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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 2012, Vol.24 (3), p.176-187 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 |