-use file, patients were identified who underwent either a transhiatal or transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer at participating hospitals from 2005 to 2011. Demographic, clinical, intra-operative variables, and 30-day morbidity and mortality were collected.
RESULTS: Of the 1,428 patients that had esophagectomy, 750 (52.5%) had a transhiatal (TH) resection and 678 (47.5%) had a transthoracic (TT) resection. The transhiatal group was older (66 vs. 63 years, P = 0.003) with a lower ASA class (2.84 vs. 2.91, P = 0.025). Operative time was greater in the TT group (364 vs. 298 min, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 30 day overall mortality (TH = 2.9%, TT = 4.7%, P = 0.095) however a trend favored the TH group. Serious morbidity remains clinically significant in both groups (TH = 39.6%, TT = 43.5%, P = 0.146). The TH group had a significantly higher superficial wound infection rate (11.6% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.001) while the TT group required more perioperative blood transfusions (12.5% vs. 8.9%, P = 0.032) and returns to operating room (14.5% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.046).
CONCLUSION: Serious morbidity continues to be high for both types of esophagectomy. There needs to be continued efforts to diminish these complications.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ivor-Lewis; NSQIP; esophagectomy; transhiatal

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24891305     DOI: 10.1002/jso.23637

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0022-4790            Impact factor:   3.454


  6 in total

1.  Open surgical treatment for esophageal cancer: transhiatal vs. transthoracic, does it really matter?

Authors:  Uriel Clemente-Gutiérrez; Heriberto Medina-Franco; Oscar Santes; Jesús Morales-Maza; Alejandro Alfaro-Goldaracena; Martin J Heslin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2019-08

2.  Recent advances in defining and benchmarking complications after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Lucas Goense; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillergersberg
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Transthoracic versus transhiatal resection for esophageal adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus: A value-based comparison.

Authors:  Onkar V Khullar; Renjian Jiang; Seth D Force; Allan Pickens; Manu S Sancheti; Kevin Ward; Theresa Gillespie; Felix G Fernandez
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 3.454

4.  Drain amylase aids detection of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Erin H Baker; Joshua S Hill; Mark K Reames; James Symanowski; Susie C Hurley; Jonathan C Salo
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-04

Review 5.  Peri-operative approach to esophagectomy: a narrative review from the anesthesiological standpoint.

Authors:  Cristian Deana; Luigi Vetrugno; Elena Bignami; Flavio Bassi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 3.005

Review 6.  Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Seto; Kazuhiko Mori; Susumu Aikou
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2017-08-14
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.