Literature DB >> 28486000

Evolution in the Treatment of Esophageal Disease at a Single Academic Institution: 2004-2013.

James P Dolan1, Patrick J McLaren1, Brian S Diggs1, Paul H Schipper2, Brandon H Tieu2, Brett C Sheppard1, Erin W Gilbert1, Molly A Conroy1, John G Hunter1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Management of benign and malignant esophageal disease has changed rapidly over the past decade. The aim of this study was to analyze evolution in surgical management of esophageal disease at a single academic medical center during this period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2004 and 2013. Patient, institutional, treatment, and outcomes variables were reviewed.
RESULTS: 317 patients were analyzed. Median age was 63.5 years; 80% were male. Average inhospital mortality rate was 3.8%. Operative indications changed significantly from 2004 to 2013, with more operations performed for invasive malignancy (77% vs. 95%) and fewer for high-grade dysplasia (12% vs. 3%, P = .008). In 2004, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was the most common surgical technique, but the three-field technique was the operation of choice in 2013. A minimally invasive approach was used in 19% of cases in 2004 and 100% of cases in 2013 (P < .001). Anastomotic leak ranged from 0% to 21% with no significant difference over the study period (P = .18). Median lymph node harvest increased from seven to 18 nodes from 2004 to 2013 (P = .001). Hospital length of stay decreased from 15 to 8 days (P = .001). In 2013, 79% of patients were discharged to home, compared to 73% in 2004 (P = .04). DISCUSSION: Over the last decade, our treatment of esophageal disease has evolved from a predominantly open Ivor Lewis to a minimally invasive three-field approach. Operations for malignancy have also increased dramatically. Postoperative complications and mortality were not significantly changed, but were consistently low during the latter years of the study.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer outcomes; esophageal cancer; esophagectomy; esophagectomy-minimally invasive surgery

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28486000      PMCID: PMC5592846          DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0069

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A        ISSN: 1092-6429            Impact factor:   1.878


  38 in total

1.  American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Stuart J Spechler; Prateek Sharma; Rhonda F Souza; John M Inadomi; Nicholas J Shaheen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Critical appraisal of the significance of intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for cancer.

Authors:  B P Whooley; S Law; A Alexandrou; S C Murthy; J Wong
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Survival and quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-surgeon experience.

Authors:  Abhishek Sundaram; Juan C Geronimo; Brittany L Willer; Masato Hoshino; Zachary Torgersen; Arpad Juhasz; Tommy H Lee; Sumeet K Mittal
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection of mucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus at two high-volume centers.

Authors:  Oliver Pech; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Hendrik Manner; Jessica Leers; Christian Ell; Arnulf H Hölscher
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Case volume as a predictor of inpatient mortality after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Michael Rodgers; Blair A Jobe; Robert W O'Rourke; Brett Sheppard; Brian Diggs; John G Hunter
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2007-09

6.  The roles of neoadjuvant radiotherapy and lymphadenectomy in the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Naveenraj Solomon; Ying Zhuge; Michael Cheung; Dido Franceschi; Leonidas G Koniaris
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Comparison of laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy and open transhiatal esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia and stage I esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Kyle A Perry; C Kristian Enestvedt; Thai Pham; Melissa Welker; Blair A Jobe; John G Hunter; Brett C Sheppard
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2009-07

8.  Extent of Lymphadenectomy and Prognosis After Esophageal Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Jesper Lagergren; Fredrik Mattsson; Janine Zylstra; Fuju Chang; James Gossage; Robert Mason; Pernilla Lagergren; Andrew Davies
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 14.766

9.  The short-term outcome of three-field minimally invasive esophagectomy for Siewert type I esophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Liu Hong; Yujie Zhang; Hongwei Zhang; Jianjun Yang; Qingchuan Zhao
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Endoscopic and surgical treatment of mucosal (T1a) esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Ganapathy A Prasad; Tsung Teh Wu; Dennis A Wigle; Navtej S Buttar; Louis-Michel Wongkeesong; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kenneth K Wang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 22.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.