P72 IS OPEN LEFT THORACO-ABDOMINAL ESOPHAGECTOMY A VIABLE OPTION IN THE ERA OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY?

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Klevebro ◽  
P Boshier ◽  
C Mueller ◽  
J Cools-Lartigue ◽  
L Ferri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Aim To evaluate short-term and oncological outcomes of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy compared to minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction Background and Methods Left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (LTE) facilitates complete resection of esophageal cancer particularly for bulky tumors, but there are concerns that this approach is associated with significant morbidity. Prospectively entered esophagectomy databases from two high volume North American centers were reviewed for patients undergoing LTE or MIE in the 2012-2018. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic efficacy (R0 resection rate, and number of resected lymph nodes) were compared. Results In total 247 patients were included in the study, LTE was applied in 170 (68.8%) patients, and MIE in 77 (31.2%) patients. LTE patients had more neoadjuvant treatment (LTE=78.2%, MIE=34.2%, P<0.001). There was no difference in overall postoperative complications (LTE=56.9%, MIE=55.0%, P=0.799), severe complications (Clavien Dindo>2 - LTE=26.1%, MIE17.0%, P=0.184), pulmonary complications (LTE=31.9%, MIE=20.0%, P=0.085), pneumonia (LTE=15.2%, MIE=13.6%, P=0.768), anastomotic leak (LTE=7%, MIE=10%, P=0.396), or postoperative mortality (LTE=0%, MIE=1.3%, P=0.140). Median length of stay was 7 days in both groups. R0 resection rate was 93.8% and 95.5% respectively (P=0.631). Median number of resected lymph nodes was 24 for LTE and 22 for MIE (P=0.226). LTE had more stage II-IV tumors (LTE=67.8%, MIE=40.7%, P<0.001), and more node positive resections (LTE=52.5%, MIE=31.4%, P=0.003). Conclusion LTE was used for larger tumors with greater lymph node burden in patients that were more likely to have received neoadjuvant treatment compared to MIE. Despite this the postoperative morbidity was equal to that of MIE, with no difference in short-term or oncological results in this cohort.

464 IS OPEN LEFT THORACO-ABDOMINAL ESOPHAGECTOMY A VIABLE OPTION IN THE ERA OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY?

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Klevebro ◽  
Piers R Boshier ◽  
Carmen Mueller ◽  
Jonathan Cools-Lartigue ◽  
Lorenzo Ferri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract   The aim of the study was to evaluate short-term and oncological outcomes of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (LTE) compared to minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. LTE facilitates complete resection of esophageal cancer particularly for bulky tumors, but there are concerns that this approach is associated with significant morbidity. Methods Prospectively entered esophagectomy databases from two high volume North American centers were reviewed for patients undergoing LTE or MIE in the 2012–2018. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic efficacy (R0 resection rate, and number of resected lymph nodes) were compared. In total 247 patients were included in the study, LTE was applied in 170 (68.8%) patients, and MIE in 77 (31.2%) patients. Results LTE patients had more neoadjuvant treatment (LTE = 78.2%, MIE = 34.2%, P &lt; 0.001). There was no difference in overall postoperative complications (LTE = 56.9%, MIE = 55.0%, P = 0.799), severe complications (Clavien Dindo&gt;2—LTE = 26.1%, MIE17.0%, P = 0.184), pulmonary complications (LTE = 31.9%, MIE = 20.0%, P = 0.085), pneumonia (LTE = 15.2%, MIE = 13.6%, P = 0.768), anastomotic leak (LTE = 7%, MIE = 10%, P = 0.396), or postoperative mortality (LTE = 0%, MIE = 1.3%, P = 0.140). Median length of stay was 7 days in both groups. R0 resection rate was 93.8% and 95.5% respectively (P = 0.631). Median number of resected lymph nodes was 24 for LTE and 22 for MIE (P = 0.226). LTE had more stage II-IV tumors (LTE = 67.8%, MIE = 40.7%, P &lt; 0.001), and more node positive resections (LTE = 52.5%, MIE = 31.4%, P = 0.003). Conclusion LTE was used for larger tumors with greater lymph node burden in patients that were more likely to have received neoadjuvant treatment compared to MIE. Despite this the postoperative morbidity was equal to that of MIE, with no difference in short-term or oncological results in this cohort.

