This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (57)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Endoscopy/ Minimally Invasive Surgery  • Gastrointestinal/ Upper Foregut  • Thoracic Surgery  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ninh T. Nguyen, MD; David M. Follette, MD; Bruce M. Wolfe, MD; Philip D. Schneider, MD, PhD; Peter Roberts, MD; James E. Goodnight, Jr, MD, PhD

Arch Surg. 2000;135:920-925.

Hypothesis  Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed as safely as conventional esophagectomy and has distinct perioperative outcome advantages.

Design  A retrospective comparison of 3 methods of esophagectomy: minimally invasive, transthoracic, and blunt transhiatal.

Setting  University medical center.

Patients  Eighteen consecutive patients underwent combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy from October 9, 1998, through January 19, 2000. These patients were compared with 16 patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy and 20 patients who underwent blunt transhiatal esophagectomy from June 1, 1993, through August 5, 1998.

Main Outcome Measures  Operative time, amount of blood loss, number of operative transfusions, length of intensive care and hospital stays, complications, and mortality.

Results  Patients who had minimally invasive esophagectomy had shorter operative times, less blood loss, fewer transfusions, and shortened intensive care unit and hospital courses than patients who underwent transthoracic or blunt transhiatal esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak or respiratory complications among the 3 groups.

Conclusion  Minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and provides clinical advantages compared with transthoracic and blunt transhiatal esophagectomy.

From the Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Surgery Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Surg. 2000;135(8):992-993.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer.
Zingg et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2009;87:911-919.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Impact of obesity on perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Kilic et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2009;87:412-415.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer
Decker et al.
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2009;35:13-21.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Laparoscopic Transhiatal Subtotal Esophagectomy for the Treatment of Advanced Megaesophagus
Crema et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2005;80:1196-1201.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (RATS) for Benign and Malignant Esophageal Tumors
Bodner et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2005;80:1202-1206.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Extended Esophagectomy With 3-Field Lymph Node Dissection for Esophageal Cancer--Invited Critique
Follette
Arch Surg 2003;138:1390-1390.
FULL TEXT  

Outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for high-grade dysplasia of the esophagus
Fernando et al.
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2002;22:1-6.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Hand-Assisted Gastroesophageal Surgery
Glasgow and Swanstrom
SURG INNOV 2001;8:135-144.
ABSTRACT