scholarly journals Comparison of Up-Front Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy on Quality of Life for Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 693-701
Author(s):  
Zhenhua Li ◽  
Jingge Cheng ◽  
Yuefeng Zhang ◽  
Shiwang Wen ◽  
Huilai LV ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Better Than

This study investigates whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a safe and effective way for patients with resectable esophageal cancer by comparing the short-term quality of life (QOL) after minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy (OE). A total number of 104 patients who underwent esophagectomy from January 2013 to March 2014 were enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into two groups (MIE and OE group). Three scoring scales of quality of life were used to evaluate QOL before the operation and at the first, third, sixth and twelfth months after MIE or OE, which consist of Karnofshy performance scale (KPS), the European Organization for Research and Treatment questionnaire QLQC-30 (EORTC QLQC-30) and esophageal cancer supplement scale (OES-18). The MIE group was higher than the OE group in one-year survival rate (92.54% vs. 72.00%). Significant differences between the two groups were observed in intraoperative bleeding volume (158.53 ± 91.07 mL vs. 228.97 ± 109.33 mL, p = 0.001), and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (33.33% vs. 58.62%, p = 0.018). The KPS of MIE group was significantly higher than the OE group at the first (80 vs. 70, p = 0.004 < 0.05), third (90 vs. 80, p = 0.006 < 0.05), sixth (90 vs. 80, p = 0.007 < 0.05) and twelfth months (90 vs. 80, p = 0.004 < 0.05) after surgery. The QLQC-30 score of MIE group was better than OE group at first and twelfth months after the operation. The OES-18 score of MIE group was significantly better than OE group at first, sixth and twelfth months after surgery. The short-term quality of life in MIE group was better than OE group.

Quality of Life after Open or Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Patients With Esophageal Cancer—A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela Taioli ◽  
Rebecca M. Schwartz ◽  
Wil Lieberman-Cribbin ◽  
Gil Moskowitz ◽  
Maaike van Gerwen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

scholarly journals Robotic resection for esophageal cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Niclas Kersebaum ◽  
Thorben Möller ◽  
Thomas Becker ◽  
Jan-Hendrik Egberts
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Tumor Resection ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Robotic Esophagectomy

Summary Background In the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, complete tumor resection is the most important factor and determines long-term survival. With an increase in robotic expertise in other fields of surgery, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was born. Currently, there is a lack of convincing data on the extent of expected benefits (perioperative and oncologic outcomes and/or quality of life). Some evidence exists that patients’ overall quality of life and physical function improves, with less fatigue and pain 3 months after surgery. We aimed to review the available literature regarding robotic esophagectomy, compare perioperative, oncologic, and quality of life outcomes with open and minimally invasive approaches, and give a brief overview of our standardized four-arm RAMIE technique and explore future directions. Methods A Medline (PubMed) search was conducted including the following key words: esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic esophagectomy, Ivor Lewis and McKeown. We present the history, different techniques used, outcomes, and the standardization of robotic esophagectomy. Results Robotic esophagectomy offers a steeper learning curve with fewer complications but comparable oncological results compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. Conclusions Available studies suggest that RAMIE is associated with benefits regarding length of stay, clinical outcomes, and quality of life—if patients are treated in an experienced center with a standardized technique for robotic esophagectomy—making it a potentially beneficial tool in the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, center-wide standardization and prospective data collection will be a necessity to prove superiority of robotic esophagectomy.