691 IS OPEN LEFT THORACO-ABDOMINAL ESOPHAGECTOMY A VIABLE OPTION IN THE ERA OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY?

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Klevebro ◽  
Shiwei Han ◽  
Stephen Ash ◽  
C Mueller ◽  
Jonathan Cools-Lartigue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
High Volume ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract   Left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (LTE) facilitates complete resection of esophageal cancer particularly for bulky tumors, but there are concerns that this approach is associated with significant morbidity. The aim of the current study was to evaluate short-term and oncological outcomes of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy compared to minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Methods Prospectively entered esophagectomy databases from three high volume centers were reviewed for patients undergoing LTE or MIE 2012–2018. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic efficacy (R0 resection rate, and number of resected lymph nodes) were compared. In total 844 patients were included in the study, LTE was applied in 654 (77.5%) patients, and MIE in 190 (22.5%) patients. Results LTE patients had more neoadjuvant treatment (LTE = 74.5%, MIE = 64.9%, P = 0.027). There was no difference in overall postoperative complications (LTE = 61.9%, MIE = 64.6%, P = 0.517), severe complications (Clavien Dindo &gt;IIIa (LTE = 26.6%, MIE 26.5%, P = 0.982), pneumonia (LTE = 29.8%, MIE = 26.3%, P = 0.349), anastomotic leak (LTE = 7.7%, MIE = 9.9%, P = 0.348), or in-hospital mortality (LTE = 1.5%, MIE = 2.1%, P = 0.584). Median length of stay was 11 days after LTE vs. 8 days after MIE (P &lt; 0.001). R0 resection rate was 92.4% and 95.6% respectively (P = 0.144). Median number of resected lymph nodes was 25 for LTE and 28 for MIE (P = 0.017). LTE had more node positive resections (LTE = 57.6%, MIE = 44.0%, P = 0.001). Conclusion LTE was used for tumors with greater lymph node burden in patients that were more likely to have received neoadjuvant treatment compared to MIE. MIE was associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay, however postoperative morbidity and Clavien-Dindo scores were equal to that of MIE in this cohort.

Early outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Võ Vĩnh Lộc Nguyễn ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Thoracic Esophagus ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Stage Ib

