Open versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

37Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The impact of minimally invasive esophagectomy on patient prognosis, particularly disease-free survival (DFS), has not been well addressed. We compared the clinical outcomes of open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: Sixty-three and 66 patients, nonrandomized, underwent open and thoracoscopic esophagectomies for ESCC between 2008 and 2011 were included. The clinicopathological data were reviewed retrospectively. Perioperative outcome, overall survival (OS), DFS, and the recurrence sites after open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy were compared. Results: The open and thoracoscopic groups were comparable with regard to the total number of harvested lymph nodes and the percentage patients undergoing R0 resection. Fewer patients in the thoracoscopic group had pneumonia and wound complications. Intensive care unit (ICU) stay also was shorter in the thoracoscopic group. The recurrence pattern was similar in the two groups. In the open and thoracoscopic groups, the 3-year OS rates were 47.6 and 70.9 % (p = 0.031), respectively, and the 3-year DFS rates were 35 and 62.4 % (p = 0.007), respectively. However, the trends in better OS and DFS in the thoracoscopic group were not significant after stratification according to pathologic stage. Conclusions: The perioperative benefit of thoracoscopic esophagectomy included fewer postoperative complications and shorter ICU stays. Mid-term OS and DFS associated with thoracoscopic techniques are at least equivalent to those associated with open procedures. © 2013 Société Internationale de Chirurgie.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hsu, P. K., Huang, C. S., Wu, Y. C., Chou, T. Y., & Hsu, W. H. (2014). Open versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World Journal of Surgery, 38(2), 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2265-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free