Literature DB >> 27225750

Outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone position with laparoscopic gastric mobilization for esophageal cancer.

Hiroyuki Kitagawa1, Tsutomu Namikawa2, Masaya Munekage1, Kazune Fujisawa1, Eri Munekgae1, Michiya Kobayashi3, Kazuhiro Hanazaki1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed in the prone position (TSE-PP) followed by laparoscopic gastric mobilization (LGM) compared with open thoracotomy and LGM, for esophageal cancers.
METHODS: We reviewed the records of 105 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with LGM for esophageal cancer at Kochi Medical School. Among the study patients, 60 patients underwent TSE-PP, while 45 underwent open thoracotomy (OPEN group). The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Compared to the OPEN group, the TSE-PP group had lower blood loss (TSE-PP, 150 mL; OPEN, 430 mL; P < 0.001), longer operative time (TSE-PP, 609 min; OPEN, 570 min; P = 0.012), more lymph nodes dissected around the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (TSE-PP, 6; OPEN, 2; P < 0.001), and a shorter length of hospital stay (TSE-PP, 16.5 days; OPEN, 35 days; P < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was similar in the two groups. Though the recurrence rate and overall survival were not significantly different in the two groups, the TSE-PP group had better overall survival rates than the OPEN group (P = 0.122).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent TSE-PP with LGM for esophageal cancers recovered earlier after surgery compared to those who underwent open thoracotomy with LGM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Esophageal cancer; Esophagectomy; Laparoscopic gastric mobilization; Prone position; Thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27225750     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1446-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  27 in total

1.  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

2.  Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is associated with less-restrictive ventilatory impairment and less risk for pulmonary complication than open laparotomy in thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Authors:  Taro Oshikiri; Takashi Yasuda; Kentaro Kawasaki; Hitoshi Harada; Masato Oyama; Hiroshi Hasegawa; Tadayuki Ohara; Hiroyoshi Sendo; Tetsu Nakamura; Yasuhiro Fujino; Masahiro Tominaga; Yoshihiro Kakeji
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  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

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.  Lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve by a minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position for thoracic esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Hirokazu Noshiro; Hironori Iwasaki; Kiitiro Kobayashi; Akihiko Uchiyama; Yoshihiro Miyasaka; Toshihiro Masatsugu; Kenta Koike; Kouji Miyazaki
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-05-22       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Three-field lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction in 174 R0 resections: impact on staging, disease-free survival, and outcome: a plea for adaptation of TNM classification in upper-half esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  T Lerut; P Nafteux; J Moons; W Coosemans; G Decker; P De Leyn; D Van Raemdonck; N Ectors
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Comparison of the perioperative outcome of esophagectomy by thoracoscopy in the prone position with that of thoracotomy in the lateral decubitus position.

Authors:  Tomoaki Yatabe; Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Koichi Yamashita; Kazuhiro Hanazaki; Masataka Yokoyama
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 2.549

8.  Results of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer during the induction period.

Authors:  Itasu Ninomiya; Harushi Osugi; Takashi Fujimura; Masato Kayahara; Hiroyuki Takamura; Masashi Takemura; Shigeru Lee; Hisatoshi Nakagawara; Genichi Nishimura; Tetsuo Ohta
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2008-03-14

9.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients.

Authors:  James D Luketich; Miguel Alvelo-Rivera; Percival O Buenaventura; Neil A Christie; James S McCaughan; Virginia R Litle; Philip R Schauer; John M Close; Hiran C Fernando
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation.

Authors:  H Osugi; M Takemura; M Higashino; N Takada; S Lee; H Kinoshita
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  8 in total

1.  Comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in left decubitus position and in prone position for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Shirou Kuwabara; Kazuaki Kobayashi; Akira Kubota; Ikuma Shioi; Kenji Yamaguchi; Norio Katayanagi
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Airflow Limitation Predicts Postoperative Pneumonia after Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Suguru Maruyama; Akihiko Okamura; Naoki Ishizuka; Yasukazu Kanie; Kei Sakamoto; Daisuke Fujiwara; Jun Kanamori; Yu Imamura; Masayuki Watanabe
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Outcomes of abdominal esophageal cancer patients who were treated with esophagectomy.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Tsutomu Namikawa; Jun Iwabu; Kazune Fujisawa; Michiya Kobayashi; Kazuhiro Hanazaki
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-11-24

4.  Effects of a preoperative immune-modulating diet in patients with esophageal cancer: a prospective parallel group randomized study.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Tsutomu Namikawa; Tomoaki Yatabe; Masaya Munekage; Fumiyasu Yamasaki; Michiya Kobayashi; Kazuhiro Hanazaki
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Comparison between neck-first approach and thoracic approach during thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Tsutomu Namikawa; Jun Iwabu; Kazune Fujisawa; Michiya Kobayashi; Kazuhiro Hanazaki
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.445

6.  Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Frans van Workum; Bastiaan R Klarenbeek; Nikolaj Baranov; Maroeska M Rovers; Camiel Rosman
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.429

7.  Adverse outcomes of artificial pneumothorax under right bronchial occlusion for patients with thoracoscopic-assisted oesophagectomy in the prone position versus the semiprone position.

Authors:  Qiongzhen Li; Mingye Zhao; Dongjin Wu; Xufeng Guo; Jingxiang Wu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-08-09       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 8.  Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Siaw-Acheampong; S K Kamarajah; R Gujjuri; J R Bundred; P Singh; E A Griffiths
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-09-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.