Abstract Introduction: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard treatment which recommended for resectable locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC), but the safety of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for esophageal cancer has not been reported. We investigated the effect of NAC on the safety and feasibility of MIE for EC.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the morbidity, mortality and oncologic outcomes of MIE after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study of the patients who underwent MIE after neoadjuvant chemotherapy between August 2018 and May 2020. Patients with clinical stage IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC EC, and no active concomitant malignancy were included. The data regarding the intraoperative incident, postoperative morbidity and mortality as well as oncologic examination were collected and analyzed. Results: From August 2018 to May 2020, 68 patients with EC have been included into the study. There were 66 males and 2 females with mean age of 58.1 ± 13.9 (42 – 77). Sixty-two patients had neoadjuvant with DCX, four patients were indicated for EOX therapy, and remained two patients were treated by PAR-CAR. Two patients with stage IB, 23 with stage IIA, 22 with stage IIB, 14 with stage IIIA, one with stage IIIB, and 6 with stage IIIC. Tumor located in middle thoracic esophagus was 34 (50%), lower thoracic esophagus was 32 (47.1%) and upper thoracic esophagus was 2 cases. Median operation time was 420 minutes with minimal blood loss. Median hospitalization duration was 11 days (7 – 31). Median lymph nodes harvested in cervical, mediastinal and abdominal fields was 10, 16 and 7 respectively. Twenty-seven (42.2%) patients had metastatic lymph nodes. Postoperative mortality was 1.5% (1 case). Overall morbidity was 33.8% included 6 cases complicated pneumonia, 9 cases with anastomotic leak (conservative treatment), 1 case was re-operated due to cervical lymph leak, 16 cases with temporary hoarse voice. Conclusion: Results from our study to conclude that MIE is safe and effective for locally advanced EC, even after NAC. Key word: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, esophageal cancer. Tóm tắt Đặt vấn đề: Hóa trị tân hỗ trợ là điều trị tiêu chuẩn cho ung thư thực quản tiến triển tại chỗ, nhưng đến tính an toàn và khả thi của phẫu thuật nội soi cắt thực quản sau hóa trị tân hỗ trợ vẫn chưa được báo cáo. Chúng tôi đánh giá ảnh hưởng của hóa trị tân hỗ trợ lên tính an toàn và khả thi của phẫu thuật nội soi cắt thực quản sau hóa trị tân hỗ trợ. Nghiên cứu đánh giá tỉ lệ tai biến, biến chứng, tử vong và kết quả ung thư học của phẫu thuật nội soi cắt thực quản sau hóa trị tân hỗ trợ. Phương pháp nghiên cứu: Nghiên cứu tiến cứu, đánh giá các người bệnh phẫu thuật nội soi cắt thực quản sau hóa trị tân hỗ trợ từ tháng 8 năm 2018 đến tháng 5 năm 2020. Chúng tôi chọn những người bệnh ung thư thực quản giai đoạn IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB và IIIC và không có ung thư khác kèm theo. Tai biến, biến chứng, tử vong và kết quả ung thư học sẽ được đánh giá. Kết quả: Từ tháng 8 năm 2018 đến tháng 5 năm 2020, có 68 người bệnh đạt tiêu chuẩn nghiên cứu. Có 66 nam và 2 nữ, tuổi trung bình là 58,1 ± 13,9 (42 – 77). 62 người bệnh hóa trị với phác đồ DCX, 4 người bệnh hóa trị với phác đồ EOX và 2 người bệnh hóa trị với phác đồ PAR-CAR. Có 2 người bệnh giai đoạn IB, 23 người bệnh giai đoạn IIA, 22 người bệnh giai đoạn IIB, 14 người bệnh giai đoạn IIIA, 1 người bệnh giai đoạn IIIB và 6 người bệnh giai đoạn IIIC. U nằm ở thực quản ngực giữa ở 34 (50%) người bệnh, thực quản ngực dưới ở 32 (47,1%) người bệnh và thực quản ngực trên ở 2 người bệnh. Thời gian mổ trung vị là 420 phút, máu mất không đáng kể. Thời gian nằm viện trung vị là 11 ngày (7 – 31). Số hạch nạo được trung vị ở cổ là 10, trung thất là 16 và bụng là 7. Có 27 (42.2%) người bệnh có di căn hạch. Tử vong chu phẫu là 1,5% (1 người bệnh). Tỉ lệ biến chứng là 33,8% gồm 6 viêm phổi, 9 rò miệng nối (điều trị bảo tồn), 1 ca rò bạch huyết cần mổ lại và 16 ca khàn tiếng tạm thời. Kết luận: Từ những kết quả đạt được, phẫu thuật nội soi cắt thực quản sau hóa trị tân hỗ trợ là phẫu thuật an toàn và khả thi. Từ khóa: Hóa trị tân hỗ trợ, phẫu thuật nội soi cắt thực quản, ung thư thực quản.

