Literature DB >> 28447008

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center initial experience.

Olugbenga T Okusanya1, Inderpal S Sarkaria1, Nicholas R Hess1, Katie S Nason1, Manuel Villa Sanchez1, Ryan M Levy1, Arjun Pennathur1, James D Luketich1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID： 28447008      PMCID： PMC5387149          DOI： 10.21037/acs.2017.03.12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN： 2225-319X


× No keyword cloud information.
  16 in total

1.  Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients.

Authors:  James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Omar Awais; Ryan M Levy; Samuel Keeley; Manisha Shende; Neil A Christie; Benny Weksler; Rodney J Landreneau; Ghulam Abbas; Matthew J Schuchert; Katie S Nason
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Complications of esophagectomy.

Authors:  Daniel Raymond
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.741

3.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study.

Authors:  James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Yoko Franchetti; Paul J Catalano; Scott Swanson; David J Sugarbaker; Alberto De Hoyos; Michael A Maddaus; Ninh T Nguyen; Al B Benson; Hiran C Fernando
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Attaining Proficiency in Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy While Maximizing Safety During Procedure Development.

Authors:  Inderpal S Sarkaria; Nabil P Rizk; Rachel Grosser; Debra Goldman; David J Finley; Amanda Ghanie; Camelia S Sima; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; Valerie W Rusch; David R Jones
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug

5.  Robotic Esophagectomy for Cancer: Early Results and Lessons Learned.

Authors:  Robert J Cerfolio; Benjamin Wei; Mary T Hawn; Douglas J Minnich
Journal:  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-10-30

6.  Prevalence and risk factors for ischemia, leak, and stricture of esophageal anastomosis: gastric pull-up versus colon interposition.

Authors:  John W Briel; Anand P Tamhankar; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester; Jan Johansson; Emmanouel Choustoulakis; Jeffrey H Peters; Cedric G Bremner; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Esophagectomy compared with chemoradiation for early stage esophageal cancer in the elderly.

Authors:  Julian A Abrams; Donna L Buono; Joshua Strauss; Russell B McBride; Dawn L Hershman; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies.

Authors:  C Anderson; M Hellan; K Kernstine; J Ellenhorn; L Lai; V Trisal; A Pigazzi
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.547

9.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy.

Authors:  C A Galvani; M V Gorodner; F Moser; G Jacobsen; C Chretien; N J Espat; P Donahue; S Horgan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Oncologic Long-Term Results of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

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
View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation-Current Status and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Ashish Goel; Vikash Nayak
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-25

2.  Transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy using da Vinci® SP™ Surgical System: a feasibility study in cadaveric model.

Authors:  Philip W Y Chiu; Simon S M Ng; Samuel K W Au
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A perspective on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Composite Score for evaluating esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Shuyin Liang; James D Luketich; Inderpal S Sarkaria
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Technique of robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).

Authors:  Olugbenga T Okusanya; Nicholas R Hess; James D Luketich; Inderpal S Sarkaria
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2017-08-31

5.  Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comment on the Ruijin hospital experience.

Authors:  David Pennywell; Inderpal S Sarkaria
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Efficacy of sternocleidomastoid muscle flap in reducing anastomotic mediastinal/pleural cavity leak.

Authors:  Litao Yang; Zhinuan Hong; Zhiwei Lin; Zhenyang Zhang; Jiangbo Lin; Mingduan Chen; Xiaojie Yang; Yukang Lin; Wenwei Lin; Jiafu Zhu; Shuhan Xie; Mingqiang Kang
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 3.671

7.  Transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: unclear benefits compared to traditional transhiatal esophagectomy.

Authors:  Toby P Keeney-Bonthrone; Kenneth L Abbott; Caleb Haley; Monita Karmakar; Armani M Hawes; Andrew C Chang; Jules Lin; William R Lynch; Philip W Carrott; Kiran H Lagisetty; Mark B Orringer; Rishindra M Reddy
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-09-28

Review 8.  Minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy: state of the art.

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

9.  Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Authors:  Aaron R Dezube; Suden Kucukak; Luis E De León; Kostas Kostopanagiotou; Michael T Jaklitsch; Jon O Wee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Robotics and minimally invasive esophageal surgery.

Authors:  Ealaf Shemmeri; Jon O Wee
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.