Yuan Feng1, Nan Wu1, Shi Yan1, Xing Wang1, Yue Yang1. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery II, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, Peking University School of Oncology, Beijing 100142, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For cancer of the middle and/or lower segment of thoracic esophagus, the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is the mainstream standard surgery, whereas the Sweet procedure is widely used in China. As no consensus has been reached about the choice of different thoracic approaches, we designed this retrospective study to investigate and compare oncological benefits of the two surgical approaches. METHODS: After propensity score matching, 150 patients who underwent the Sweet or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy from August 2003 to December 2009 in the Beijing Cancer Hospital were reviewed. We compared the postoperative recovery, nutritional parameters, and survival of the two different surgical approaches. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the whole group was 48.5%, and the 10-year OS rate was 35.6%. The Ivor Lewis group had a longer operation time, longer duration of chest tube drainage, and a larger volume of total thoracic drainage. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), length of postoperative hospital stay, duration of postoperative nasogastric tube use, incidence of major complications, and nutritional status after the esophagectomy. The OS rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Sweet and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are both safe and effective. A change of the surgical incision may not be the best way to increase survival, and the choice of surgical procedure should depend on the preference of the thoracic surgeon to secure the safety of the operation.
BACKGROUND: For cancer of the middle and/or lower segment of thoracic esophagus, the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is the mainstream standard surgery, whereas the Sweet procedure is widely used in China. As no consensus has been reached about the choice of different thoracic approaches, we designed this retrospective study to investigate and compare oncological benefits of the two surgical approaches. METHODS: After propensity score matching, 150 patients who underwent the Sweet or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy from August 2003 to December 2009 in the Beijing Cancer Hospital were reviewed. We compared the postoperative recovery, nutritional parameters, and survival of the two different surgical approaches. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the whole group was 48.5%, and the 10-year OS rate was 35.6%. The Ivor Lewis group had a longer operation time, longer duration of chest tube drainage, and a larger volume of total thoracic drainage. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), length of postoperative hospital stay, duration of postoperative nasogastric tube use, incidence of major complications, and nutritional status after the esophagectomy. The OS rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Sweet and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are both safe and effective. A change of the surgical incision may not be the best way to increase survival, and the choice of surgical procedure should depend on the preference of the thoracic surgeon to secure the safety of the operation.
Authors: Elfriede Bollschweiler; Stephan E Baldus; Wolfgang Schröder; Paul M Schneider; Arnulf H Hölscher Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: S J Swanson; H F Batirel; R Bueno; M T Jaklitsch; J M Lukanich; E Allred; S J Mentzer; D J Sugarbaker Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Shawn S Groth; Beth A Virnig; Bryan A Whitson; Todd E DeFor; Zhong-Ze Li; Todd M Tuttle; Michael A Maddaus Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Christian G Peyre; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester; Nasser K Altorki; Ermanno Ancona; S Michael Griffin; Arnulf Hölscher; Toni Lerut; Simon Law; Thomas W Rice; Alberto Ruol; Jan J B van Lanschot; John Wong; Tom R DeMeester Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nasser K Altorki; Xi Kathy Zhou; Brendon Stiles; Jeffrey L Port; Subroto Paul; Paul C Lee; Madhu Mazumdar Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Wei Feng; Zhan Qi; Rong Qiu; Zhen-Sheng Li; Shi-Lei Dong; Yue-Kao Li; Yuan-Ping Hu; Ming He; Yu-Xiang Wang Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 1.671