PS01.220: COMPARISON OF SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES BETWEEN RAMIE AND VAMIE IN TREATMENT MIDDLE THORACIC ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 112-112
Author(s):  
Yidan Lin ◽  
Hanyu Deng
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Thoracic Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Comparable Rate ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Background Whether robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has any advantages over video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) remains controversial. In this study, we tried to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE with that of VAMIE in treating middle thoracic esophageal cancer from a single medical center. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing RAMIE or VAMIE for middle thoracic esophageal cancer from April 2016 to April 2017 were prospectively included for analysis. Baseline data and pathological findings as well as short-term outcomes of these two group (RAMIE group and VAMIE group) patients were collected and compared. A total of 84 patients (RAMIE group: 42 patients, VAMIE group: 42 patients) were included for analysis. Results The baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. RAMIE yielded significantly larger numbers of total dissected lymph nodes (21.9 and 17.8, respectively; P = 0.042) and right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymph nodes (2.1 and 1.2, respectively; P = 0.033) as well as abdominal lymph nodes (10.8 and 7.7, respectively; P = 0.041) than VAMIE. Even though RAMIE may consume more overall operation time, it could significant decrease total blood loss compared to VAMIE (97 and 161 ml, respectively; P = 0.015). Postoperatively, no difference of the risk of major complications or hospital stay was observed between the two groups. Conclusion RAMIE had significant advantage of lymphadenectomy especially for dissecting RLN lymph nodes over VAMIE with comparable rate of postoperative complications. Further randomized controlled trials are badly needed to confirm and update our conclusions. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 167-167
Author(s):  
Kenneth L Meredith ◽  
Jamie Huston ◽  
Ravi Shridhar
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Patient Demographics

167 Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy(MIE) has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to open approaches. The myriad of techniques has precluded the recommendation of a standard approach. The addition of robotics has potential to further improve outcomes. We sought to compare the outcomes of existing techniques for MIE with robotic assisted approaches. Methods: Utilizing a prospective esophagectomy database we identified patients who underwent (MIE) via Ivor Lewis(TT), transhiatal(TH) or robotic assisted Ivor Lewis(RAIL) techniques. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics and complications were analyzed via ANOVA, Chi-Square, and Fisher Exact where appropriate. Results: We identified 302 patients who underwent MIE: TT 95(31.5%), TH 63(20.8%), and RAIL 144(47.7%) with a mean age of 65±9.6. The length of operation was longer in the RAIL: TT(299±87), TH(231±65), RAIL(409±104 minutes), p < 0.001. However the EBL was lower in the RAIL patients: TT(189±188ml), TH(242±380ml), RAIL(155±107ml), p = 0.03. Conversion to open was also lower in the RAIL group: TT 7(7.4%), TH 8(12.7%), RAIL 0, p < 0.001. The R0 resection rate and lymph node (LN) harvest also favored the RAIL cohort :TT 86(93.5%), TH 60(96.8%), and RAIL 144(100%), p = 0.01. LN:TT 14±7, TH 9±6, and RAIL 20±9, p < 0.001. The overall morbidity was lower in RAIL patients: TT 29(30.5%), TH 39(61.9%), RAIL 34(23.6%), p < 0.001. Mortality was lower in the TT and RAIL approaches compared to TH but was not significant: TT 2 (2.1%), TH 2 (3.2%), and RAIL 2 (1.4%), p = 0.6. Conclusions: RAIL demonstrates lower EBL, conversion to open, and morbidity than other MIE techniques. Additionally the oncologic outcomes measured by R0 resections and LN harvest also favored the patients who underwent RAIL.

