ライフサイエンスコーパス: esophagectomy

1 ts receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy.

2 ounseling and caring for patients undergoing esophagectomy.

3 esophageal cancer, avoiding the morbidity of esophagectomy.

4 ival is highest for patients who can undergo esophagectomy.

5 and overall 3-year survival for open and MI esophagectomy.

6 (carboplatin/paclitaxel/41.4 Gy) followed by esophagectomy.

7 dity, may serve as a benchmark procedure for esophagectomy.

8 QL) in patients after thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy.

9 postprandial gut hormone profiles following esophagectomy.

10 tic value of extended lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy.

11 ymphadenectomy required when carrying out an esophagectomy.

12 uvant chemotherapy followed by transthoracic esophagectomy.

13 erated HGD are more effectively treated with esophagectomy.

14 tin, 40Gy) followed by 2-field transthoracic esophagectomy.

15 sfully completed neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy.

16 copic evaluation having previously undergone esophagectomy.

17 nt risk factor for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy.

18 pectively, with 2 postoperative deaths after esophagectomy.

19 he surgical intensive care unit (SICU) after esophagectomy.

20 th neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy.

21 orer prognosis than other ADCs after primary esophagectomy.

22 cebo-controlled trial in patients undergoing esophagectomy.

23 guidelines or reviews have been published in esophagectomy.

24 In total, 1282 patients underwent esophagectomy.

25 ts can be treated by ER and which require an esophagectomy.

26 ure was searched for descriptions of ERAS in esophagectomy.

27 ERAS in principle seems logical and safe for esophagectomy.

28 rbidity and in-hospital mortality than total esophagectomy.

29 hospital mortality between partial and total esophagectomy.

30 to 8 weeks later by a transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy.

31 ate (8.3% to 4.2%), particularly for partial esophagectomy.

32 per GI Cancer Audit (DUCA) for transthoracic esophagectomy.

33 n disease free patients up to 20 years after esophagectomy.

34 ssfully introduced in patients undergoing an esophagectomy.

35 ection, pancreatic resection, cystectomy, or esophagectomy.

36 d not adequately predict complications after esophagectomy.

37 Total of 259 patients underwent esophagectomy.

38 ion, and as an outcome parameter for salvage esophagectomy.

39 ients undergoing open and minimally invasive esophagectomy.

40 ry compared to patients up to 23 years after esophagectomy.

41 l episode spending in the lowest tertile for esophagectomy.

42 cic esophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy.

43 nths they had symptoms associated with their esophagectomy.

44 Most patients (85%) underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

45 ed from $18,712 for colectomy to $38,054 for esophagectomy.

46 of neoadjuvant treatment, patients underwent esophagectomy.

47 separately for transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomies.

48 total knee arthroplasties (47.21%) and 4558 esophagectomies (0.29%).

49 between SAE and no-SAE patients was 0.140 in esophagectomy, 0.110 in the Crohn resection, 0.089 in co

50 pitals met annual TVP thresholds (HV or IHV)-esophagectomy 1.6%; proctectomy 19.7%; pancreatectomy 6.

51 Four patients (3 undergoing esophagectomy, 1 undergoing esophageal endoscopic mucosa

52 After esophagectomy, 1046 of 1617 patients (65%) had a postope

53 Sixteen thousand five hundred seventy-two esophagectomies, 12,622 gastrectomies, and 9116 pancreat

54 dical records of 1278 patients who underwent esophagectomy (1990-2011) were reviewed; 784 patients un

55 compare 30- and 90-day mortality rates after esophagectomy, (2) compare drivers of 30- and 90-day mor

56 present 3 management strategies for HGD: (1) esophagectomy, (2) EMR-RFA, and (3) endoscopic surveilla

57 usand nine hundred forty cystectomies, 1,573 esophagectomies, 20,362 lung resections, and 2,844 pancr

58 After esophagectomy, 61% of cT1N0 cancers had concordant clini

59 Travel patients were more likely to undergo esophagectomy (67.8% vs 42.9%, P < 0.001) and had signif

60 The majority of esophagectomy (77.8%) and pancreatectomy (53.4%) and 48.

61 as longer for patients undergoing resection: esophagectomy, 98.6 months; endoscopic therapy, 77.7 mon

62 137 (76.1%) patients who had a transthoracic esophagectomy a CRM infiltration was significantly lower

63 (traditional invasive vs minimally invasive esophagectomy, a multicenter, randomized trial).

64 er study was to assess the impact of salvage esophagectomy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (SALV)

65 nstrated that optimum lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy alone for esophageal cancer provides accur

66 There were 14 955 esophagectomies and 10 671 gastrectomies performed in 14

67 similar and would have spared 19 unnecessary esophagectomies and 16 explorative laparotomies compared

68 Thoracic incisions are not required for all esophagectomies and may increase pulmonary morbidity.

69 thology revealed transmural necrosis in 9/11 esophagectomy and 16/16 gastrectomy specimens.

70 The 3-year overall survival was 35.8% after esophagectomy and 28.4% after gastrectomy (HR 1.2, 95%CI

71 with eosinophilic esophagitis who underwent esophagectomy and 47 consecutive autopsies (controls).

72 of 871 patients were included: 790 following esophagectomy and 81 following gastrectomy.

73 e complication rates were 50% and 25% in the esophagectomy and enucleation groups, respectively, with

74 postoperative morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy and gastrectomy in the Netherlands accordi

75 d recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for esophagectomy and generate guidelines.

76 r centers with appropriate expertise in open esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

77 ggests a relationship between the weekday of esophagectomy and overall survival.

