» Articles » PMID: 28417001

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer According To the Location of the Tumor: Experience of 251 Patients

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Medical Education
Date 2017 Apr 19
PMID 28417001
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, the ideal approach of MIE is not yet standardized. We explore the ideal approach of MIE according to the location of the tumor and compare the clinical outcomes between patients with cancer arising in the upper third of the esophagus and those with tumors involving the middle and lower third of the esophagus.

Methods: We included patients with esophageal carcinoma and had clear indications for MIE. For cancer arising in the upper third of the esophagus, MIE McKeown approach was performed. For tumors involving the middle and lower third of the esophagus, MIE Ivor Lewis approach was adopted.

Results: Of the 251 patients included in this analysis, 200 patients underwent Ivor-Lewis MIE and 51 patients underwent McKeown MIE. The incidence of anastomotic leak, anastomotic stenosis and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury was significantly higher in the McKeown MIE group than that in the Ivor Lewis MIE group. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 1.2% (n = 1) in the McKeown MIE group. Lymph nodes harvested were significantly more in the MIE-McKeown group than in Ivor Lewis MIE group (P < 0.05). The median follow-up period was 15 months (1-25 months) and the overall survival rate at 1 year stratified by pathologic stage at esophagectomy was 95.9% (stage 1), 83.8% (stage II), 73.4% (stage III).

Conclusions: MIE for esophageal cancer according to the location and clinical stage of the tumor will decrease all postoperative complications and may yield the greatest benefit from surgery.

Citing Articles

The influence of minimally invasive esophagectomy on wound infection in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis.

Guo D, Liao F, Yang L, Liu B, Chen L Int Wound J. 2024; 21(1):e14598.

PMID: 38272810 PMC: 10789583. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14598.


McKeown or Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang J, Hu J, Zhu D, Wang K, Gao C, Shan T Transl Cancer Res. 2022; 9(3):1518-1527.

PMID: 35117499 PMC: 8798823. DOI: 10.21037/tcr.2020.01.45.


Comparison of short-term outcomes between minimally invasive McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Deng J, Su Q, Ren Z, Wen J, Xue Z, Zhang L Onco Targets Ther. 2018; 11:6057-6069.

PMID: 30275710 PMC: 6157998. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S169488.


Transhiatal vs. Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A NSQIP Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Risk Factors for Morbidity.

Schlottmann F, Strassle P, Patti M J Gastrointest Surg. 2017; 21(11):1757-1763.

PMID: 28900830 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-017-3572-1.

References
1.
Chen B, Zhang B, Zhu C, Ye Z, Wang C, Ma D . Modified McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a 5-year retrospective study of 142 patients in a single institution. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e82428. PMC: 3869695. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082428. View

2.
Yerokun B, Sun Z, Yang C, Gulack B, Speicher P, Adam M . Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102(2):416-23. PMC: 5142521. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.078. View

3.
Bailey S, Bull D, Harpole D, Rentz J, Neumayer L, Pappas T . Outcomes after esophagectomy: a ten-year prospective cohort. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 75(1):217-22; discussion 222. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(02)04368-0. View

4.
Birkmeyer J, Siewers A, Finlayson E, Stukel T, Lucas F, Batista I . Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346(15):1128-37. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa012337. View

5.
Lerut T, Nafteux P, Moons J, Coosemans W, Decker G, De Leyn P . Three-field lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction in 174 R0 resections: impact on staging, disease-free survival, and outcome: a plea for adaptation of TNM classification in upper-half esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(6):962-72. PMC: 1356512. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000145925.70409.d7. View