Literature DB >> 29116434

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

Hiroyuki Kitagawa1, Tsutomu Namikawa2, Jun Iwabu1, Kazune Fujisawa1, Michiya Kobayashi3, Kazuhiro Hanazaki1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the prior cervical and thoracic approaches of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer.
METHODS: We reviewed the records of 103 consecutive patients who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer. Seventy-four patients underwent the prior cervical approach (Cervical group); the other 29 underwent the thoracic approach (Thoracic group). The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: Total operative time and volume of blood loss were not different between the two groups, but the median thoracoscopic time was significantly longer in the Thoracic group than in the Cervical group (296 vs. 210 min; P < 0.001). The incidence of recurrent nerve palsy was not different; however, the incidence of the postoperative pneumonia tended to be higher in the Thoracic group than in the Cervical group (20.7 vs. 10.8%; P = 0.188), and the duration of postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the Thoracic group than in the Cervical group (22 vs. 17 days; P = 0.032).
CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position via the prior cervical approach had better short-term outcomes than those who underwent the thoracic approach.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical approach; Esophageal cancer; Prone position; Thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29116434     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-017-1637-y

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


  17 in total

1.  The Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System for gastric surgery in Japan.

Authors:  N Tanigawa; S W Lee; T Kimura; T Mori; I Uyama; E Nomura; J Okuda; F Konishi
Journal:  Asian J Endosc Surg       Date:  2011-04-20

2.  International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated With Esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG).

Authors:  Donald E Low; Derek Alderson; Ivan Cecconello; Andrew C Chang; Gail E Darling; Xavier Benoit DʼJourno; S Michael Griffin; Arnulf H Hölscher; Wayne L Hofstetter; Blair A Jobe; Yuko Kitagawa; John C Kucharczuk; Simon Ying Kit Law; Toni E Lerut; Nick Maynard; Manuel Pera; Jeffrey H Peters; C S Pramesh; John V Reynolds; B Mark Smithers; J Jan B van Lanschot
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Better postoperative oxygenation in thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone positioning.

Authors:  Tomoaki Yatabe; Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Koichi Yamashita; Toyokazu Akimori; Kazuhiro Hanazaki; Masataka Yokoyama
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2010-06-05       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  Increased interleukin-8 in epithelial lining fluid of collapsed lungs during one-lung ventilation for thoracotomy.

Authors:  Yoshimichi Komatsu; Hiroshi Yamamoto; Kenji Tsushima; Shino Furuya; Sumiko Yoshikawa; Masanori Yasuo; Keishi Kubo; Yoshitaka Yamazaki; Joh Hasegawa; Takashi Eguchi; Ryuichi Kondo; Kazuo Yoshida; Tomonobu Koizumi
Journal:  Inflammation       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.092

5.  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

6.  A randomized trial comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus preoperative chemotherapy for localized advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG9907).

Authors:  Nobutoshi Ando; Hoichi Kato; Hiroyasu Igaki; Masayuki Shinoda; Soji Ozawa; Hideaki Shimizu; Tsutomu Nakamura; Hiroshi Yabusaki; Norio Aoyama; Akira Kurita; Kenichiro Ikeda; Tatsuo Kanda; Toshimasa Tsujinaka; Kenichi Nakamura; Haruhiko Fukuda
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Open and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer Using a Nationwide Database in Japan.

Authors:  Hiroya Takeuchi; Hiroaki Miyata; Soji Ozawa; Harushi Udagawa; Harushi Osugi; Hisahiro Matsubara; Hiroyuki Konno; Yasuyuki Seto; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Reliable Surgical Techniques for Lymphadenectomy Along the Left Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve During Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in the Prone Position.

Authors:  Taro Oshikiri; Tetsu Nakamura; Hiroshi Hasegawa; Masashi Yamamoto; Shingo Kanaji; Kimihiro Yamashita; Takeru Matsuda; Yasuo Sumi; Satoshi Suzuki; Yoshihiro Kakeji
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 5.344

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

Authors:  Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Tsutomu Namikawa; Masaya Munekage; Kazune Fujisawa; Eri Munekgae; Michiya Kobayashi; Kazuhiro Hanazaki
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 3.445

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
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of different surgical approaches for anterior mediastinal tumor.

Authors:  Yong Mao; Yuting Lan; Fei Cui; Hongsheng Deng; Yaoliang Zhang; Xi Wu; Wenhua Liang; Jun Liu; Hengrui Liang; Jianxing He
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.895

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.