Author(s): Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM
Abstract Share this page
Abstract OBJECTIVE: We report patient outcomes from esophageal resection with respect to morbidity and cancer survival comparing open thoracotomy and laparotomy (Open), with a thoracoscopic/laparotomy approach (Thoracoscopic-Assisted) and a total thoracoscopic/laparoscopic approach (Total MIE). METHODS: From a prospective database of all patients managed with cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, patients who had a resection using one of three techniques were analyzed to assess postoperative variables, adequacy of cancer clearance, and survival. RESULTS: The number of patients for each procedure was as follows: Open, 114; Thoracoscopic-Assisted, 309; and Total MIE, 23. The groups were comparable with respect to preoperative variables. The differences in the postoperative variables were: less median blood loss in the Thoracoscopic-Assisted (400 mL) and Total MIE (300 mL) groups versus Open (600 mL); longer time for Total MIE (330 minutes) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (285 minutes) and Open (300 minutes); longer median time in hospital for Open (14 days) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (13 days), Total MIE (11 days) and less stricture formation in the Open (6.1\%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (21.6\%), Total MIE (36\%). There were no differences in lymph node retrieval for each of the approaches. Open had more stage III patients (65.8\%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (34.4\%), Total MIE (52.1\%). There was no difference in survival when the groups were compared stage for stage for overall median or 3-year survival. CONCLUSION: 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.
This article was published in Ann Surg
and referenced in Atherosclerosis: Open Access