Loading…

Variation in the Standard of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer—Systematic Review

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed to treat esophageal cancer. Studies published between 1990 and 2012 that described the use of MIE for cancer in at least 50 patients were included for systematic review. The literature search retrieved 34 publications comprising...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 2012, Vol.24 (3), p.176-187
Main Authors: Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS, Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS, Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-4cf27d2b280034d2a8ac280c3326bc05577920268b643aec6b34b9be685309e83
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-4cf27d2b280034d2a8ac280c3326bc05577920268b643aec6b34b9be685309e83
container_end_page 187
container_issue 3
container_start_page 176
container_title Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery
container_volume 24
creator Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS
Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS
Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA
description Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed to treat esophageal cancer. Studies published between 1990 and 2012 that described the use of MIE for cancer in at least 50 patients were included for systematic review. The literature search retrieved 34 publications comprising 18 case series, 15 comparative studies, and 1 randomized control trial. Results revealed a wide variability in surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes with a lack of standardized definitions of postoperative complications. In most studies, radical formal lymphadenectomy was not performed and the lymph node harvest fell below the minimum number recommended to achieve survival benefits. There is a need to reach a consensus regarding surgical approaches in MIE, the definition of postoperative complications and the extent of lymphadenectomy before embarking on further randomized controlled trials comparing MIE vs. open approach.
doi_str_mv 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2012.10.004
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1221853173</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S104306791200130X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1221853173</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-4cf27d2b280034d2a8ac280c3326bc05577920268b643aec6b34b9be685309e83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi1ERduFRwD5yCXLeJy_FxBalVKpVSUWEAcky3Em1EsSb-3sotx4CJ6QJ8HRLhx64eTR6Jtv_P2GsecClgIy-WqzDNSPZh-WCAJjbwmQPmJnIpOYVGlZPo41pDKBvKhO2XkIGwAUhZRP2ClKBIACz9jXz9pbPVo3cDvw8Y74etRDo33DXctv7GB73XUTvxr2Otg98Yvgtnf6G5nR9RNvnecrPRjyv3_-Wk9hpD6aGf6B9pZ-PGUnre4CPTu-C_bp3cXH1fvk-vbyavX2OjEpwpikpsWiwRpLAJk2qEttYm2kxLw2kGVFUSFgXtZ5KjWZvJZpXdWUl5mEikq5YC8Pvlvv7ncURtXbYKjr9EBuF5RAFFE7h1-w7CA13oXgqVVbHyP6SQlQM1i1UUewagY7tyPYOPfiuGJX99T8m_pLMgreHAQUg8bwXgVjKZJprI-wVOPsf1e8fuBgusjf6O47TRQ2bueHSFEJFVCBWs_XnY8r4g-EhC_yD-7pofw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1221853173</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Variation in the Standard of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer—Systematic Review</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS ; Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS ; Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA</creator><creatorcontrib>Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS ; Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS ; Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA</creatorcontrib><description>Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed to treat esophageal cancer. Studies published between 1990 and 2012 that described the use of MIE for cancer in at least 50 patients were included for systematic review. The literature search retrieved 34 publications comprising 18 case series, 15 comparative studies, and 1 randomized control trial. Results revealed a wide variability in surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes with a lack of standardized definitions of postoperative complications. In most studies, radical formal lymphadenectomy was not performed and the lymph node harvest fell below the minimum number recommended to achieve survival benefits. There is a need to reach a consensus regarding surgical approaches in MIE, the definition of postoperative complications and the extent of lymphadenectomy before embarking on further randomized controlled trials comparing MIE vs. open approach.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1043-0679</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-9488</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2012.10.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23200072</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Cardiothoracic Surgery ; Consensus ; Esophageal Neoplasms - mortality ; Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology ; Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery ; esophagectomy ; Esophagectomy - adverse effects ; Esophagectomy - methods ; Esophagectomy - mortality ; Esophagectomy - standards ; Guideline Adherence - standards ; Humans ; laparoscopic ; Laparoscopy - adverse effects ; Laparoscopy - mortality ; Laparoscopy - standards ; Lymph Node Excision - standards ; minimally invasive esophagectomy ; operating technique ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards ; Standard of Care - standards ; Survival Analysis ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2012, Vol.24 (3), p.176-187</ispartof><rights>2012</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-4cf27d2b280034d2a8ac280c3326bc05577920268b643aec6b34b9be685309e83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-4cf27d2b280034d2a8ac280c3326bc05577920268b643aec6b34b9be685309e83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23200072$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA</creatorcontrib><title>Variation in the Standard of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer—Systematic Review</title><title>Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</title><addtitle>Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg</addtitle><description>Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed to treat esophageal cancer. Studies published between 1990 and 2012 that described the use of MIE for cancer in at least 50 patients were included for systematic review. The literature search retrieved 34 publications comprising 18 case series, 15 comparative studies, and 1 randomized control trial. Results revealed a wide variability in surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes with a lack of standardized definitions of postoperative complications. In most studies, radical formal lymphadenectomy was not performed and the lymph node harvest fell below the minimum number recommended to achieve survival benefits. There is a need to reach a consensus regarding surgical approaches in MIE, the definition of postoperative complications and the extent of lymphadenectomy before embarking on further randomized controlled trials comparing MIE vs. open approach.