Open Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: What is the Best Approach? Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Introduction  

Esophageal cancer is a complex disease that is typically discovered at a late stage and is associated with a poor overall survival rate.     

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Are We There Yet?

Annals of Surgical Oncology -     

Does Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) Provide for Comparable Oncologic Outcomes to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review

Purpose  

The aim of this study is to compare minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open techniques with respect to oncologic outcomes through analysis of the extent of lymph node clearance, number of lymph nodes retrieved, oncologic stage, and 5-year mortality.     

Is Minimally Invasive Surgery in Total Knee Arthroplasty Really Minimally Invasive Surgery?

Minimization of soft-tissue damage is one of the primary purposes behind the application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A consecutive series of 147 TKAs were enrolled in the present study, with 96 MIS-TKAs using 11 quadriceps-sparing, 46 subvastus, 32 midvastus, and 7 parapatellar approaches and 51 conventional TKAs using 22 subvastus, 9 midvastus, and 20 parapatellar approaches. Serum levels of creatinine phosphokinase, myoglobin, aldolase, lactate dehydrogenase, glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, and creatinine were measured on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, 4, 7, and 14. Postoperative rising index (RI) was expressed as a proportion of the preoperative value. When RIs were compared between MIS-TKA and conventional TKA, no significant differences were found for any enzymes. Interestingly, the midvastus approach displayed the highest RIs for creatinine phosphokinase and myoglobin between the 4 vastus-splitting approaches. Consequently, degree of muscle damage was equivalent between MIS-TKA and conventional TKA, whereas types of vastus-splitting approach appeared closely related to muscle damage.     

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: What Is the Best Approach? Frame the Issue

Surgical resection continues to be the gold standard treatment approach for early invasive and locoregional esophageal cancer. Esophagectomy has historically had a reputation as a complex operation with high mortality and morbidity. Increasingly, results from high-volume specialized centers have demonstrated that mortality rates of below 4% should be expected and that patients can potentially demonstrate excellent levels of quality of life following surgical resection. Up until recently, virtually all surgical resections were done utilizing an open approach utilizing either a transthoracic or a transhiatal operation. Over the past several years, however, a variety of fully minimally invasive or hybrid procedures have been advocated with a view of improving mortality and morbidity outcomes. In the absence of either randomized or controlled prospective comparisons, this series of papers will review current perceptions of the advantages of both minimally invasive and open surgery for the treatment of esophageal cancer.     

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Extracorporeal Gastric Conduit Creation—How I Do It

Esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates. In an attempt to improve these results, many groups have started applying minimally invasive techniques to esophagectomy for benign and malignant disease. A variety of minimally invasive approaches have been developed. At the Thomas Jefferson University, we have offered minimally invasive three-hole esophagectomy with extracorporeal gastric conduit creation since 2008. Herein we report our technique for the abdominal and cervical components of the procedure and briefly discuss the current literature and our short-term perioperative outcomes.     

Are There Significant Benefits of Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Thyroidectomy?

Minimally invasive surgery using endoscopic vision is widely employed for the treatment of thyroid diseases. We have performed endoscopic thyroidectomy by the axillary approach (axillary approach) and video-assisted thyroidectomy via a 3 cm cervical incision (video-assisted approach). In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of these two procedures. Each procedure was performed in 20 consecutive consenting patients. The degree of invasiveness after surgery was compared using postoperative results. The amount of pain and satisfaction with surgery was evaluated by grade (1–5) using a patient questionnaire. All thyroidectomies were completed successfully. No recurrent laryngeal nerve palsies occurred. Operating time for the video-assisted approach was significantly shorter than that for the axillary approach (p < 0.01). The amount of pain for the axillary approach on 1, 3, and 5 days after operation, respectively, was graded 3.2 ± 0.7, 2.1 ± 0.6, and 1.6 ± 0.7 compared to 2.7 ± 1.1, 1.7 ± 0.7, and 1.1 ± 0.2 for the video-assisted approach. The postoperative course was significantly less painful in patients undergoing the video-assisted approach on postoperative days 3 and 5 (p < 0.01). The degrees of satisfaction for the axillary approach and the video-assisted procedure were 1.2 ± 0.4 and 2.4 ± 1.0, respectively (p < 0.01). The video-assisted approach is less invasive than the axillary approach, but the axillary approach may be indicated for patients who are anxious about the visible cosmetic results.This article was presented at the International Association of Endocrine Surgeons meeting, Uppsala, Sweden, June 14–17, 2004.     

What Is Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery?

Most patient concerns and demands for less invasive surgery are focused on comfort, cosmesis, and rehabilitation that are all related to the degree of invasiveness. The degree of invasiveness of cardiac surgery depends on two factors: the surgical approach--the length of the skin incision, the degree of retraction and aggression to the tissue, and the loss of blood--and the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Regarding the surgical strategy, four categories of less invasive cardiac surgery can be distinguished: (1) direct coronary artery surgery via sternotomy on the beating heart (without extracorporeal circulation); (2) limited or modified approaches using conventional techniques and instruments with either conventional cardiopulmonary bypass or the EndoCPB endovascular cardiopulmonary bypass system; (3) minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass on the beating heart via a parasternal or left anterior small thoracotomy; and (4) true Port-Access surgery in which all surgical acts are performed through ports and the heart is arrested with the Endoaortic Clamp catheter. These categories offer different advantages in terms of reducing invasiveness and may have different learning curves. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery is undergoing an explosive evolution, and although the indications and best strategies for the different categories are yet to be determined, the trend cannot be stopped. We try to distinguish between "fashionable" strategies and those that are truly revolutionary and investments in the future.     

Flexible Juvenile Flat Foot Surgical Correction: A Comparison Between Two Techniques After Ten Years’ Experience

The aim of our study is a retrospective analysis of the 2 most common surgical treatments of symptomatic juvenile flat foot: different arthroereisis techniques. Exosinotarsal arthroereisis with metallic screw and endosinotarsal with bioabsorbable devices were compared. In total, 402 feet were examined for a median follow-up of 130 months. Only symptomatic (plantar or calcaneus pain), flexible, and idiopathic flat feet were included in our study. Congenital (fibrous/bone tarsal coalitions), neurologic, and posttraumatic flat feet were excluded. During clinical examination, the feet were categorized according to the Viladot classification, which took into consideration the plantar impression: only grades 3 and 4 were included (complete medial longitudinal arch collapse). Evaluation was determined by taking into consideration 3 parameters: clinical evaluation, pain, and variation of the radiologic angles. No statistical differences were found between the 2 techniques; the choice can be determined mostly by the surgeon's preference.