4.1 Article

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy with trans-hiatal oesophageal transection and transabdominal specimen extraction for Siewert II oesophagogastric cancer

期刊

出版社

ROYAL COLL SURGEONS ENGLAND
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0329

关键词

Minimally invasive esophagectomy; Transabdominal specimen extraction; Ivor-Lewis prone position; Oesophagogastric junction

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The optimal surgical procedure for Siewert II oesophagogastric junction cancer is still debated. This study introduced a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis technique, using laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches, as well as trans-hiatal oesophageal transection and transabdominal extraction, to facilitate easier thoracoscopic stage during the surgery and provide better visualization for mediastinal node dissection and oesophagogastric anastomosis.
The optimal surgical procedure for Siewert II oesophagogastric junction cancer is still debated. The minimally invasive Ivor Lewis technique can be considered the most adequate intervention from the oncological perspective but it is still contested owing to its technical difficulties. To allow an easier thoracoscopic stage during the procedure, we performed it with laparoscopic trans-hiatal oesophageal transection and transabdominal extraction. An 80-year-old man with stage 3 Siewert II oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma not suitable for neoadjuvant therapy underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy, using a laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach in prone position. The trans-hiatal oesophageal resection permitted easy extraction of a transabdominal specimen and frozen section examination. The prone position, together with the absence of the specimen in the operative field, allowed easier mediastinal node dissection and oesophagogastric anastomosis with better visualisation. The postoperative course was uneventful. Pathology showed a G3-pT3, N2 adenocarcinoma with 6/30 metastatic lymph nodes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据