Literature DB >> 27677565

Improved Functional Results After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Intrathoracic Versus Cervical Anastomosis.

Frans van Workum1, Jolijn van der Maas2, Frits J H van den Wildenberg2, Fatih Polat2, Ewout A Kouwenhoven3, Marc J van Det3, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen4, Misha D Luyer4, Camiel Rosman5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) are used to restore gastrointestinal integrity following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). No prospective randomized data on functional outcome, postoperative morbidity, and mortality between these techniques are currently available.
METHODS: A comparison was conducted including all consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction undergoing MIE with CEA or MIE with IEA from October 2009 to July 2014 in 3 high-volume esophageal cancer centers. Functional outcome, postoperative morbidity, and mortality were analyzed.
RESULTS: MIE with CEA was performed in 146 patients and MIE with IEA in 210 patients. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was 14.4% after CEA and 0% after IEA (p < 0.001). Dysphagia, dumping, and regurgitation were reported less frequently after IEA compared with CEA (p < 0.05). Dilatation of benign strictures occurred in 43.8% after CEA and this was 6.2% after IEA (p < 0.001). If a benign stricture was identified, it was dilated a median of 4 times in the CEA group and only once in the IEA group (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leakage for which reoperation was required occurred in 8.2% after CEA and in 11.4% after IEA (not significant). Median ICU stay, hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality were similar between the groups (not significant).
CONCLUSIONS: MIE with IEA was associated with better functional results than MIE with CEA with less dysphagia, less benign anastomotic strictures requiring fewer dilatations, and a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Other postoperative morbidity and mortality did not differ between the groups.
Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27677565     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  17 in total

1.  McKeown or Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Frans van Workum; Gijs H Berkelmans; Bastiaan R Klarenbeek; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Misha D P Luyer; Camiel Rosman
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Prevention of intra-thoracic recurrent laryngeal nerve injury with robot-assisted esophagectomy.

Authors:  Kei Hosoda; Masahiro Niihara; Hideki Ushiku; Hiroki Harada; Mikiko Sakuraya; Marie Washio; Keishi Yamashita; Naoki Hiki
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 3.  Gastro-esophageal junction cancers: what is the best minimally invasive approach?

Authors:  Egle Jezerskyte; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Miguel A Cuesta; Suzanne S Gisbertz
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Coating of Intestinal Anastomoses for Prevention of Postoperative Leakage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kamacay Cira; Felix Stocker; Stefan Reischl; Andreas Obermeier; Helmut Friess; Rainer Burgkart; Philipp-Alexander Neumann
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-04-22

5.  Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy with Linear Stapled Anastomosis Associated with Low Leak and Stricture Rates.

Authors:  Moshim Kukar; Kfir Ben-David; June S Peng; Kristopher Attwood; Ryan M Thomas; Mark Hennon; Chukwumere Nwogu; Steven N Hochwald
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Development and validation of a nomogram to predict anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Wen-Quan Yu; Hui-Jiang Gao; Guo-Dong Shi; Jia-Yu Tang; Hua-Feng Wang; Shi-Yu Hu; Yu-Cheng Wei
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 3.005

7.  An Approach to Accelerate Healing and Shorten the Hospital Stay of Patients With Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy: An Explorative Study of Systematic Endoscopic Intervention.

Authors:  LeQi Zhong; JiuDi Zhong; ZiHui Tan; YiTong Wei; XiaoDong Su; ZheSheng Wen; TieHua Rong; Yi Hu; KongJia Luo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer.

Authors:  J A H Gooszen; L Goense; S S Gisbertz; J P Ruurda; R van Hillegersberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Anastomotic reinforcement with omentoplasty reduces anastomotic leakage for minimally invasive esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis.

Authors:  Dong Zhou; Quan-Xing Liu; Xu-Feng Deng; Hong Zheng; Xiao Lu; Ji-Gang Dai; Li Jiang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 3.989

10.  Fixed in the neck or pushed back into the thorax?-Impact of cervical anastomosis position on anastomosis healing.

Authors:  Jun Luo; Ze-Guo Zhuo; Yun-Ke Zhu; Han-Yu Deng; Tie-Niu Song; Gu-Ha Alai; Xu Shen; Yi-Dan Lin
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 3.005

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.