SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “ESOPHAGECTOMY”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery have made it possible to perform esophagectomy using minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this report was to present our preliminary experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: We reviewed our experience on eight patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy using either laparoscopic and/or thoracoscopic techniques from June 1996 to May 1997. Indications for esophagectomy included stage I carcinoma (5), palliative resection (1), Barrett's with high grade dysplasia (1) and end stage achalasia (1). RESULTS: The average age was 68 years (54-82). The surgical approach to esophagectomy included laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (n = 4), thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (n = 1), and laparoscopic mobilization with right mini-thoracotomy and intra-thoracic anastomosis (n = 3). Conversion to mini-laparotomy was required in two patients (25%) to complete esophageal dissection and facilitate gastric pull-up. The mean operative time was 460 minutes. The mean intensive care stay was 1.9 days (range of 0-7 days) with a mean hospital stay of 13.8 days. Minor complications included atrial fibrillation (n = 1), pleural effusion (n = 2) and persistent air leak (n = 1). Major complications included cervical anastomotic leak (n = 1), and delayed gastric emptying requiring pyloroplasty (n = 1). There was no perioperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary experience suggests that minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and feasible in centers with experience in advanced minimally invasive surgical procedures. Further studies are necessary to determine advantages over open esophagectomy.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2001

Role of esophagectomy in treatment of esophageal carcinoma with clinical evidence of adjacent organ invasion.

With carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus, clinical evidence of invasion of adjacent organs (T4) indicates a highly advanced stage, and most surgeons avoid esophagectomy. Although the therapeutic strategy for such disease is generally selected based on preoperative evaluation and intraoperative inspection, their accuracy and the relation to survival outcomes after esophagectomy have seldom been analyzed on the basis of exact histopathologic evidence. We performed esophagectomy, with perioperative adjuvant therapy when possible, on patients with clinical-T4 tumors unless absolutely unresectable conditions were detected. Among the 500 patients who underwent esophagectomy, the 78 patients whose tumors were confirmed to be T4 pathologically were compared with patients whose tumors were assessed as T4 preoperatively or intraoperatively to evaluate the role of esophagectomy for clinical-T4 carcinoma. Esophagectomy was possible for 99% of the pathologic-T4 tumors preoperatively assessed as resectable, but the resection was grossly incomplete in 35%. The true-positive rates in tumors preoperatively and intraoperatively assessed as T4 were 51% and 84%, respectively. The hospital mortality rate in patients with pathologic-T4 tumors was 4%. The overall 5-year survival rate for patients with pathologic-T4 tumors was 14%, compared with 60% for those with tumors assessed as T4 intraoperatively but not pathologically. Esophagectomy with perioperative adjuvant therapy yielded occasional cure with an acceptable mortality rate for patients with pathologic-T4 tumors assessed as technically resectable. Preoperative assessment and intraoperative macroscopic inspection had limitations for predicting pathologic-T4 disease and incomplete resection. Only patients with definitive evidence of unresectability should be excluded from esophagectomy.

Carcinoma, Squamous Cell↗

PubMed2005

Transhiatal esophagectomy.

Controversy still remains regarding the appropriateness of THE asa cancer operation. Critics argue that without an en bloc mediastinal lymphadenectomy, THE does not provide accurate staging or the potential for a curative procedure; however, operative margins are similar after transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy, and van Sandick and co-workers reported that 73% of margins were microscopically negative. In many cases, esophageal carcinoma appears to be a systemic disease at the time of diagnosis. According to Orringer and colleagues, 46% of patients have Stage III or IV disease at the time of operation, and Altorki and co-authors found that 35% of patients thought to be potentially curable were found to have occult cervical lymph node disease after three-field lymph node dissection. In addition, survival after THE is similar to that reported after transthoracic esophagectomy as well as radical esophagectomy with mediastinal lymphadenectomy. The most important determinants of survival appear to be the biologic behavior of the tumor and the stage at the time of resection rather than the operative approach, and esophageal carcinoma will likely require systemic therapy for a cure. Transhiatal esophagectomy has been used increasingly in the resection of benign and malignant disease, and has several potential advantages over transthoracic esophagectomy, including significantly decreased respiratory complications and mediastinitis due to the avoidance of thoracotomy and intrathoracic anastomosis. In a meta-analysis of fifty studies comparing transthoracic and transhiatal resection, Hulscher et al found significantly higher early morbidity and mortality rates after transthoracic resections, which was confirmed in a later randomized study of 220 patients(Table 2). Survival after THE is also equivalent to or better than that seen after transthoracic esophagectomy, and transhiatal esophagectomy should be considered in all patients requiring esophagectomy for benign or malignant disease.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗

