Jingrong Yang1, Chi Xu1, Duohuang Lian1, Shixin Ye1, Zhiyong Zeng2, Daoming Liu1, Congwen Zhuang1. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command, Fuzhou, Fujian, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command, Fuzhou, Fujian, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: zhiyongzengzyz12@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although posterior mediastinal (PM) route and retrosternal (RS) route have been used for reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), the optimal route remains controversial. This study reviewed our experiences with McKeown MIEs for esophageal cancer and aimed to investigate which route was better for esophageal reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2011 to December 2013, 103 patients who underwent McKeown MIE and esophageal reconstruction by PM or RS routes were reviewed. The decision regarding which approach was appropriated mainly depended on the first surgeon's preference and experience. Baseline demographics, operative, and postoperative data of the patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-six and forty-seven patients receiving PM and RS route reconstruction were reviewed, respectively. Shorter operation time (P = 0.001), less blood loss (P = 0.029), and longer route length (P < 0.001) were observed in PM route compared with RS route. No difference was observed in the resection type, harvested lymph node, intensive care unit and hospital stay, postoperative complications, and in-hospital mortality between the two routes (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both RS route and PM route were safe and effective. PM route was associated with shorter operation time, less blood loss, but longer route length compared with RS route.
BACKGROUND: Although posterior mediastinal (PM) route and retrosternal (RS) route have been used for reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), the optimal route remains controversial. This study reviewed our experiences with McKeown MIEs for esophageal cancer and aimed to investigate which route was better for esophageal reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2011 to December 2013, 103 patients who underwent McKeown MIE and esophageal reconstruction by PM or RS routes were reviewed. The decision regarding which approach was appropriated mainly depended on the first surgeon's preference and experience. Baseline demographics, operative, and postoperative data of the patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-six and forty-seven patients receiving PM and RS route reconstruction were reviewed, respectively. Shorter operation time (P = 0.001), less blood loss (P = 0.029), and longer route length (P < 0.001) were observed in PM route compared with RS route. No difference was observed in the resection type, harvested lymph node, intensive care unit and hospital stay, postoperative complications, and in-hospital mortality between the two routes (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both RS route and PM route were safe and effective. PM route was associated with shorter operation time, less blood loss, but longer route length compared with RS route.