384 SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF INTRA-THORACIC ESOPHAGO-GASTRIC ANASTOMOSES UNDER MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY VIA A PRONE POSITION

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinji Mine ◽  
Masayuki Watanabe ◽  
Atushi Kanamori ◽  
Yu Imamura ◽  
Akihiko Okamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Stricture ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Anterior Wall ◽  
Gastric Conduit ◽  
Linear Stapler ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Operative Complications ◽  
Gastric Anastomosis

Abstract   Although minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed for esophageal cancer worldwide, intra-thoracic anastomosis under prone positions is still challenging. In this retrospective study, we reviewed our short-term results of this anastomotic technique in our institution. Methods From November 2016 to December 2019, we performed 319 esophagectomies. Of these patients, 28 patients (9%) underwent intra-thoracic esophago-gastric anastomosis under MIE. Procedures The left side of an esophageal stump which had been closed using a linear stapler was opened for anastomosis. Then, the anterior wall of a gastric conduit, around 5 cm below the tip, was opened for anastomosis. Linear staplers were inserted in both esophageal stump and gastric conduit and side-to-side anastomosis was performed. The opening for insertion was closed using a hand-sewn anastomosis in 2 layers. Results Five patients (18%) suffered anastomotic leakage with Clavien-Dindo 2 and 3a, and all of them recovered by conservative treatments. Two patients (2/19, 11%) showed anastomotic stricture which improved by several endoscopic dilatations. Six patients (6/19, 32%) showed the reflux esophagitis of Grade C. Conclusion Although we have not experienced severe or critical post-operative complications, the short-term results of intra-thoracic anastomosis under MIE were not sufficient. Additional progresses in techniques are required.

Phase II study of sintilimab combined with FLOT regimen for neoadjuvant treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 216-216
Author(s):  
Ning Li ◽  
Zhi Li ◽  
Qiang Fu ◽  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Jian Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
First Choice

216 Background: Perioperative treatments have significantly improved survival in patients with resectable gastric cancer, increasing 5-year overall survival from 23% with surgery alone to 45% with FLOT, Although FLOT has been recognized as the first choice for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma, its efficacy needs to be improved. Sintilimab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that binds to programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1), has shown remarkable clinical efficacy in various cancers. We aimed to assess the activity and safety profile of the combination of FLOT and sintilimab for neoadjuvant treatment of gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Methods: In this ongoing, single-arm, phase II study, we recruited patients from Henan Cancer Hospital in China with histopathologically diagnosed resectable gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had clinical T3/N+ or higher stage. Patients were given 4 cycles of FLOT (docetaxel 50 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 80 mg/m2, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, fluorouracil 2600 mg/m2, 24-h infusion on day 1, q2w) in combination with 3 cycles of sintilimab (200mg, iv, d1, q3w), followed by D2 surgery and 4 postoperative cycles of FLOT. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR). The secondary endpoints included major pathological remission (MPR) and R0 resection rate and adverse events . Results: A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study between Aug 10 2019 and Sep 15 2020. One patient refused surgery, one person's disease progressed. Two patients have not yet completed neoadjuvant treatment . 16 pts who experienced D2 resection, 10 (62.5%) achieved major pathologic response (MPR), including 3 (18.8%) with a pathologic complete response (pCR) in primary tumor. The R0 resection rate was up to 93.8%, The grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) included lymphopenia(25%), anaemia (20%),fatigue (20%),leucopenia (15%), neutropenia (5%), diarrhea(5%), Alanine aminotransferase increased(5%),There was no surgical delays or unexpected surgical complications related to drug toxicity. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant combination of sintilimab and FOLT is a safe and efficacious treatment option for patients with gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma, 18.8% pCR rate and 62.5%MPR rate is encouraging. Our clinical study is still enrolling, and the survival effects are under follow up. Clinical trial information: NCT04341857.

scholarly journals McKeown or Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (S8) ◽  
pp. S826-S833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Gijs H. Berkelmans ◽  
Bastiaan R. Klarenbeek ◽  
Grard A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen ◽  
Misha D. P. Luyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Cancer Of The Esophagus ◽  
Esophagectomy For Cancer

Standardizing procedures improves and homogenizes short-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy

2018 ◽  
Vol 403 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taro Oshikiri ◽  
Tetsu Nakamura ◽  
Hiroshi Hasegawa ◽  
Masashi Yamamoto ◽  
Shingo Kanaji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document