Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Beduschi,Thiago
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Bigolin,André Vicente, Cavazzola,Leandro Totti
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-86502011000300010
Resumo: PURPOSE: To evaluate different approaches performed to obtain a more significant esophageal length. METHODS: An experimental model using 28 cadavers was conceived. Randomized groups: Group A (n=10) underwent laparotomic transhiatal approach; Group B (n=9) which differed from the first in the conduction of a wide phrenotomy and Group C (n=9) esophageal dissection was performed through a left anterolateral thoracotomy. RESULTS: Final length variations for Group A were 2.12cm and 3.29cm and for Group B 3.24 cm and 3.66cm, without and with esophageal traction, respectively. In Group C length gain observed was 3.81 cm. The mediastinal dissections conducted through the hiatus was considered the procedure that produced the better esophageal mobilization, and the association of wide phrenotomy significantly improved the results. CONCLUSION: The mediastinal dissection was the most effective to improving gain in abdominal esophagus. When toracotomy and laparotomy were compared, no significant differences were observed in the outcome.
id SBDPC-1_31a46bdfa9c2b53cdd923243e4baa948
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0102-86502011000300010
network_acronym_str SBDPC-1
network_name_str Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?EsophagusSurgical Procedures, OperativeThoracotomyLaparotomyMediastinumDissectionCadaverPURPOSE: To evaluate different approaches performed to obtain a more significant esophageal length. METHODS: An experimental model using 28 cadavers was conceived. Randomized groups: Group A (n=10) underwent laparotomic transhiatal approach; Group B (n=9) which differed from the first in the conduction of a wide phrenotomy and Group C (n=9) esophageal dissection was performed through a left anterolateral thoracotomy. RESULTS: Final length variations for Group A were 2.12cm and 3.29cm and for Group B 3.24 cm and 3.66cm, without and with esophageal traction, respectively. In Group C length gain observed was 3.81 cm. The mediastinal dissections conducted through the hiatus was considered the procedure that produced the better esophageal mobilization, and the association of wide phrenotomy significantly improved the results. CONCLUSION: The mediastinal dissection was the most effective to improving gain in abdominal esophagus. When toracotomy and laparotomy were compared, no significant differences were observed in the outcome.Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia2011-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-86502011000300010Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira v.26 n.3 2011reponame:Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia (SBDPC)instacron:SBDPC10.1590/S0102-86502011000300010info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBeduschi,ThiagoBigolin,André VicenteCavazzola,Leandro Tottieng2011-04-20T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0102-86502011000300010Revistahttps://www.bvs-vet.org.br/vetindex/periodicos/acta-cirurgica-brasileira/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sgolden@terra.com.br0102-86501678-2674opendoar:2011-04-20T00:00Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia (SBDPC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
title Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
spellingShingle Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
Beduschi,Thiago
Esophagus
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Thoracotomy
Laparotomy
Mediastinum
Dissection
Cadaver
title_short Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
title_full Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
title_fullStr Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
title_full_unstemmed Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
title_sort Thoracotomy versus transhiatal esophageal dissection: which is the best surgical approach to short esophagus?
author Beduschi,Thiago
author_facet Beduschi,Thiago
Bigolin,André Vicente
Cavazzola,Leandro Totti
author_role author
author2 Bigolin,André Vicente
Cavazzola,Leandro Totti
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Beduschi,Thiago
Bigolin,André Vicente
Cavazzola,Leandro Totti
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Esophagus
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Thoracotomy
Laparotomy
Mediastinum
Dissection
Cadaver
topic Esophagus
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Thoracotomy
Laparotomy
Mediastinum
Dissection
Cadaver
description PURPOSE: To evaluate different approaches performed to obtain a more significant esophageal length. METHODS: An experimental model using 28 cadavers was conceived. Randomized groups: Group A (n=10) underwent laparotomic transhiatal approach; Group B (n=9) which differed from the first in the conduction of a wide phrenotomy and Group C (n=9) esophageal dissection was performed through a left anterolateral thoracotomy. RESULTS: Final length variations for Group A were 2.12cm and 3.29cm and for Group B 3.24 cm and 3.66cm, without and with esophageal traction, respectively. In Group C length gain observed was 3.81 cm. The mediastinal dissections conducted through the hiatus was considered the procedure that produced the better esophageal mobilization, and the association of wide phrenotomy significantly improved the results. CONCLUSION: The mediastinal dissection was the most effective to improving gain in abdominal esophagus. When toracotomy and laparotomy were compared, no significant differences were observed in the outcome.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-06-01
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=S0102-86502011000300010
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-86502011000300010
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S0102-86502011000300010
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 Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira v.26 n.3 2011
reponame:Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia (SBDPC)
instacron:SBDPC
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia (SBDPC)
instacron_str SBDPC
institution SBDPC
reponame_str Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online)
collection Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia (SBDPC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sgolden@terra.com.br
_version_ 1752126440379252736

Registros relacionados