File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

TitleThoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
Authors
Issue Date1997
PublisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/surg
Citation
Surgery, 1997, v. 122 n. 1, p. 8-14 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground. Minimal access surgery is an alternative to open surgery in esophageal surgery. Its role in cancer resection is controversial. Methods. Thoracoscopic esophageal resection was attempted in 22 patients who had increased operative, risk. Postoperative outcomes of these patients were compared with the outcomes of 63 patients who underwent open thoracotomy resection during the same period. Results. Thoracoscopy was completed in 18 patients. Conversion to thoracotomy was necessary because of locally advanced tumor in three patients, and a bypass procedure was performed in another patient because of poor ventilation during thoracoscopy and the finding of metastatic disease. The median thoracoscopy time was 110 minutes (range, 55 to 165 minutes). The total operating times were 240 minutes (range, 165 to 360 minutes) and 250 minutes (range, 190 to 420 minutes) for thoracoscopy and thoracotomy, respectively, p = 0.5. Blood loss was significantly less than that of open resection; medians were 450 ml (range, 200 to 800 ml) and 700 ml (range, 300 to 2500 ml) for thoracoscopy and thoracotomy, respectively, p < 0.01. The median number of lymph nodes removed at thoracoscopy was 7 (range, 2 to 13) compared with 13 (range, 5 to 34) in the thoracotomy group. Bronchopneumonia affected 17% of both groups of patients. Only one patient who was converted to open thoracotomy died. Port site recurrence developed in one patient. Overall survival rates were not significantly different. Conclusions. Thoracoscopic esophageal resection was a feasible option. Clear advantages over open thoracotomy were not demonstrated, although patients who were selected for thoracoscopy had worse performance status. This technique deserves further investigation in dedicated centers.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/83347
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.309
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.620
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLaw, Sen_HK
dc.contributor.authorFok, Men_HK
dc.contributor.authorChu, KMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, Jen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T08:39:57Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T08:39:57Z-
dc.date.issued1997en_HK
dc.identifier.citationSurgery, 1997, v. 122 n. 1, p. 8-14en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0039-6060en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/83347-
dc.description.abstractBackground. Minimal access surgery is an alternative to open surgery in esophageal surgery. Its role in cancer resection is controversial. Methods. Thoracoscopic esophageal resection was attempted in 22 patients who had increased operative, risk. Postoperative outcomes of these patients were compared with the outcomes of 63 patients who underwent open thoracotomy resection during the same period. Results. Thoracoscopy was completed in 18 patients. Conversion to thoracotomy was necessary because of locally advanced tumor in three patients, and a bypass procedure was performed in another patient because of poor ventilation during thoracoscopy and the finding of metastatic disease. The median thoracoscopy time was 110 minutes (range, 55 to 165 minutes). The total operating times were 240 minutes (range, 165 to 360 minutes) and 250 minutes (range, 190 to 420 minutes) for thoracoscopy and thoracotomy, respectively, p = 0.5. Blood loss was significantly less than that of open resection; medians were 450 ml (range, 200 to 800 ml) and 700 ml (range, 300 to 2500 ml) for thoracoscopy and thoracotomy, respectively, p < 0.01. The median number of lymph nodes removed at thoracoscopy was 7 (range, 2 to 13) compared with 13 (range, 5 to 34) in the thoracotomy group. Bronchopneumonia affected 17% of both groups of patients. Only one patient who was converted to open thoracotomy died. Port site recurrence developed in one patient. Overall survival rates were not significantly different. Conclusions. Thoracoscopic esophageal resection was a feasible option. Clear advantages over open thoracotomy were not demonstrated, although patients who were selected for thoracoscopy had worse performance status. This technique deserves further investigation in dedicated centers.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/surgen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofSurgeryen_HK
dc.rightsThe original publication is available at www.springerlink.com-
dc.subject.meshAdult-
dc.subject.meshAged-
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 and over-
dc.subject.meshEsophageal Neoplasms - radiography - surgery-
dc.subject.meshEsophagectomy - methods-
dc.titleThoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal canceren_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0263-9319&volume=122&issue=1&spage=8&epage=14&date=1997&atitle=Thoracoscopic+esophagectomy+for+esophageal+canceren_HK
dc.identifier.emailLaw, S: slaw@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailChu, KM: chukm@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailWong, J: jwong@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLaw, S=rp00437en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChu, KM=rp00435en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityWong, J=rp00322en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0039-6060(97)90257-9en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid9225908-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0030787952en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros25626en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0030787952&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume122en_HK
dc.identifier.issue1en_HK
dc.identifier.spage8en_HK
dc.identifier.epage14en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:A1997XK80800002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLaw, S=7202241293en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFok, M=7005879262en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChu, KM=7402453538en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, J=8049324500en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats