Literature DB >> 33978698

Intrathoracic vs Cervical Anastomosis After Totally or Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Frans van Workum1, Moniek H P Verstegen1, Bastiaan R Klarenbeek1, Stefan A W Bouwense1,2, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen3, Freek Daams4, Suzanne S Gisbertz3, Gerjon Hannink5, Jan Willem Haveman6, Joos Heisterkamp7, Walther Jansen7, Ewout A Kouwenhoven8, Jan J B van Lanschot9, Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen10, Donald L van der Peet4, Fatih Polat11, Sander Ubels1, Bas P L Wijnhoven9, Maroeska M Rovers5, Camiel Rosman1.   

Abstract

Background: Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE. Objective: To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life.
Results: Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Trial Registration: Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33978698      PMCID: PMC8117060          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  7 in total

Review 1.  Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom in the Surgical Treatment of Barrett's Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Giovanni Maria Garbarino; Mark Ivo van Berge Henegouwen; Suzanne Sarah Gisbertz; Wietse Jelle Eshuis
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2022-05-24

2.  Indocyanine green fluorescence in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis: a prospective study.

Authors:  E M de Groot; G M Kuiper; A van der Veen; L Fourie; L Goense; S van der Horst; J W van den Berg; R van Hillegersberg; J P Ruurda
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-08-17

3.  Prognostic value of fibroblast activation protein expressing tumor volume calculated from [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI PET/CT in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Liang Zhao; Yizhen Pang; Shanyu Chen; Jianhao Chen; Yimin Li; Yifeng Yu; Chunbin Huang; Long Sun; Hua Wu; Haojun Chen; Qin Lin
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Contrast-Enhanced Radiologic Evaluation of Gastric Conduit Emptying After Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Minke L Feenstra; Lily Alkemade; Janneke E van den Bergh; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Freek Daams; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Wietse J Eshuis
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  The Radiation Dose to the Left Supraclavicular Fossa is Critical for Anastomotic Leak Following Esophagectomy - A Dosimetric Outcome Analysis.

Authors:  Shau-Hsuan Li; Yu-Ming Wang; Shang-Yu Chou; Hung-I Lu; Yen-Hao Chen; Chien-Ming Lo; Yun-Hsuan Lin; Tzu-Ting Huang; Fu-Min Fang; Li-Chun Chen; Yu Chen; Yi-Chun Chiu; Yeh-Pin Chou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 6.  Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Kian C Banks; Diana S Hsu; Jeffrey B Velotta
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center.

Authors:  Benjamin Babic; Dolores T Müller; Jin-On Jung; Lars M Schiffmann; Paula Grisar; Thomas Schmidt; Seung-Hun Chon; Wolfgang Schröder; Christiane J Bruns; Hans F Fuchs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 3.453

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.