PubMed1996

The rationale for esophagectomy as the optimal therapy for Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma after esophagectomy in patients endoscopically diagnosed as having Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Barrett's esophagus is a well-recognized premalignant condition. There is controversy with regard to the optimal treatment of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Recognizing the morbidity and mortality associated with esophagectomy, some recommend a selective approach, reserving esophagectomy only for evidence of invasive cancer identified through endoscopic surveillance. Other advocate esophagectomy for all suitable operative candidates. METHODS: The authors reviewed their experience between 1985 and 1995 with 11 patients with high-grade dysplasia arising in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed by endoscopic biopsy and treated by esophagectomy. RESULTS: All patients were white men ranging in age from 47 to 70 years. Ten patients underwent esophagectomy by the Ivor Lewis technique; one had a transhiatal resection. Eight patients (73%) had invasive adenocarcinoma identified after esophagectomy; two (18%) had positive lymph nodes; one required a prolonged hospital stay for an anastomotic leak; two (18%) temporarily suffered delayed gastric emptying. The authors' review identified 85 additional patients previously reported during the same period. Including the current series, 39 patients (41%) had invasive adenocarcinoma identified in the resected specimen. A preponderance of early, potentially curable carcinomas are characteristically found in these patients. CONCLUSION: A high incidence of endoscopically undetected invasive carcinoma strongly supports esophagectomy as the preferred approach for suitable operative candidates with high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1998

Esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus in the elderly: results of current surgical management.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the risk of esophagectomy in the elderly compared with younger patients and to determine whether results of esophagectomy in the elderly have improved in recent years. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: An increased life expectancy has led to more elderly patients presenting with carcinoma of the esophagus in recent years. Esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and advanced age is often considered a relative contraindication to esophagectomy despite advances in modern surgical practice. METHODS: The perioperative outcome and long-term survival of 167 elderly patients (70 years or more) with esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus were compared with findings in 570 younger patients with esophagectomy in the period 1982 to 1996. Changes in perioperative outcome and survival between 1982 to 1989 and 1990 to 1996 were separately analyzed. RESULTS: The resection rate in the elderly was 48% (167/345), lower than the 65% (570/874) resection rate in younger patients (p < 0.001). There were significantly more preoperative risk factors and postoperative medical complications in the elderly, but no significant differences were observed in surgical complications. The 30-day mortality rate was higher in the elderly (7.2%) than in younger patients (3.0%) (p = 0.02), but the hospital mortality rate was not significantly different in the elderly (18.0%) and younger age groups (14.4%) (p = 0.27). The long-term survival after curative resection in elderly patients was worse than younger patients (p = 0.01). However, when deaths from unrelated medical conditions were excluded from analysis, survival was similar between the two age groups (p = 0.23). A comparison of data for the periods 1982 to 1989 and 1990 to 1996 revealed that the resection rate had increased from 44% to 54% in the elderly, with significantly fewer postoperative complications and lower 30-day and hospital mortality rates. Long-term survival has also improved, although this has not reached a statistically significant level. CONCLUSIONS: With current surgical management, esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus can be carried out with acceptable risk in the elderly, but intensive perioperative support is required. The improved results of esophagectomy in the elderly in recent years are attributed to increased experience and better perioperative management. Long-term survival was similar to that of younger patients, excluding deaths caused by unrelated medical conditions.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2002