Survival and quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-surgeon experience

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhishek Sundaram ◽  
Juan C. Geronimo ◽  
Brittany L. Willer ◽  
Masato Hoshino ◽  
Zachary Torgersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgeon Experience

696 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY COMPARED TO OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 2958 CASES IN SINGLE CANCER CENTER

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue-feng Leng ◽  
Kexun Li ◽  
Qifeng Wang ◽  
Wenwu He ◽  
Kun Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Single Cancer

Abstract   Esophageal cancer is the fourth primary cause of cancer-related death in the male in China.The cornerstone of treatment for resectable esophageal cancer is surgery. With the development of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), it is gradually adopted as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE) in real-world practice. The purpose of this study is to explore whether MIE vs. OE will bring survival benefits to patients with the advancement of treatment techniques and concepts. Methods Data were obtained from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute Esophageal Cancer Case Management Database (SCH-ECCM Database). We retrospective analyzed esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy from Jan. 2010 to Nov. 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: MIE and OE groups. Clinical outcome and survival data were compared using TNM stages of AJCC 8th edition. Results After 65.3 months of median follow-up time, 2958 patients who received esophagectomy were included. 1106 of 2958 patients (37.4%) were underwent MIE, 1533 of 2958 patients (51.8%) were underwent OE. More than half of the patients (56.7%, 1673/2958) were above stage III. The median overall survival (OS) of 2958 patients was 51.6 months (95% CI 45.2–58.1). The MIE group's median OS was 74.6 months compared to 42.4 months in the OE group (95% CI 1.23–1.54, P &lt; 0.001). The OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 90%, 68%, 58% in the MIE group; 85%, 54%, 42% in the OE group,respectively (P&lt;0.001). Conclusion The nearly 8-year follow-up data from this single cancer center suggests that with the advancement of minimally invasive surgical technology, MIE can bring significant benefits to patients' long-term survival compared with OE. Following the continuous progression of minimally invasive surgery and establishing a mature surgical team, MIE should be encouraged.

Costs and benefits of different methods of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 513-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alongkorn Yanasoot ◽  
Kamtorn Yolsuriyanwong ◽  
Sakchai Ruangsin ◽  
Supparerk Laohawiriyakamol ◽  
Somkiat Sunpaweravong
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

Background A minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy is being used increasingly, but concerns remain regarding the feasibility, safety, cost, and outcomes. We performed an analysis of the costs and benefits of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open esophagectomy approaches for esophageal cancer surgery. Methods The data of 83 consecutive patients who underwent a McKeown’s esophagectomy at Prince of Songkla University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2014 were analyzed. Open esophagectomy was performed in 54 patients, minimally invasive esophagectomy in 13, and hybrid esophagectomy in 16. There were no differences in patient characteristics among the 3 groups Minimally invasive esophagectomy was undertaken via a thoracoscopic-laparoscopic approach, hybrid esophagectomy via a thoracoscopic-laparotomy approach, and open esophagectomy by a thoracotomy-laparotomy approach. Results Minimally invasive esophagectomy required a longer operative time than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.02), but these patients reported less postoperative pain ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Minimally invasive esophagectomy incurred higher operative and surgical material costs than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.01), but there were no significant differences in inpatient care and total hospital costs. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in the least postoperative pain but the greatest operative cost and longest operative time. Open esophagectomy was associated with the lowest operative cost and shortest operative time but the most postoperative pain. Hybrid esophagectomy had a shorter learning curve while sharing the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽  
Joonas H. Kauppila ◽  
Fredrik Mattsson ◽  
Mats Lindblad ◽  
Magnus Nilsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

623 MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN MCKEOWN FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zheng ◽  
Wenqun Xing ◽  
Xianben Liu ◽  
Haibo Sun
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Group 14 ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgery Department

Abstract   McKeown Minimally invasive esophagectomy(McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy(McKeown-OE). However, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer(EC) patients. Methods We used a prospective database of the Thoracic Surgery Department at our Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC during January 1, 2015, to January 6, 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival(OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared. Results We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, P &lt; 0.001) in OE group. The 30-day and in hospital mortality were 0 and no difference for 90-day mortality (P = 0.116). The postoperative stay was shorter in MIE group, 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups(P &lt; 0.001). The OS at 32 months was 76.82% and 64.31% in the MIE and OE groups (P = 0.001); hazard ratio(HR) (95% CI): 2.333 (1.384–3.913). Conclusion These results showed the McKeown-MIE group was associated with a better long-term survival, compared with open-MIE for patients with resectable EC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document