MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: FONTAN,Alberto Jorge Albuquerque
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: BATISTA-NETO,João, PONTES,Ana Carolina Pastl, NEPOMUCENO,Marcos da Costa, MURITIBA,Tadeu Gusmão, FURTADO,Rômulo da Silva
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-67202018000300300
Resumo: ABSTRACT Background: Open and laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy has been successfully performed in the treatment of megaesophagus. However, there are no randomized studies to differentiate them in their results. Aim: To compare the results of minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in advanced megaesophagus. Method: A total of 30 patients were randomized, 15 of them in each group - EMIL and ETHA. The studied variables were dysphagia score before and after the operation at 24-months follow-up; pain score in the immediate postoperative period and at hospital discharge; complications of the procedure, comparing each group. Were also studied: surgical time in minutes, transfusion of blood products, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up time. Results: ETHA group comprised eight men and seven women; in the EMIL group, four women and 11 men. The median age in the ETHA group was 47.2 (29-68) years, and in the EMIL group of 44.13 (20-67) years. Mean follow-up time was 33 months, with one death in each group, both by fatal aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference between the EMIL vs. ETHA scores for dysphagia, pain and in-hospital complications. The same was true for surgical time, transfusion of blood products and hospital stay. Conclusion: There was no difference between EMIL and ETHA in all the studied variables, thus allowing them to be considered equivalent.
id CBCD-1_063ef81f72a836629f68378a0e29d62b
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0102-67202018000300300
network_acronym_str CBCD-1
network_name_str ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
repository_id_str
spelling MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDYEsophagectomyEsophageal achalasiaMegaesophagusLaparoscopyGastroparesisGastric stasisABSTRACT Background: Open and laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy has been successfully performed in the treatment of megaesophagus. However, there are no randomized studies to differentiate them in their results. Aim: To compare the results of minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in advanced megaesophagus. Method: A total of 30 patients were randomized, 15 of them in each group - EMIL and ETHA. The studied variables were dysphagia score before and after the operation at 24-months follow-up; pain score in the immediate postoperative period and at hospital discharge; complications of the procedure, comparing each group. Were also studied: surgical time in minutes, transfusion of blood products, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up time. Results: ETHA group comprised eight men and seven women; in the EMIL group, four women and 11 men. The median age in the ETHA group was 47.2 (29-68) years, and in the EMIL group of 44.13 (20-67) years. Mean follow-up time was 33 months, with one death in each group, both by fatal aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference between the EMIL vs. ETHA scores for dysphagia, pain and in-hospital complications. The same was true for surgical time, transfusion of blood products and hospital stay. Conclusion: There was no difference between EMIL and ETHA in all the studied variables, thus allowing them to be considered equivalent.Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-67202018000300300ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo) v.31 n.3 2018reponame:ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)instname:Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva (CBCD)instacron:CBCD10.1590/0102-672020180001e1382info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFONTAN,Alberto Jorge AlbuquerqueBATISTA-NETO,JoãoPONTES,Ana Carolina PastlNEPOMUCENO,Marcos da CostaMURITIBA,Tadeu GusmãoFURTADO,Rômulo da Silvaeng2018-12-04T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0102-67202018000300300Revistahttp://abarriguda.org.br/revista/index.php/revistaabarrigudaarepb/indexONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||revistaabcd@gmail.com2317-63262317-6326opendoar:2018-12-04T00:00ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo) - Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva (CBCD)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
title MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
spellingShingle MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
FONTAN,Alberto Jorge Albuquerque
Esophagectomy
Esophageal achalasia
Megaesophagus
Laparoscopy
Gastroparesis
Gastric stasis
title_short MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
title_full MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
title_fullStr MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
title_full_unstemmed MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
title_sort MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
author FONTAN,Alberto Jorge Albuquerque
author_facet FONTAN,Alberto Jorge Albuquerque
BATISTA-NETO,João
PONTES,Ana Carolina Pastl
NEPOMUCENO,Marcos da Costa
MURITIBA,Tadeu Gusmão
FURTADO,Rômulo da Silva
author_role author
author2 BATISTA-NETO,João
PONTES,Ana Carolina Pastl
NEPOMUCENO,Marcos da Costa
MURITIBA,Tadeu Gusmão
FURTADO,Rômulo da Silva
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv FONTAN,Alberto Jorge Albuquerque
BATISTA-NETO,João
PONTES,Ana Carolina Pastl
NEPOMUCENO,Marcos da Costa
MURITIBA,Tadeu Gusmão
FURTADO,Rômulo da Silva
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Esophagectomy
Esophageal achalasia
Megaesophagus
Laparoscopy
Gastroparesis
Gastric stasis
topic Esophagectomy
Esophageal achalasia
Megaesophagus
Laparoscopy
Gastroparesis
Gastric stasis
description ABSTRACT Background: Open and laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy has been successfully performed in the treatment of megaesophagus. However, there are no randomized studies to differentiate them in their results. Aim: To compare the results of minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in advanced megaesophagus. Method: A total of 30 patients were randomized, 15 of them in each group - EMIL and ETHA. The studied variables were dysphagia score before and after the operation at 24-months follow-up; pain score in the immediate postoperative period and at hospital discharge; complications of the procedure, comparing each group. Were also studied: surgical time in minutes, transfusion of blood products, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up time. Results: ETHA group comprised eight men and seven women; in the EMIL group, four women and 11 men. The median age in the ETHA group was 47.2 (29-68) years, and in the EMIL group of 44.13 (20-67) years. Mean follow-up time was 33 months, with one death in each group, both by fatal aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference between the EMIL vs. ETHA scores for dysphagia, pain and in-hospital complications. The same was true for surgical time, transfusion of blood products and hospital stay. Conclusion: There was no difference between EMIL and ETHA in all the studied variables, thus allowing them to be considered equivalent.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-67202018000300300
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-67202018000300300
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0102-672020180001e1382
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo) v.31 n.3 2018
reponame:ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
instname:Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva (CBCD)
instacron:CBCD
instname_str Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva (CBCD)
instacron_str CBCD
institution CBCD
reponame_str ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
collection ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
repository.name.fl_str_mv ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo) - Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva (CBCD)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||revistaabcd@gmail.com
_version_ 1754208958317330432