Transhiatal versus Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.
- Author:
Ki Seong PARK
1
;
Chang Kwon PARK
;
Sae Young CHOI
;
Kwang Sook LEE
;
Young Sun YOO
;
Jae Hoon LEE
;
Dong Yoon KUM
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of medicine, Keimyung University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Esophageal neoplasm;
Esophagectomy
- MeSH:
Blood Transfusion;
Constriction, Pathologic;
Esophageal Neoplasms*;
Esophagectomy*;
Hospital Mortality;
Humans;
Length of Stay;
Operative Time;
Retrospective Studies
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2002;35(4):296-302
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The classic approach for esophagectomy is via the combined thoracic and abdominal approach. Controversy exists whether patients with esophageal carcinoma are best managed with Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy(ILO) as combined thoracic and abdominal approach or transhiatal esophagectomy(THO). The THO approach is known to be superior with respect to operative time, severity of leak, morbidity/mortality, and length of stay, but may represent an inferior cancer operation as a result of survival disadvantage due to inadequate mediastinal clearance compared with ILO. Accordingly, we reviewed the results of our esophageal resections to compare these outcome parameters for each operative approach. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From January 1993 to July 2001, We performed a retrospective review of all esophagectomies performed at Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center; 27 underwent THO, and 45 underwent ILO RESULT: The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and stage of the disease. Mean tumor length and mean operative time were 3.81cm and 354 minutes for THO versus 5.31cm and 453 minutes for ILO, respectively (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001). Respiratory complications were 11.1% for THO versus 35.6% for ILO(p < 0.05). Hospital mortality was 11.1% for THO versus 22.2% for ILO. There were no significant differences between THO and ILO with respect to other types of complications, amount of blood transfusion, leak and stricture rates, and hospital stay. Overall long-term survival at 5 years was 37%, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in long-term survival of patients of both operative approach. ILO had significantdifference in respiratory complications associated with hospital mortality. Hence, THO is a valid alternative to ILO for well selected patients. And either approach appears to be acceptable depending on the surgeons, preferences and experiences.
