Literature DB >> 26743111

Factors influencing difficulty of the thoracic procedure in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Akihiko Okamura1, Masayuki Watanabe2, Shinji Mine1, Koujiro Nishida1, Yu Imamura1, Takanori Kurogochi1, Yuko Kitagawa3, Takeshi Sano1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being increasingly performed worldwide. When performing MIE, we sometimes experienced difficulties due to a narrow upper mediastinum or a middle to lower thoracic esophagus hidden by the projection of the vertebral body. However, there were no reports regarding the influence of anatomical factors on the difficulty of performing MIE. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether anatomical factors could be related to the difficulty of the thoracic procedure in MIE.
METHODS: We investigated 87 consecutive patients undergoing MIE for primary esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2015 and created novel indices to assess the upper mediastinal narrowness and vertebral body projection at middle thoracic part on preoperative computed tomography images. We assessed clinicopathological and anatomical factors and determined the factors influencing the thoracic procedural difficulty in MIE. The thoracic procedure duration was selected as the variable representing technical difficulty.
RESULTS: The mean thoracic procedure duration was 280.2 ± 52.5 min. There were no significant correlations between the indices and patient factors such as age, sex, and body mass index. Meanwhile, there was a significant correlation between the upper mediastinal narrowness and the vertebral body projection (p < 0.01). Of the clinicopathological and anatomical factors, blood loss during the thoracic procedure, thoracic duct resection, and vertebral body projection independently were related to the prolonged thoracic procedure duration in multiple linear regression analysis (p = 0.01, 0.03, and <0.01, respectively). The other factors including upper mediastinal narrowness were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to reveal the influence of anatomical factors on the difficulty of the thoracic procedure in MIE. The vertebral body projection at middle thoracic part appears to be a useful tool for predicting the thoracic procedural difficulty in MIE preoperatively.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anatomical factor; Minimally invasive esophagectomy; Surgical difficulty; Vertebral body

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26743111     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4743-3

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


  25 in total

1.  Pelvic anatomy as a factor in laparoscopic rectal surgery: a prospective study.

Authors:  Jeong Yeon Kim; Yong Wan Kim; Nam Kyu Kim; Hyuk Hur; KangYong Lee; Byung Soh Min; Hyun Jae Cho
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.719

Review 2.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: an updated review.

Authors:  Masayuki Watanabe; Yoshifumi Baba; Yohei Nagai; Hideo Baba
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Suppression of cellular immunity by surgical stress.

Authors:  K Ogawa; M Hirai; T Katsube; M Murayama; K Hamaguchi; T Shimakawa; Y Naritake; T Hosokawa; T Kajiwara
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  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

5.  Factors affecting cytokine change after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Akihiko Okamura; Hiroya Takeuchi; Satoru Matsuda; Masaharu Ogura; Taku Miyasho; Rieko Nakamura; Tsunehiro Takahashi; Norihito Wada; Hirofumi Kawakubo; Yoshiro Saikawa; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Takashi Akiyoshi; Hiroya Kuroyanagi; Masatoshi Oya; Tsuyoshi Konishi; Meiki Fukuda; Yoshiya Fujimoto; Masashi Ueno; Satoshi Miyata; Toshiharu Yamaguchi
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 7.  Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Hiroya Takeuchi; Hirofumi Kawakubo; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-05-10

8.  Gallbladder bed pocket score as a preoperative measure for assessing the difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Kenta Shinozaki; Tetsuo Ajiki; Taro Okazaki; Kimihiko Ueno; Taku Matsumoto; Izuru Ohtsubo; Sae Murakami; Yuko Yoshida; Ippei Matsumoto; Takumi Fukumoto; Takemi Sugimoto; Masakazu Ohno; Yonson Ku
Journal:  Asian J Endosc Surg       Date:  2013-07-11

Review 9.  Potential prophylactic measures against postoperative immunosuppression: could they reduce recurrence rates in oncological patients?

Authors:  Guy Shakhar; Shamgar Ben-Eliyahu
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Factors influencing pathologic results after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: analysis of consecutive 100 cases.

Authors:  Seung Hyuk Baik; Nam Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee; Seung Kook Sohn; Chang Hwan Cho; Myeong Jin Kim; Hogeun Kim; Rina K Shinn
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-12-05       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Emanuele Asti; Daniele Bernardi; Marco Sozzi; Luigi Bonavina
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-10-16

Review 2.  Hybrid and total minimally invasive esophagectomy: how I do it.

Authors:  Luigi Bonavina; Emanuele Asti; Andrea Sironi; Daniele Bernardi; Alberto Aiolfi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Esophageal Position Affects Short-Term Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Uchihara; Naoya Yoshida; Yoshifumi Baba; Yuichiro Nakashima; Yasue Kimura; Hiroshi Saeki; Shinsuke Takeno; Noriaki Sadanaga; Masahiko Ikebe; Masaru Morita; Yasushi Toh; Atsushi Nanashima; Yoshihiko Maehara; Hideo Baba
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Clinical analysis of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a single center by a single medical group.

Authors:  Zi-Yi Zhu; Xu Yong; Rao-Jun Luo; Yun-Zhen Wang
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2018 Sept.       Impact factor: 3.066

5.  Mediastinal Adiposity Influences the Technical Difficulty of Thoracic Procedure in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Akihiko Okamura; Masayuki Watanabe; Takanori Kurogochi; Yu Imamura; Koujiro Nishida; Shinji Mine
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 6.  Minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy: state of the art.

Authors:  Marco Taurchini; Antonello Cuttitta
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2017-09-14

7.  Ergonomic thoracic port design for video-assisted thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy: a preliminary pilot study.

Authors:  Han-Yu Deng; Xi Zheng; Guha Alai; Ze-Guo Zhuo; Gang Li; Jun Luo; Yi-Dan Lin
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-11

8.  Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer patients with pectus excavatum: a report of two cases.

Authors:  Tomoya Tsukada; Yuto Kitano; Yuya Sugimoto; Masahide Kaji
Journal:  Surg Case Rep       Date:  2021-05-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.