Literature DB >> 25752374

Outcomes, quality of life, and survival after esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches.

Hao Wang1, Yaxing Shen1, Mingxiang Feng1, Yi Zhang1, Wei Jiang1, Songtao Xu1, Lijie Tan2, Qun Wang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) theoretically offers advantages compared with open esophagectomy (OE). However, the long-term outcomes have not been well studied, especially for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. We retrospectively compared postoperative outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and survival in a matched population of patients undergoing MIE, with a control (OE) group.
METHODS: From May 2004 to August 2013, MIE was performed for a group of 735 patients, which was compared with a group of 652 cases of OE. Eventually, 444 paired cases, matched using propensity-score matching, were selected for further statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Compared with the OE group, the MIE group had shorter operation duration (191 ± 47 minutes vs 211 ± 44 minutes, P < .001); less blood loss (135 ± 74 ml vs 163 ± 84 ml, P < .001); similar lymph node harvest (24.1 ± 6.2 vs 24.3 ± 6.0, P = .607); shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 days [range: 7-90 days] vs 12 days [range: 8-112 days], P < .001); fewer major complications (30.4% vs 36.9%, P = .039); a lower readmission rate to the intensive-care unit (5.6% vs 9.7%, P = .023); and similar perioperative mortality (1.1% vs 2.0%, P = .281). At a median follow-up of 27 months, the 2-year overall survival rates in the MIE and OE group were: (1) stage 0 and I: 92% versus 90% (P = .864); (2) stage II: 83% versus 82% (P = .725); (3) stage III: 59% versus 55% (P = .592); (4) stage IV: 43% versus 43% (P = .802). The generalized estimating equation analysis showed that MIE had an independently positive impact on patients' postoperative QOL.
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, MIE is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. It may offer better perioperative outcomes, better postoperative QOL, and equal oncologic survival, compared with OE.
Copyright © 2015 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25752374     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.12.063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  32 in total

1.  The impact of epidural catheter insertion level on pain control after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Eisuke Booka; Yutaka Nakano; Koki Mihara; Shin Nishiya; Ryo Nishiyama; Shintaro Shibutani; Tomoyuki Sato; Tomohisa Egawa
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 4.230

2.  Does pyloric drainage have a role in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy?

Authors:  Tamar Nobel; Kay See Tan; Arianna Barbetta; Prasad Adusumilli; Manjit Bains; Matthew Bott; David Jones; Daniela Molena
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Society for Translational Medicine Expert consensus on the selection of surgical approaches in the management of thoracic esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Yousheng Mao; Zhentao Yu; Bin You; Wentao Fang; Brian Badgwell; Mark F Berry; DuyKhanh P Ceppa; Chun Chen; Haiquan Chen; Miguel A Cuesta; Xavier Benoit D'Journo; Guy D Eslick; Jianhua Fu; Xiangning Fu; Shugeng Gao; Jianxing He; Jie He; Yunchao Huang; Gening Jiang; Zhongmin Jiang; Jae Y Kim; Danqing Li; Hui Li; Shanqing Li; Deruo Liu; Lunxu Liu; Yongyu Liu; Xiaofei Li; Yin Li; Weimin Mao; Daniela Molena; Christopher R Morse; Nuria M Novoa; Lijie Tan; Qunyou Tan; Alper Toker; Ti Tong; Qun Wang; Benny Weksler; Lin Xu; Shidong Xu; Tiansheng Yan; Lanjun Zhang; Xingyi Zhang; Xun Zhang; Zhu Zhang; Xiuyi Zhi; Qinghua Zhou
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-Shanghai Chest Hospital experience.

Authors:  Bin Li; Yu Yang; Yifeng Sun; Rong Hua; Xiaobin Zhang; Xufeng Guo; Haiyong Gu; Bo Ye; Zhigang Li; Teng Mao
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  A novel method for lymphadenectomy along the left laryngeal recurrent nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Yong Xi; Zhenkai Ma; Yaxing Shen; Hao Wang; Mingxiang Feng; Lijie Tan; Qun Wang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Modified Double-Layer Anastomosis for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Effective Way to Prevent Leakage and Stricture.

Authors:  Yong Yuan; Xiao-Xi Zeng; Yong-Fan Zhao; Long-Qi Chen
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Readmission predicts 90-day mortality after esophagectomy: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry linked to Medicare outcomes.

Authors:  Yinin Hu; Timothy L McMurry; George J Stukenborg; Benjamin D Kozower
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.209

8.  Utilization of surgical treatment for local and locoregional esophageal cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.

Authors:  Lauren J Taylor; Caprice C Greenberg; Anne O Lidor; Glen E Leverson; James D Maloney; Ryan A Macke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  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

10.  Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Ju-Wei Mu; Shu-Geng Gao; Qi Xue; You-Sheng Mao; Da-Li Wang; Jun Zhao; Yu-Shun Gao; Jin-Feng Huang; Jie He
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.