</description><subject>Cardiothoracic Surgery</subject><subject>Consensus</subject><subject>Esophageal Neoplasms - mortality</subject><subject>Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>esophagectomy</subject><subject>Esophagectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Esophagectomy - methods</subject><subject>Esophagectomy - mortality</subject><subject>Esophagectomy - standards</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence - standards</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>laparoscopic</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - mortality</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - standards</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision - standards</subject><subject>minimally invasive esophagectomy</subject><subject>operating technique</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards</subject><subject>Standard of Care - standards</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1043-0679</issn><issn>1532-9488</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi1ERduFRwD5yCXLeJy_FxBalVKpVSUWEAcky3Em1EsSb-3sotx4CJ6QJ8HRLhx64eTR6Jtv_P2GsecClgIy-WqzDNSPZh-WCAJjbwmQPmJnIpOYVGlZPo41pDKBvKhO2XkIGwAUhZRP2ClKBIACz9jXz9pbPVo3cDvw8Y74etRDo33DXctv7GB73XUTvxr2Otg98Yvgtnf6G5nR9RNvnecrPRjyv3_-Wk9hpD6aGf6B9pZ-PGUnre4CPTu-C_bp3cXH1fvk-vbyavX2OjEpwpikpsWiwRpLAJk2qEttYm2kxLw2kGVFUSFgXtZ5KjWZvJZpXdWUl5mEikq5YC8Pvlvv7ncURtXbYKjr9EBuF5RAFFE7h1-w7CA13oXgqVVbHyP6SQlQM1i1UUewagY7tyPYOPfiuGJX99T8m_pLMgreHAQUg8bwXgVjKZJprI-wVOPsf1e8fuBgusjf6O47TRQ2bueHSFEJFVCBWs_XnY8r4g-EhC_yD-7pofw</recordid><startdate>2012</startdate><enddate>2012</enddate><creator>Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS</creator><creator>Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS</creator><creator>Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2012</creationdate><title>Variation in the Standard of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer—Systematic Review</title><author>Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS ; Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS ; Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-4cf27d2b280034d2a8ac280c3326bc05577920268b643aec6b34b9be685309e83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Cardiothoracic Surgery</topic><topic>Consensus</topic><topic>Esophageal Neoplasms - mortality</topic><topic>Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>esophagectomy</topic><topic>Esophagectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Esophagectomy - methods</topic><topic>Esophagectomy - mortality</topic><topic>Esophagectomy - standards</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence - standards</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>laparoscopic</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - mortality</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - standards</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision - standards</topic><topic>minimally invasive esophagectomy</topic><topic>operating technique</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards</topic><topic>Standard of Care - standards</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hanna, George B., MBChB, PhD, FRCS</au><au>Arya, Shobhit, BSc, MBBS, MRCS</au><au>Markar, Sheraz R., MRCS, MSc, MA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Variation in the Standard of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer—Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg</addtitle><date>2012</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>176</spage><epage>187</epage><pages>176-187</pages><issn>1043-0679</issn><eissn>1532-9488</eissn><abstract>Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed to treat esophageal cancer. Studies published between 1990 and 2012 that described the use of MIE for cancer in at least 50 patients were included for systematic review. The literature search retrieved 34 publications comprising 18 case series, 15 comparative studies, and 1 randomized control trial. Results revealed a wide variability in surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes with a lack of standardized definitions of postoperative complications. In most studies, radical formal lymphadenectomy was not performed and the lymph node harvest fell below the minimum number recommended to achieve survival benefits. There is a need to reach a consensus regarding surgical approaches in MIE, the definition of postoperative complications and the extent of lymphadenectomy before embarking on further randomized controlled trials comparing MIE vs. open approach.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23200072</pmid><doi>10.1053/j.semtcvs.2012.10.004</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1043-0679
ispartof Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2012, Vol.24 (3), p.176-187
issn 1043-0679
1532-9488
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1221853173
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024
subjects Cardiothoracic Surgery
Consensus
Esophageal Neoplasms - mortality
Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology
Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery
esophagectomy
Esophagectomy - adverse effects
Esophagectomy - methods
Esophagectomy - mortality
Esophagectomy - standards
Guideline Adherence - standards
Humans
laparoscopic
Laparoscopy - adverse effects
Laparoscopy - mortality
Laparoscopy - standards
Lymph Node Excision - standards
minimally invasive esophagectomy
operating technique
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards
Standard of Care - standards
Survival Analysis
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
title Variation in the Standard of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer—Systematic Review
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T16%3A00%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Variation%20in%20the%20Standard%20of%20Minimally%20Invasive%20Esophagectomy%20for%20Cancer%E2%80%94Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=Seminars%20in%20thoracic%20and%20cardiovascular%20surgery&rft.au=Hanna,%20George%20B.,%20MBChB,%20PhD,%20FRCS&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=176&rft.epage=187&rft.pages=176-187&rft.issn=1043-0679&rft.eissn=1532-9488&rft_id=info:doi/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2012.10.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1221853173%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-4cf27d2b280034d2a8ac280c3326bc05577920268b643aec6b34b9be685309e83%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1221853173&rft_id=info:pmid/23200072&rfr_iscdi=true