Literature DB >> 32215746

Safety and feasibility of minimally invasive surgical interventions for esophageal and gastric cancer in the acute setting: a nationwide cohort study.

Alicia S Borggreve1,2, B Feike Kingma1, Jelle P Ruurda1, Richard van Hillegersberg3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy and gastrectomy are increasingly performed and might be superior to their open equivalents in an elective setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether minimally invasive approaches can be safely applied in the acute setting as well.
METHODS: All patients who underwent an acute surgical intervention for primary esophageal or gastric cancer between 2011 and 2017 were identified from the nationwide database of the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). Conversion rates, postoperative complications, re-interventions, postoperative mortality, hospital stay and oncological outcomes (radical resection rates and median lymph node yield) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2017, surgery for esophagogastric cancer was performed in an acute setting in 2% (190/8861) in The Netherlands. A total of 14 acute resections for esophageal cancer were performed, which included 7 minimally invasive esophagectomies and 7 open esophagectomies. As these numbers were very low, no comparison between minimally invasive and open esophagectomies was made. A total of 122 acute resections for gastric cancer were performed, which included 39 minimally invasive gastrectomies and 83 open gastrectomies. Conversion occurred in 9 patients (23%). Minimally invasive gastrectomy was at least comparable to open gastrectomy regarding postoperative complications (36% versus 51%), median hospital stay (9 days [IQR: 7-16 days] versus 11 days [IQR: 7-17 days]), readmissions (8% versus 11%) and oncological outcomes (radical resection rate: 87% versus 66%, median lymph node yield: 21 [IQR: 15-32 days] versus 16 [IQR: 11-24 days]).
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer is safe and feasible in the acute setting, with at least comparable postoperative clinical and short-term oncological outcomes compared to open surgery but a relatively high conversion rate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute surgery; Esophageal cancer; Gastric cancer; Minimally invasive surgery; Oncological outcomes; Open surgery; Postoperative complications

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32215746      PMCID: PMC7886730          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07491-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  16 in total

1.  Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study.

Authors:  Ravikrishna Mamidanna; Alex Bottle; Paul Aylin; Omar Faiz; George B Hanna
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Early outcomes from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.

Authors:  L A D Busweiler; B P L Wijnhoven; M I van Berge Henegouwen; D Henneman; N C T van Grieken; M W J M Wouters; R van Hillegersberg; J W van Sandick
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  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

4.  Postoperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy Versus Open Gastrectomy During the Early Introduction of Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy in the Netherlands: A Population-based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Hylke J F Brenkman; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Annelijn E Slaman; Lucas Goense; Jelle P Ruurda; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transthoracic Esophagectomy in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Maarten F J Seesing; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Lucas Goense; Richard van Hillegersberg; Hidde M Kroon; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Jelle P Ruurda; Annelijn E Slaman; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Worldwide practice in gastric cancer surgery.

Authors:  Hylke J F Brenkman; Leonie Haverkamp; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Influence of national centralization of oesophagogastric cancer on management and clinical outcome from emergency upper gastrointestinal conditions.

Authors:  S R Markar; H Mackenzie; T Wiggins; A Askari; A Karthikesalingam; O Faiz; S M Griffin; J D Birkmeyer; G B Hanna
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database.

Authors:  Smita Sihag; Andrzej S Kosinski; Henning A Gaissert; Cameron D Wright; Paul H Schipper
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Authors:  L Haverkamp; M F J Seesing; J P Ruurda; J Boone; R V Hillegersberg
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.429

10.  Safety and feasibility of minimally invasive gastrectomy during the early introduction in the Netherlands: short-term oncological outcomes comparable to open gastrectomy.

Authors:  H J F Brenkman; J P Ruurda; R H A Verhoeven; R van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 7.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.