Vagal-sparing esophagectomy: a more physiologic alternative.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the function of the vagal nerves and the gastric reservoir after vagal-sparing esophagectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Esophagectomy as currently performed includes division of the vagal nerves and surgical alteration of the stomach, with attendant postoperative dumping, diarrhea, reduced meal capacity, and weight loss. Vagal-sparing esophagectomy has been introduced as a technique for removal of the esophagus while preserving the vagal nerves and gastric reservoir. The procedure is touted as having a low morbidity and is applicable to patients with end-stage benign or early malignant disease. METHODS: A random sample of 15 patients at a median of 20 months after a vagal-sparing esophagectomy was compared to 23 asymptomatic normal subjects; 10 randomly selected patients, 29 months after esophagogastrectomy with colon interposition; and 10 randomly selected patients, 47 months after standard esophagectomy with gastric pull-up. Gastric mucosal acidification was tested with Congo red staining. Vagal secretory function was measured by gastric acid output and pancreatic polypeptide response to sham feeding. Vagal motor function was assessed by a technetium gastric emptying scan and a questionnaire to evaluate dumping and diarrhea. Gastric reservoir function was evaluated by measuring meal capacity and postoperative changes in body mass index. RESULTS: Vagal-sparing esophagectomy preserved the function of the vagi, as evident by an increase in gastric acid output, a rise in serum pancreatic polypeptide following sham feeding, and preservation of normal postoperative gastric emptying in 70% of the patients. After vagal-sparing esophagectomy, patients were free of dumping and diarrhea and were analogous to normal subjects in meal capacity but had a slight reduction in the speed of eating. CONCLUSIONS: Vagal-sparing esophagectomy preserves gastric secretory, motor, and reservoir function. Postoperatively, patients have normal alimentation, bowel regulation, and no weight loss. It is an ideal procedure for patients with end-stage benign disease, Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia, or esophageal carcinoma limited to the lamina propria.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Recurrent Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is considered the gold standard for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and for noninvasive adenocarcinoma (ACA) of the distal esophagus. If all of the metaplastic epithelium is removed, the patient is considered "cured". Despite this, BE has been reported in patients who have previously undergone esophagectomy. It is often debated whether this is "new" BE or the result of an esophagectomy that did not include a sufficiently proximal margin. Our aim was to determine if BE recurred in esophagectomy patients where the entire segment of BE had been removed. METHODS: Records were searched for patients who had undergone esophagectomy for cure at our institution. Records were reviewed for surgical, endoscopic, and histopathologic findings. The patients in whom we have endoscopic follow-up are the subjects of this report. RESULTS: Since 1995, 45 patients have undergone esophagectomy for cure for Barrett's dysplasia or localized ACA. Thirty-six of these 45 patients underwent endoscopy after surgery including 8/45 patients (18%) with recurrent Barrett's metaplasia or neoplasia after curative resection. CONCLUSION: Recurrent Barrett's esophagus or adenocarcinoma after esophagectomy was common in our patients who underwent at least one endoscopy after surgery. This appears to represent the development of metachronous disease after complete resection of esophageal disease. Half of these patients have required subsequent treatment thus far, either repeat surgery or photodynamic therapy. These results support the use of endoscopic surveillance in patients who have undergone "curative" esophagectomy for Barrett's dysplasia or localized cancer.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Transhiatal esophagectomy].

Between 1991-2001, 40 patients underwent esophagectomy without thoracotomy for: caustic esophageal stenosis (26 cases), cervical esophageal cancer (1), lower esophageal cancer (7), and acute post-caustic oesophagitis (2). Thirty-four patients underwent transhiatal esophagectomy, 3 patients had an esophagectomy by "stripping" and in 3 other patients a combination of stripping and transhiatal esophagectomy. Postoperative complications included: injuries of the laryngeal recurrent nerve (2), pulmonary complications (13), anastomotic leakage (5). Two patients died in the postoperative period one from a myocardial infarction and the other from an acute myocardial dilatation. Trans-hiatal esophagectomy can be considered as a viable alternative to transthoracic esophagectomy in the management of the benign and malignant diseases of the esophagus. Transhiatal esophagectomy is a safe method of resection because of its reported lower morbidity and mortality and similar survival rates compared to transthoracic esophagectomy.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Management of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with chemoradiation alone or chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy: results of sequential nonrandomized phase II studies.

