Teus J Weijs1, Jelle P Ruurda1, Misha D P Luyer2, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen2, Sylvia van der Horst1, Ronald L A W Bleys3, Richard van Hillegersberg4. 1. Department of Surgery Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Anatomy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. r.vanhillegersberg@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vagus branches are transected as part of a transthoracic esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy for cancer. This may contribute to the development of postoperative pulmonary complications. Studies in which sparing of the pulmonary vagus nerve branches during thoracoscopic esophagectomy is investigated are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the feasibility and pitfalls of sparing pulmonary vagus nerve branches during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. METHODS: In 10 human cadavers, a thoracoscopic esophagectomy was performed while sparing the pulmonary vagus nerve branches. The number of intact nerve branches, their distribution over the lung lobes and the number and location of the remaining lymph nodes in the relevant esophageal lymph node stations (7, 10R and 10L) were recorded during microscopic dissection. RESULTS: A median of 9 (range 5-16) right pulmonary vagus nerve branches were spared, of which 4 (0-12) coursed to the right middle/inferior lung lobe. On the left side, 10 (3-12) vagus nerve branches were spared, of which 4 (2-10) coursed to the inferior lobe. In 8 cases, lymph nodes were left behind, at stations 10R and 10L while sparing the vagus nerve branches. Lymph nodes at station 7 were always removed. CONCLUSIONS: Sparing of pulmonary vagus nerve branches during thoracoscopic esophagectomy is feasible. Extra care should be given to the dissection of peribronchial lymph nodes, station 10R and 10L.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vagus branches are transected as part of a transthoracic esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy for cancer. This may contribute to the development of postoperative pulmonary complications. Studies in which sparing of the pulmonary vagus nerve branches during thoracoscopic esophagectomy is investigated are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the feasibility and pitfalls of sparing pulmonary vagus nerve branches during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. METHODS: In 10 human cadavers, a thoracoscopic esophagectomy was performed while sparing the pulmonary vagus nerve branches. The number of intact nerve branches, their distribution over the lung lobes and the number and location of the remaining lymph nodes in the relevant esophageal lymph node stations (7, 10R and 10L) were recorded during microscopic dissection. RESULTS: A median of 9 (range 5-16) right pulmonary vagus nerve branches were spared, of which 4 (0-12) coursed to the right middle/inferior lung lobe. On the left side, 10 (3-12) vagus nerve branches were spared, of which 4 (2-10) coursed to the inferior lobe. In 8 cases, lymph nodes were left behind, at stations 10R and 10L while sparing the vagus nerve branches. Lymph nodes at station 7 were always removed. CONCLUSIONS: Sparing of pulmonary vagus nerve branches during thoracoscopic esophagectomy is feasible. Extra care should be given to the dissection of peribronchial lymph nodes, station 10R and 10L.
Authors: Teus J Weijs; Jelle P Ruurda; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Misha D P Luyer Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Asad Kutup; Michael F Nentwich; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Dean Bogoevski; Jakob R Izbicki; Arnulf H Hölscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pieter C van der Sluis; Roy J J Verhage; Sylvia van der Horst; Willem M van der Wal; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 2.588
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
Authors: Natalie S Blencowe; Sean Strong; Angus G K McNair; Sara T Brookes; Tom Crosby; S Michael Griffin; Jane M Blazeby Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P C van der Sluis; J P Ruurda; R J J Verhage; S van der Horst; L Haverkamp; P D Siersema; I H M Borel Rinkes; F J W Ten Kate; R van Hillegersberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gijsbert I van Boxel; B Feike Kingma; Frank J Voskens; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Teun J Weijs; Jelle P Ruurda; Michael D P Luyer; Miguel A Cuesta; Richard van Hillegersberg; Ronaldus L A W Bleys Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Xiankai Chen; Peng Luo; Hounai Xie; Yafan Yang; Ruixiang Zhang; Jianjun Qin; Christopher W Seder; Min P Kim; Raja Flores; Lei Xu; Yin Li Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2022-03