Comparison of the Outcomes Between Open and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Smithers, B. Mark; Gotley, D. C.; Martin, Ian; Thomas, Janine

doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000225093.58071.c6

Cited by 351 publications

(342 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

285

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Lymph node harvest was not reported by Luketich et al 13 . Smithers and colleagues 31 reported no difference in lymph node retrieval between open and minimally invasive approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Short-term outcomes following total minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Berrisford

Wajed

Sanders

et al. 2008

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO; thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, cervical anastomosis) is a complex procedure and few substantial series have been published. This study documented the morbidity, mortality and challenges of adopting MIO in a specialist unit in the UK. Conclusion: MIO can be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates in an unselected series of patients. There was more morbidity related to gastric tube ischaemia than was expected.

show abstract

“…Lymph node harvest was not reported by Luketich et al 13 . Smithers and colleagues 31 reported no difference in lymph node retrieval between open and minimally invasive approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Short-term outcomes following total minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Berrisford

Wajed

Sanders

et al. 2008

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Significant respiratory complications are reported to occur in 18-30 % of cases following oesophagectomy and can carry a 50% mortality rate (11)(12)(13)(14) .…”

Section: Pre-operative Feedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jejunostomy after oesophagectomy: A review of evidence and current practice

Couper

2011

Proc. Nutr. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients undergoing oesophagectomy often have nutritional needs at the time of diagnosis and in the post-operative period. The aim of this article is to review the current literature and report on the author's experience of routine feeding jejunostomy insertion following oesophagectomy. The records of forty-eight consecutive patients undergoing oesphagectomy under the author's care were reviewed. Although the evidence of benefit of peri-operative feeding in patients undergoing oesophagectomy is limited, there is a clear need to establish a feeding route at the time of surgery. Oesophagectomy is associated with a mortality rate of 5-10% and a morbidity rate of 30-40% even in high-volume specialist centres. Over 50 % of patients developing complications will require an alternative to oral feeding beyond 30 d. The enteral route is preferred in terms of safety and cost. A surgical feeding jejunostomy is associated with a low complication rate and a mortality rate of less than 1 %. In forty-eight patients undergoing oesophagectomy the average weight loss at 6 months was 8 . 4 kg with only 8 % regaining their pre-operative weight. Large reductions in weight at 6 months post-operatively were recorded irrespective of the development of post-operative complications or early recurrent disease. Routine jejunostomy insertion is recommended to ensure adequate nutrition in patients who develop post-operative complications and for those patients with long-term reduced appetite and poor oral intake.

show abstract

“…44) When one-lung ventilation is used, problems associated with endotracheal tube displacement are also difficult to overcome in the prone position. 17) …”

Section: Possible Disadvantages Of the Prone Position Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20) This procedure was originally performed in the left lateral decubitus position (LLDP). Recent nonrandomized studies have shown a lower rate of major complications than that observed in open surgery; 17,18,21) however, a large systematic review concluded that the actual benefits remain obscure in terms of short-and long-term outcomes. 22) On the other hand, in 1994, Cuschieri 23) first reported the cases of six patients treated with thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization in the prone position (PP).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of procedures has been reported, including laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy, 15) thoracoscopic/laparoscopic two-stage (Ivor-Lewis) esophagectomy, 16) and thoracoscopic/laparoscopic three-stage esophagectomy in which the surgeon may choose to perform one or both of the first two phases in a minimally invasive approach. 17,18) In the 1980s, the transhiatal procedure was introduced with the definite advantage of preventing the need for thoracotomy. However, technical difficulties in mobilizing the middle third of the esophagus and dissecting around the aortic arch and pulmonary hilum do not allow surgeons to achieve sufficient nodal dissection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy Using Prone Positioning

Noshirο

Miyake

2013

ATCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thoracotomic esophagectomy followed by cervical and abdominal procedures has been conventionally performed as the best curable operative procedure for treating invasive thoracic esophageal carcinoma. Despite improvements in the survival rate, the procedure is associated with significant operative morbidity and mortality rates due to the extreme invasiveness of an extensive dissection of the lymph nodes. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was developed to reduce surgical invasiveness. Recently, the use of thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed in the prone position has stimulated new interest in minimally invasive approaches. However, the advantages and disadvantages of this technique are not well known. In this review, the literature to date, including series and comparative studies of minimally invasive esophagectomy performed in the prone position, is summarized, and the various lessons learned and controversies surrounding this technique are addressed.

show abstract

Comparison of the Outcomes Between Open and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract: Minimally invasive techniques to resect the esophagus in patients with cancer were confirmed to be safe and comparable to an open approach with respect to postoperative recovery and cancer survival.

Cited by 351 publications

References 28 publications

Short-term outcomes following total minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Short-term outcomes following total minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Jejunostomy after oesophagectomy: A review of evidence and current practice

Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy Using Prone Positioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About