PURPOSE: The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is increasing, but the optimal treatment for this disease is unknown. We evaluated the efficacy of chemoradiation and chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy as treatment for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in sequential prospective nonrandomized phase II studies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between May 1981 and June 1992, all previously untreated patients (N = 35) with potentially resectable adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (clinical Stage I or II) were treated with curative intent in sequential prospective Phase II studies. From May 1981 to August 1987, 11 patients (median age 66) were treated with concurrent chemotherapy [mitomycin C, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)] and radiotherapy to a median dose of 60 Gy (CRT group). From September 1987 to June 1992, 24 patients (median age 65) were treated with the same regimen of chemoradiation followed by planned esophagectomy (CRT+PE group). Of these, 12 patients (median age 62) actually underwent esophagectomy (CRT+E subgroup). RESULTS: The median overall survival was 19 months for the CRT group and 15 months for the CRT+PE group. For the CRT+E subgroup, the median overall survival was 33 months. The 3-year actuarial overall survival for the CRT and the CRT+PE groups were 36 and 28% (p = 0.949). The subset of patients treated with chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy had a 3-year actuarial overall survival of 33% (p = 0.274). The 3-year actuarial freedom from local failure rates were similar: 62% in the CRT group vs. 58% in the CRT+PE group. Of the 12 patients who underwent esophagectomy (CRT+E group), 9 (75%) were free of local failure. Four of 12 (33%) patients had no pathologic evidence of malignancy in their surgical specimen. Six of 11 patients (55%) in the CRT group were free of local failure at the time of analysis. Two of five patients in this group who had local recurrence at 2 and 10 months underwent surgical salvage with subsequent survivals of 20 and 100 months, respectively. Treatment-related mortality was 0 out of 11 in the CRT group and 2 out of 24 in the CRT+PE group. Dysphagia relief was similar in the CRT group vs. the CRT+E subgroup; however, a greater percentage of patients treated with chemoradiation alone had normal long-term swallowing function when compared to those patients also undergoing esophagectomy (100% vs. 73%). CONCLUSION: High-dose chemoradiation alone appears to provide similar survival and relief of dysphagia compared with high-dose chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy for patients with potentially resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. Local failure may be higher in patients undergoing chemoradiation compared to chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy, but surgical salvage is possible, thus providing similar overall local control. However, because of the small number of patients in each group, these treatment modalities need to be further evaluated in a prospective randomized Phase III study.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1997

Effect of surgical experience on results of esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with substantial operative morbidity and mortality. The effect of surgical experience on results of esophagectomy has received little attention in the medical literature. METHODS: A retrospective review of esophagectomies for cancer was done. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients underwent esophagectomy by 20 different surgeons. Three surgeons performed 6 or more esophagectomies per year ("frequent" surgeons), whereas the other 17 surgeons performed 5 or fewer esophagectomies per year ("occasional" surgeons). Forty-two patients were operated on by frequent surgeons. There were 3 (7%) anastomotic leaks and no deaths. In 32 patients operated on by occasional surgeons, there were 7 (22%) anastomotic leaks and 7 (22%) operative deaths. The anastomotic leak rates were not significantly different (P < .07), but frequent surgeons had a significantly lower operative mortality (P < .0014). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed by experienced esophageal surgeons with sufficient yearly volume of procedures to maintain competence.

