• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Who is SAGES?
    • SAGES Mission Statement
    • Advocacy
    • Strategic Plan, 2020-2023
    • Committees
      • Request to Join a SAGES Committee
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Full Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Donate to the SAGES Foundation
    • SAGES Store
    • Awards
      • George Berci Award
      • Pioneer in Surgical Endoscopy
      • Excellence In Clinical Care
      • International Ambassador
      • IRCAD Visiting Fellowship
      • Social Justice and Health Equity
      • Excellence in Community Surgery
      • Distinguished Service
      • Early Career Researcher
      • Researcher in Training
      • Jeff Ponsky Master Educator
      • Excellence in Medical Leadership
      • Barbara Berci Memorial Award
      • Brandeis Scholarship
      • Advocacy Summit
      • RAFT Annual Meeting Abstract Contest and Awards
    • “Unofficial” Logo Products
  • Meetings
    • NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2024 Scientific Session Call For Abstracts
      • 2024 Emerging Technology Call For Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • Industry
      • Advertising Opportunities
      • Exhibit Opportunities
      • Sponsorship Opportunities
    • Future Meetings
    • Related Meetings Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Applications
      • Active Membership
      • Affiliate Membership
      • Associate Active Membership
      • Candidate Membership
      • International Membership
      • Medical Student Membership
    • Member News
      • Member Spotlight
      • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find a SAGES Member
  • Publications
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • SCOPE – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Annoucements
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • OpiVoid.org
    • SAGES.TV Video Library
    • Safe Cholecystectomy Program
      • Safe Cholecystectomy Didactic Modules
    • Masters Program
      • SAGES Facebook Program Collaboratives
      • Acute Care Surgery
      • Bariatric
      • Biliary
      • Colorectal
      • Flexible Endoscopy (upper or lower)
      • Foregut
      • Hernia
      • Robotics
    • Educational Opportunities
    • HPB/Solid Organ Program
    • Courses for Residents
      • Advanced Courses
      • Basic Courses
    • Fellows Career Development Course
    • Robotics Fellows Course
    • MIS Fellows Course
    • Facebook Livestreams
    • Free Webinars For Residents
    • SMART Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video
    • SAGES Top 21 MIS Procedures
    • SAGES Pearls
    • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES Tips & Tricks of the Top 21
  • Opportunities
    • NEW-Area of Concentrated Training Seal (ACT)-Advanced Flexible Endoscopy
    • SAGES Fellowship Certification for Advanced GI MIS and Comprehensive Flexible Endoscopy
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • SAGES Research Opportunities
    • Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy
    • Job Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
  • OWLS
  • Log In

A Comparison of Laparoscopic Transhiatal Esophagectomy Without Thoracoscopic Port Versus Open Transhiatal Esophagectomy

Subhasis Misra, MD, Alexander Fort, BA, Nestor De La Curz, MD, Alan Livingstone, MD. University of Miami

Background: Open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy and open Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) is known to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Few studies have been published comparing an open transhiatal approach and a laparoscopic transhiatal approach without a thoracoscopic port. This study assessed whether there were significant differences between the two procedures regarding specific operative and post-operative variables.

Methods: A series of 26 patients undergoing laparoscopic or open THE performed by the same surgeon for either esophageal cancer or failed myotomy following achalasia were followed prospectively. 20 patients underwent an open resection (18 male, 2 female, average age 60.4, average BMI 27.9, 18 esophageal cancer, 2 achalasia) and 6 patients underwent a laparoscopic resection (6 male, 0 female, average age 57.5, average BMI 29.1, 5 esophageal cancer, 1 achalasia).

Results: Compared to the open group, the laparoscopic group averaged a slightly longer operative time (246 vs 231 min; p = .52), less estimated blood loss (127 vs 338 mL; p = .12), less lymph nodes (LN) sampled (15 vs 22 LN; p = .07), and a shorter length of stay (LOS) (9 vs 11 days; p = .12). In regards to pain medication requirements, patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure had lower averages in morphine PCA use (98 vs 143 mL; p = .65), Roxicet use (57 vs 77 mL; p = .66), and Toradol use (20 vs 92 mg; p = .01). Only total Toradol use proved to be statistically significant. Also, in regards to other analgesic medications, patients undergoing the open procedure required more oral analgesics to control their pain both in supplementation of their PCA and following PCA discontinuation while in the hospital. The open group had one anastomotic leak and one post-operative death while the laparoscopic group did not have either complication.

Conclusions: Early experiences with laparoscopic THE indicate that this is a safe alternative in experienced hands without any oncologic compromise. The greatest advantage is in post-operative patient comfort – the patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure had significantly less pain medication requirements. Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection also had less blood loss during surgery and a shorter length of stay in the hospital. Our findings suggest an open approach may yield a higher number of LN harvested. Since the group was not randomized, LN numbers may have been less due to earlier preoperative staging and a case of nonmaligmant disease. LN retrieval will likely improve with a laparoscopic approach as the surgeon becomes more experienced with the procedure.

Variables Open THE Lap THE
Patients 20 6
OR Time in min 231 246
EBL in ml 338 127
LOS in days 11 9
Lymph Node Count 22 15
PCA in ml 143 98
Roxicet in ml 77 57
Toradol in mg 92 20

Session: Poster
Program Number: P242
View Poster

573

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • WhatsApp
  • Reddit

Related

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064
1-310-437-0544
[email protected]
Monday - Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • TikTok

Important Links

SAGES 2024 Meeting Information

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

 

  • taTME Study Info
  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2023 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons