Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy

N. T. Nguyen, D. M. Follette, B. M. Wolfe, Philip D Schneider, P. Roberts, James E Goodnight Jr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

187 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)920-925
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume135
Issue number8
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Esophagectomy
Operative Time
Anastomotic Leak
Critical Care
Hospital Mortality
Intensive Care Units
Length of Stay
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. / Nguyen, N. T.; Follette, D. M.; Wolfe, B. M.; Schneider, Philip D; Roberts, P.; Goodnight Jr, James E.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 135, No. 8, 2000, p. 920-925.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nguyen, N. T. ; Follette, D. M. ; Wolfe, B. M. ; Schneider, Philip D ; Roberts, P. ; Goodnight Jr, James E. / Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. In: Archives of Surgery. 2000 ; Vol. 135, No. 8. pp. 920-925.
@article{b17f99da86b248ee9c72508eb4d0010e,
title = "Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy",
abstract = "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. Conclusions: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and provides clinical advantages compared with transthoracic and blunt transhiatal esophagectomy.",
author = "Nguyen, {N. T.} and Follette, {D. M.} and Wolfe, {B. M.} and Schneider, {Philip D} and P. Roberts and {Goodnight Jr}, {James E}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "135",
pages = "920--925",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy

AU - Nguyen, N. T.

AU - Follette, D. M.

AU - Wolfe, B. M.

AU - Schneider, Philip D

AU - Roberts, P.

AU - Goodnight Jr, James E

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - 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. Conclusions: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and provides clinical advantages compared with transthoracic and blunt transhiatal esophagectomy.

AB - 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. Conclusions: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and provides clinical advantages compared with transthoracic and blunt transhiatal esophagectomy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033868054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033868054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10922253

AN - SCOPUS:0033868054

VL - 135

SP - 920

EP - 925

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 8

ER -