Esophageal Neoplasms↗

PubMed2004

Salvage esophagectomy after definitive chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although local recurrence of advanced esophageal cancer is frequent after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT), the clinical benefit of salvage esophagectomy has not been elucidated. METHODS: We reviewed 27 patients with squamous-cell cancer who underwent esophagectomy after definitive CRT (> or = 50 Gy) (salvage group) and 28 patients who underwent planned esophagectomy after neoadjuvant CRT (30 to 45 Gy) (neoadjuvant group). RESULTS: The preoperative albumin level and vital capacity were significantly lower in the salvage group than in the neoadjuvant group. Two patients (7.4%) from the salvage group who underwent extended esophagectomy with three-field lymphadenectomy died of postoperative complications, but no deaths occurred after less-invasive surgery. There was no difference of overall postoperative survival between the salvage and neoadjuvant groups. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of salvage esophagectomy after definitive CRT was similar to that of planned esophagectomy after neoadjuvant CRT. Less-invasive procedures might be better for salvage esophagectomy because of the high operative risk.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Preoperative chemoradiation therapy does not improve early survival after esophagectomy for patients with clinical stage III adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer remains controversial. The objective of this study was to determine if preoperative chemoradiation therapy (P-CRT) followed by esophagectomy for patients with clinical stage III adenocarcinoma of the esophagus offered any survival advantage as compared with esophagectomy alone. METHODS: Between January 1998 and June 2001, 75 nonrandomized patients with clinical stage III adenocarcinoma of the esophagus underwent either P-CRT and esophagectomy or esophagectomy alone. All patients were staged before initiation of treatment with computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound. RESULTS: P-CRT followed by esophagectomy was performed in 47 patients (63%) and esophagectomy alone in 28 patients (37%). Although the P-CRT group was younger (median age, 61 years versus 67 years), the two groups were otherwise similar for gender, comorbidities, and symptoms. Overall operative mortality was 4%. Follow-up was complete in all patients and ranged from 5 to 40 months (median, 20 months). Overall, one-, two-, and three-year survivals were 72%, 44%, and 42%, respectively. Three-year survival was identical (42%) for both the P-CRT and surgery alone patients (p = 0.70). Three-year disease-free survival for the P-CRT group was 29% as compared with 33% for the surgery only group (p = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinical stage III adenocarcinoma of the esophagus do not appear to gain an early overall or disease-free survival advantage when treated with P-CRT followed by surgery as compared with surgery alone. However, long-term follow-up is needed. A large, prospective, randomized trial is warranted to address the question of whether P-CRT offers any survival benefit or impact on pattern of recurrence in patients undergoing esophagectomy for locally advanced disease.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2004

Esophagectomy after concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves locoregional control in clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of surgical resection on the outcome of patients with clinical Stage II or III cancer of the esophagus treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of 132 consecutive patients with clinical Stage II or III esophageal cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy between January 1990 and December 1998 was performed. Of the 132 patients, 60 underwent esophagectomy 6-8 weeks after chemoradiotherapy. The median radiation dose was 50 Gy (range, 30-64.8 Gy) in the definitive chemoradiation group and 45 Gy (range, 30-50.4 Gy) in the chemoradiation plus esophagectomy group. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in median age, histologic subtype, tumor location, and number of patients with T4 disease. Patients who underwent definitive chemoradiotherapy were older (p = 0.0004) and more likely to have squamous cell carcinoma than adenocarcinoma (p <0.000), upper thoracic or cervical esophageal tumors (p <0.000), and T4 tumors (p = 0.024). Patients treated with chemoradiation plus esophagectomy had statistically significant superior 5-year loco-regional control (67.1% vs. 22.1%, p <0.000), disease-free survival (40.7% vs. 9.9%, p < 0.000), and 5-year overall survival (52.6% vs. 6.5%, p < 0.000) rates and median survival time (62 vs. 12 months) compared with patients treated with chemoradiotherapy only. However, no statistically significant difference was found in the rate of distant metastasis-free survival between the two groups (67.5% vs. 65.8%, p = 0.3). Surgical resection of the tumor was an independent predictor of improved locoregional control and overall survival in both univariate and multivariate analyses. To reduce the effect of the selection bias on the outcome, 34 patients in each group with matched pretreatment characteristics were compared. The results showed statistically significant better overall survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional control in favor of the chemoradiotherapy plus esophagectomy group. No statistically significant difference in distant metastasis-free survival was found in this subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional control was better in clinical Stage II or III esophageal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation plus esophagectomy. An improvement in survival occurred in the chemoradiation plus esophagectomy group, although this observation may have reflected selection bias. The results from this study suggest the need for a randomized trial to compare chemoradiation with or without esophagectomy in the treatment of cancer of the esophagus.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2002

