Literature DB >> 25480610

Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Juha Kauppi1, Jari Räsänen, Eero Sihvo, Riikka Huuhtanen, Kaisa Nelskylä, Jarmo Salo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We compared oncologic and surgical outcome between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and the Ivor Lewis-type open approach (OE) in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 284 patients undergoing surgery for EAC between 2003 and 2013, the 153 selected with locally advanced EAC were 74 MIEs and 79 OEs [median age, 66 for MIE, 63 for OE (p = 0.009)]. Neoadjuvant therapy was given to 82% of MIEs and 78% of OEs. In the OE group, 86% was male, and in the MIE group, 78%. Data assessed were oncologic, intraoperative, and postoperative.
RESULTS: Mortality at 30 days was 3% for MIE and 1% for OE; and 90-day mortality was 4% for MIE and 5% for OE. The complication rate for MIE was 50%, and 60% for OE (p = 0.181). The pneumonia rate was 18% for MIE and 19% for OE; leak rate was 7% for MIE and 6% for OE; conduit necrosis was 0 for MIE and 3% for OE; and rate of airway-conduit fistula was 3% for MIE and 1 % for OE. Median blood loss (MIE 300 vs. OE 800, p < 0.0001), overall stay (MIE 13 vs. OE 14, p = 0.040), and harvested lymph nodes (MIE 20 vs. OE 22, p = 0.021) all were in favor of MIE. Median ICU stay and operative time did not differ. Neither did overall (OS) nor recurrence-free (RFS) 3-year survival differs significantly (MIE 64% vs. OS OE 49%, MIE 57% vs. RFS OE 53%).
CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, MIE appears to produce oncologic and survival results similar to those of OE. Shorter length of stay and less operative blood loss may reduce costs for MIE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25480610     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3978-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  24 in total

1.  Review of open and minimal access approaches to oesophagectomy for cancer.

Authors:  P M Safranek; J Cubitt; M I Booth; T C B Dehn
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: a valuable alternative to open oesophagectomy for the treatment of early oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma.

Authors:  Philippe Nafteux; Johnny Moons; Willy Coosemans; Herbert Decaluwé; Georges Decker; Paul De Leyn; Dirk Van Raemdonck; Toni Lerut
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 4.191

3.  Thoracoscopic-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: analysis of patterns and prognostic factors for recurrence.

Authors:  Iain G Thomson; Bernard M Smithers; David C Gotley; Ian Martin; Janine M Thomas; Peter O'Rourke; Andrew P Barbour
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 4.  Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  R J J Verhage; E J Hazebroek; J Boone; R Van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Minerva Chir       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes.

Authors:  George Sgourakis; Ines Gockel; Arnold Radtke; Thomas J Musholt; Stephan Timm; Andreas Rink; Achilleas Tsiamis; Constantine Karaliotas; Hauke Lang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Bernard M Smithers; David C Gotley; Ian Martin; Janine M Thomas
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Propensity-matched analysis of three techniques for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis.

Authors:  Shanda H Blackmon; Arlene M Correa; Bob Wynn; Wayne L Hofstetter; Linda W Martin; Reza J Mehran; David C Rice; Steven G Swisher; Garrett L Walsh; Jack A Roth; Ara A Vaporciyan
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kamal Nagpal; Kamran Ahmed; Amit Vats; Danny Yakoub; David James; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi; Krishna Moorthy; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Review of minimally invasive esophagectomy and current controversies.

Authors:  T Kim; S N Hochwald; G A Sarosi; A M Caban; G Rossidis; K Ben-David
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.260

View more
  18 in total

1.  A perspective on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Composite Score for evaluating esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Shuyin Liang; James D Luketich; Inderpal S Sarkaria
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Transhiatal vs. Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A NSQIP Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Risk Factors for Morbidity.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Paula D Strassle; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Do alterations in plasma albumin and prealbumin after minimally invasive esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma influence the incidence of cervical anastomotic leak?

Authors:  Ying-Jian Wang; Xue-Hai Liu; Long-Yong Mei; Kun-Kun Li; Yao-Guang Jiang; Wei Guo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Changes in oncological outcomes: comparison of the conventional and minimally invasive esophagectomy, a single institution experience.

Authors:  Misbah Khan; Anam Muzaffar; Aamir Ali Syed; Shahid Khatak; Ali Raza Khan; Muhammad Ijaz Ashraf
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2016-09-15

5.  Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Chao-Yu Liu; Chen-Sung Lin; Chih-Shiun Shih; Yuh-An Huang; Chia-Chuan Liu; Chih-Tao Cheng
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe surgical treatment for locally advanced pathologic T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiaobin Zhang; Yu Yang; Bo Ye; Yifeng Sun; Xufeng Guo; Rong Hua; Teng Mao; Wentao Fang; Zhigang Li
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Benchmark values for transthoracic esophagectomy are not set as the defined "best possible"-a validation study.

Authors:  Olli Helminen; Johanna Mrena; Eero Sihvo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Can Zhou; Li Zhang; Hua Wang; Xiaoxia Ma; Bohui Shi; Wuke Chen; Jianjun He; Ke Wang; Peijun Liu; Yu Ren
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Waresijiang Yibulayin; Sikandaer Abulizi; Hongbo Lv; Wei Sun
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 10.  Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Can Zhou; Gang Ma; Xiao Li; Juan Li; Yu Yan; Peijun Liu; Jianjun He; Yu Ren
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 2.754

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.