MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
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 |