Salvage esophagectomy for recurrent tumors after definitive chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Some patients and oncologists choose to treat localized esophageal cancer with definitive chemotherapy and radiation therapy rather than surgery. A subset of these patients have local relapse without distant metastases and therefore have no other curative intent treatment option but salvage esophagectomy. METHODS: We reviewed our experience with salvage esophagectomy from 1987 to 2000 at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (n = 13, salvage after chemotherapy and radiotherapy group) and compared the data with those of patients receiving esophagectomy in a planned fashion 4 to 6 weeks after preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy (n = 99, preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy group). RESULTS: Increases in morbidity were seen after resection in the salvage after chemotherapy and radiotherapy group relative to the preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy group: mechanical ventilation (9.0 days vs 3.3 days, P =.08), intensive care unit stay (11.2 days vs 5.1 days, P =.07), hospital stay (29.4 days vs 18.4 days, P =.03), and anastomotic leak rates (5/13 [39%] vs 7/99 [7%], P =.005). Operative mortality (within 30 days) also tended to be increased statistically nonsignificantly (2/13 [15%] vs 6/99 [6%], P =.2). Salvage esophagectomy resulted in long-term survival (25% 5-year survival) in a subset of patients. Improved survival after salvage esophagectomy was associated with early pathologic stage (T1 N0, T2 N0), prolonged time to relapse, and R0 surgical resection. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo salvage esophagectomy for relapse of tumor after definitive chemoradiation therapy have increased morbidity, mortality, and hospital use relative to patients undergoing planned esophagectomy after preoperative chemoradiation. Nevertheless, long-term survival can be achieved in this group, and such treatment should be considered for carefully selected patients at an experienced center.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Laparoscopic versus open gastroplasty in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparative study.

How best to approach esophagectomy is a controversial issue. In the last decade, the opportunity to use minimally invasive surgical methods for esophagectomy has been documented, but their real advantages over conventional surgery have yet to be clearly established. The aim of this study was to compare a series of patients who underwent laparoscopic esophagectomy with those who underwent open surgery to ascertain the feasibility, safety, and clinical advantages of the former surgical techniques. Between January 2002 and May 2004, 14 patients with cancer of the esophagus underwent laparoscopic esophagectomy and another 14 had conventional open esophagectomy. Their demographic features, and intraoperative and postoperative data were compared. The 2 groups were comparable in terms of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and site of the neoplasm. The operating times were the same for transhiatal laparoscopic esophagectomy and conventional surgery, although using the thoraco-laparoscopic access took longer than the thoraco-laparotomic procedure (P<0.05). The hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopy (P<0.05). No differences emerged in terms of morbidity, mortality, number of transfusions, and time in the intensive care. The numbers of lymph nodes removed were comparable. In conclusion, it is feasible and safe to use a laparoscopic approach instead of open surgery for esophagectomy, but the former does not offer very significant clinical advantages in the postoperative stage. A shorter hospital stay seems to be the most significant finding. The minimally invasive procedure would seem to assure oncological radicality because it enables lymphadenectomy to be as thorough as in the conventional surgical approach.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Perioperative granulocyte colony-stimulating factor does not prevent severe infections in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with substantial postoperative morbidity as a result of infectious complications. In a prior phase II study, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was shown to improve leukocyte function and to reduce infection rates after esophagectomy. The aim of the current randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III trial was to investigate the clinical efficacy of perioperative G-CSF administration in reducing infection and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty five patients with resectable esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to perioperative G-CSF at standard doses (77 patients) or placebo (76 patients), administered from 2 days before until day 7 after esophagectomy. The G-CSF and placebo groups were comparable as regards age, gender, risk, cancer stage, frequency of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, and type of esophagectomy (transthoracic or transhiatal esophageal resection). RESULTS: Of 155 randomized patients, 153 were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. The rate of infection occurring within the first 10 days after esophagectomy was 43.4% (confidence interval 32.8-55.9%) in the placebo and 44.2% (confidence interval 32.1-55.3%) in the G-CSF group (P = 0.927). 30-day mortality amounted to 5.2% in the G-CSF group versus 5.3% in the placebo group (P = 0.985). Similar results were found in the per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Perioperative administration of G-CSF failed to reduce postoperative morbidity, infection rate, or mortality in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Complications of salvage esophagectomy.

