Literature DB >> 33825009

Safety comparison of minimally invasive abdomen-only esophagectomy versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Christopher P Wang1, Michael P Rogers2, Gregory Bach2, Joseph Sujka2, Rahul Mhaskar3, Christopher DuCoin4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We report mortality and post-operative complications from esophageal resection in the treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or stricture, comparing a minimally invasive abdomen-only esophagectomy (MIAE) approach with a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) approach.
METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or stricture treated by either MIAE or MIILE was conducted. MIAE was offered for strictures less than five centimeters or cancers that were American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage ≤ T2 without lymphadenopathy. Patients treated with these surgical techniques were analyzed to assess pre-operative risk, intra and post-operative variables, adverse events, and overall survival.
RESULTS: This study included 17 patients undergoing MIAE and 32 patients treated with MIILE. There were a fewer median number of lymph nodes resected (p < 0.001) and shorter operative duration (p < 0.001) for MIAE compared to MIILE. MIAE patients also had significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) surgical risk values than MIILE patients (p < 0.05). There was no difference in median estimated blood loss, length of stay, pulmonary or cardiac complications between groups. There was no significant difference in 90-day survival.
CONCLUSION: A minimally invasive abdomen-only approach in a specific patient population is comparable in safety to a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis approach, with associated shorter median operative duration. MIAE patients had significantly greater pre-operative comorbidities and higher calculated peri-operative risk of complication but demonstrated similar post-operative outcomes. This suggests that MIAE may be a suitable surgical approach for treating gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or stricture in patients deemed unsuitable for MIILE.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdomen-only esophagectomy; Adenocarcinoma; Ivor Lewis; Minimally invasive esophagectomy; Safety comparison; Stricture

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33825009     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08468-0

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


  21 in total

1.  Outcomes With Open and Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Authors:  Luis F Tapias; Douglas J Mathisen; Cameron D Wright; John C Wain; Henning A Gaissert; Ashok Muniappan; Michael Lanuti; Dean M Donahue; Christopher R Morse
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  What should be the gold standard for the surgical component in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer: transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy.

Authors:  Asad Kutup; Michael F Nentwich; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Dean Bogoevski; Jakob R Izbicki; Arnulf H Hölscher
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for localized esophageal cancer.

Authors:  D P Kelsen; R Ginsberg; T F Pajak; D G Sheahan; L Gunderson; J Mortimer; N Estes; D G Haller; J Ajani; W Kocha; B D Minsky; J A Roth
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-12-31       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and two-field lymph node dissection.

Authors:  Kun-Kun Li; Yin-Jian Wang; Xue-Hai Liu; Wei Guo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  How to create a surgical database?

Authors:  Dania Nachira; Luca Bertolaccini; Mahmoud Ismail; Marco Chiappetta; Elisa Meacci; Stefano Margaritora
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 6.  Oesophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Arjun Pennathur; Michael K Gibson; Blair A Jobe; James D Luketich
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-02-02       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  The changing profile of esophageal cancer presentation and its implication for diagnosis.

Authors:  John F Gibbs; Ashwani Rajput; Krishdeep S Chadha; Wade G Douglas; Hank Hill; Chukwumere Nwogu; Hector R Nava; Michael S Sabel
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.798

8.  Short and long-term outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer in elderly patients.

Authors:  Luis F Tapias; Ashok Muniappan; Cameron D Wright; Henning A Gaissert; John C Wain; Christopher R Morse; Dean M Donahue; Douglas J Mathisen; Michael Lanuti
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients.

Authors:  James D Luketich; Miguel Alvelo-Rivera; Percival O Buenaventura; Neil A Christie; James S McCaughan; Virginia R Litle; Philip R Schauer; John M Close; Hiran C Fernando
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe surgical treatment for locally advanced pathologic T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiaobin Zhang; Yu Yang; Bo Ye; Yifeng Sun; Xufeng Guo; Rong Hua; Teng Mao; Wentao Fang; Zhigang Li
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.895

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.