Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Volumn 102, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 416-423

  Yerokun, Babatunde A ^a   Sun, Zhifei ^a   Jeffrey Yang, Chi Fu ^a   Gulack, Brian C ^a   Speicher, Paul J ^a   Adam, Mohamed A ^a   D'Amico, Thomas A ^a   Onaitis, Mark W ^a   Harpole, David H ^a   Berry, Mark F ^b   Hartwig, Matthew G ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA; ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; ESOPHAGUS RESECTION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL READMISSION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LENGTH OF STAY; LYMPH NODE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SURGICAL APPROACH; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; ESOPHAGUS; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; LAPAROSCOPY; MORTALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PROCEDURES; SURVIVAL RATE; THORACOSCOPY; TIME FACTOR; TRENDS; UNITED STATES;

AGED; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; ESOPHAGECTOMY; ESOPHAGUS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURVIVAL RATE; THORACOSCOPY; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84964857423     PISSN: 00034975     EISSN: 15526259     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.078     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. 1 Lazzarino, A.I., Nagpal, K., Bottle, A., Faiz, O., Moorthy, K., Aylin, P., Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: trends of utilization and associated outcomes in England. Ann Surg 252 (2010), 292–298.
2. 2 Mallipeddi, M.K., Onaitis, M.W., The contemporary role of minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer. Curr Oncol Red 16 (2014), 1–8.
3. 3 Luketich, J.D., Alvelo-Rivera, M., Buenaventura, P.O., et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg, 238, 2003, 486.
4. 4 Weksler, B., Sharma, P., Moudgill, N., Chojnacki, K., Rosato, E., Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is equivalent to thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 25 (2012), 403–409.
5. 5 Luketich, J.D., Pennathur, A., Awais, O., et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg, 256, 2012, 95.
6. 6 Palazzo, F., Rosato, E.L., Chaudhary, A., et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides significant survival advantage compared to open or hybrid esophagectomy for patients with cancers of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. J Am Coll Surg 220 (2015), 672–679.
7. 7 Pennathur, A., Luketich, J.D., Minimally invasive esophagectomy: short-term outcomes appear comparable to open esophagectomy. Ann Surg 255 (2012), 206–207.
8. 8 Sihag, S., Wright, C.D., Wain, J.C., et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive ivor lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42 (2012), 430–437.
9. 9 Biere, S.S., van Berge Henegouwen, M.I., Maas, K.W., et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379 (2012), 1887–1892.
10. 10 Mamidanna, R., Bottle, A., Aylin, P., Faiz, O., Hanna, G.B., Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg 255 (2012), 197–203.
11. 11 Parameswaran, R., Veeramootoo, D., Krishnadas, R., Cooper, M., Berrisford, R., Wajed, S., Comparative experience of open and minimally invasive esophagogastric resection. World J Surg 33 (2009), 1868–1875.
12. 12 Schoppmann, S.F., Prager, G., Langer, F.B., et al. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center case controlled study. Surg Endosc 24 (2010), 3044–3053.
13. 13 Singh, R.K., Pham, T.H., Diggs, B.S., Perkins, S., Hunter, J.G., Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 146 (2011), 711–714.
14. 14 Berger, A.C., Bloomenthal, A., Weksler, B., et al. Oncologic efficacy is not compromised, and may be improved with minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Am Coll Surg 212 (2011), 560–566.
15. 15 Osugi, H., Takemura, M., Higashino, M., Takada, N., Lee, S., Kinoshita, H., A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg 90 (2003), 108–113.
16. 16 Coit, D., Surgical approaches to invasive adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e144.
17. 17 Kassin, M.T., Owen, R.M., Perez, S.D., et al. Risk factors for 30-day hospital readmission among general surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 215 (2012), 322–330.
18. 18 Briez, N., Piessen, G., Bonnetain, F., et al. Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial–the miro trial. BMC cancer, 11, 2011, 310.
19. 19 Avery, K.N., Metcalfe, C., Berrisford, R., et al. The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer–the romio (randomized oesophagectomy: Minimally invasive or open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 15, 2014, 200.