Definitive chemoradiation (without surgery) is an accepted treatment for esophageal cancer. Persistent or recurrent local disease is not infrequent after chemoradiation, and this is its greatest drawback. Selected patients with isolated local failures of definitive chemoradiation can be salvaged by esophagectomy. However, salvage esophagectomy is a high-risk operation; operative mortality is higher than for standard esophagectomy. In contrast to planned esophagectomy after induction (neoadjuvant) therapy, salvage esophagectomy is often carried out months after completion of definitive chemoradiation. Previous thoracic radiotherapy contributes to the genesis of postoperative complications. Respiratory failure (ARDS, pneumonia) and septic complications of esophageal reconstruction (anastomotic leaks) are major causes of postoperative death. Gastric conduit necrosis, airway necrosis, and tracheogastric fistulae are infrequent but highly lethal complications. We propose modifications of surgical practice that may reduce complications. These include strict guidelines for patient selection, conservative mediastinal dissection, prevention of intraoperative lung injury (barotrauma and oxygen related toxicity), near total esophagectomy with cervical esophagogastric anastomosis, anterior mediastinal reconstruction, judicious use of staged reconstruction, perioperative enteral nutritional support, and aggressive detection and treatment of postoperative complications. By conceptually breaking the operation into component parts, such as resection and reconstruction, and then modifying each component to minimize complications, we believe that the operative mortality of salvage esophagectomy can

Carcinoma, Squamous Cell↗

PubMed2005

[Functional study of the remnant esophagus and intrathoracic stomach in patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate pathophysiological changes of the remnant esophagus and gastric cardia in patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer, and to provide objective evidences for the improvement of the postoperative quality of life. METHODS: The function of the remnant esophagus and intrathoracic stomach in patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer were assessed objectively. The methods that we used were gastric scintigraphy, esophageal manometry, 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring, electronic gastroscopy, videofluoroscopy, and DeMeester scoring system for the assessment of heartburn. Findings were recorded and compared with normal controls. RESULTS: After esophagectomy for cancer, the emptying of intrathoracic stomach was delayed (t = 7.105, P < 0.01) and improved over time, but could not reach normal one year after surgery (t = 2.9, P = 0.016). In patients who had undergone esophagectomy for cancer, the contracting pressure of the upper esophageal sphincter and resting pressure of the remnant esophagus were higher than that in normal controls (t = 2.275, P = 0.03; t = 2.16, P = 0.039 respectively). 89.7% of patients who had undergone esophagectomy had gastroesophageal reflux measured with 24-hour pH monitoring. The extent of reflux was less severe when patients were in a semi-reclining position than in a prostration position (t = 3.074, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: After esophagectomy for cancer, delayed emptying of the intrathoracic stomach is improved gradually over time, but it is inaccessible to normal level. Gastroesophageal reflux extensively exists in patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer, but it can be lessened by taking semi-reclining position.

Adult↗