ArticleDer Anaesthesist2013
[Minimally invasive abdominothoracic esophagus resection by transoral esophagogastrostomy: interdisciplinary challenge].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResection of the esophagus is an invasive 2-cavitiy procedure which requires special anesthesiological expertise during perioperative care. Furthermore, in surgery new minimally invasive techniques are continually being established which place special challenges on the treatment team because the anesthesiologist is decisively involved in the course of surgery.
aimThe aim of this article is to present the development of surgical treatment options for esophageal cancer starting from classical open resection up to the minimally invasive technique of esophagectomy (MIE). Previous experience with MIE on a cohort of patients is presented and the special anesthesiological characteristics of this innovative technique are illustrated. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn the department for general, visceral and transplantation surgery of the University Medical Center of Mainz, minimally invasive abdominothoracic esophageal resection has been carried out since 2010. High thoracic anastomization was performed using the EEA™-OrVil™ system operated by the anesthesiologist. Currently 17 highly selected patients have been surgically treated using this technique.
resultsEsophagogastric anastomosis with the EEA™-OrVil™ system was feasible in all patients. Transoral introduction of the gastric probe with the connecting sheath and the angled anvil led to minor dislocation of the double lumen tube in only one patient and could immediately be corrected. Further intraoperative complications did not occur. Four of the 17 patients developed pneumonia which could be controlled by intravenous antibiotics. None of the patients had to be reintubated. One patient developed gastric tube necrosis and died 51 days postoperatively due to massive intracerebral hemorrhage. There were no complications of anastomoses following OrVil™ anastomization. In all patients an R0 resection could be achieved.
conclusionMinimally invasive esophagectomy with transoral anastomization appears to be an enrichment of the minimally invasive spectrum as interdisciplinary cooperation leads to reduced operation time and a more efficient process of anastomization. This also results in decreased one-lung ventilation time which is directly correlated to postoperative pulmonary complications. In particular, the interdisciplinary character of this technique and the necessity for targeted communication proved to be of assistance also in other situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.