78 a more complicated and costly recovery after esophagectomy and that age is independently predictive o

79 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, transthoracic esophagectomy, and 2-field lymphadenectomy.

80 ber 2015; 23 patients subsequently underwent esophagectomy, and 22 did not undergo surgery.

81 ly node-positive, 68% received transthoracic esophagectomy, and 32% transhiatal or transmediastinal r

82 Long-term symptom burden after esophagectomy, and associations with HRQOL, are poorly u

83 = 3, surgery duration > 255 min, "nonhybrid" esophagectomy, and failure to mobilize patients within 2

84 s underwent esophagogastrectomy, 2 underwent esophagectomy, and in 1 patient, resection was eventuall

85 Four patients had an esophagectomy, and in the remaining 36 patients, 70 ERs

86 complications and death for lung resection, esophagectomy, and pancreatectomy.

87 significantly: for T1a, as an alternative to esophagectomy; and for T1b, as an alternative to no trea

88 Neoadjuvant therapy followed by planned esophagectomy appears to remain the optimum curative tre

89 argin on survival and local recurrence after esophagectomy are conflicting.

90 Patients undergoing an esophagectomy are often kept nil-by-mouth postoperativel

91 female) with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy at a single institution between 1995 and 2

92 In total 171 of 222 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1991 and 2017 who met inclusion cr

93 th neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 1995 and 2017.

94 All patients who underwent nCRT followed by esophagectomy between 2005 and 2014 were identified from

95 All patients who underwent esophagectomy between April 2012 and March 2017 were man

96 We identified patients who underwent esophagectomy between January 2016 and June 2018 from ou

97 Columnar metaplasia is common following esophagectomy, but the absence of dysplasia in this larg

98 rly satiety and weight loss are common after esophagectomy, but the pathophysiology of these phenomen

99 ), or patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (C-index, 0.542); calibration curves showe

100 t (C-index, 0.553), patients undergoing open esophagectomy (C-index, 0.569), or patients undergoing m

101 wallow following total gastrectomy or distal esophagectomy cannot be recommended.

102 resection, 16,127 (6%) CABG and 10,602 (3%) esophagectomy cases.

103 s in treatment; compared endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, chemoradiation, and no treatment; and per

104 Ninety-day mortality was 7.4% after esophagectomy compared with 2.8% after local excision (P

105 sion analysis indicated worse survival after esophagectomy compared with local excision for all cases

106 herlands according to the definitions of the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG).

107 In our experience, esophagectomy could be performed safely and efficiently

108 either ER (cT1a, n = 1581; cT1b, n = 335) or esophagectomy (cT1a, n = 964; cT1b, n = 946).

109 cept study, pretreatment with simvastatin in esophagectomy decreased biomarkers of inflammation as we

110 m 12.7% to 33.6%, whereas chemoradiation and esophagectomy decreased, P < 0.01.

111 atients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy demonstrated that disease presentation and

112 retrospective studies have assessed ERAS for esophagectomy, demonstrating favorable morbidity, mortal

113 Direct oral feeding after an esophagectomy does not affect functional recovery and di

114 ion, this study demonstrates that weekday of esophagectomy does not influence other outcomes includin

115 sion would have lower survival compared with esophagectomy due to potential discordant staging.

116 For a 65-year-old patient, compared to esophagectomy, EMR-RFA yields equivalent utility (11.5 v

117 ed appetite and weight loss are common after esophagectomy (ES), and this cohort demonstrates an exag

118 Eighteen subjects [esophagectomy (ES), n = 10, 2.4 +/- 0.75 years postresec

119 After gastrectomy or esophagectomy, esophagogastrostomy and esophagojejunosto

120 ermined, and when not directly available for esophagectomy, extrapolation from related evidence was m

121 Esophagectomies for nonmetastatic esophageal cancer pati

122 CTICE ADVICE 4: BET should be preferred over esophagectomy for BE patients with intramucosal esophage

123 All patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer (1991-2011) were included.

124 Patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between 2005 and 2010 were iden

125 Patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer between 2011 and 2015 were sele

126 was a cohort study of patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer in 2000-2012 at a high-volume h

127 The gain of proficiency in esophagectomy for cancer is associated with measurable c

128 Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer were identified from the 2007-2

129 Consecutive patients who underwent elective esophagectomy for cancer with gastric tube reconstructio

130 djuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy for cancer.

131 e margins, and morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer.

132 x (BMI) on perioperative complications after esophagectomy for cancer.

133 se of 269 patients without TBN who underwent esophagectomy for caustic injuries.

134 copic mucosal resection for dysplasia and an esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma) received in

135 Patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 1987 and 201

136 ds of 433 patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from March 2010 to M

137 more than half the patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

138 -2013) identified all patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

139 A total gastrectomy and an esophagectomy for GEJ cancer show largely comparable res

140 ess and cost-effectiveness of EMR-RFA versus esophagectomy for HGD remains unclear.

141 Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarci

142 survival of extent of lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy for patients undergoing multimodality (neo

143 Predictors of receiving esophagectomy for patients with T1-3N1M0 mid or distal e

144 vasive or open, transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer between 2011

145 iewed 708 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer during the 4

146 d cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy for the aforementioned patients.

147 Existing evidence supports EMR-RFA over esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal HGD.

148 In esophagectomy, for example, the adjusted odds ratio of m

149 7% to 50.6% was accompanied by a decrease in esophagectomies from 21.7% to 12.8% (P < 0.01).

150 clinical T1-3N0M0 cancer undergoing upfront esophagectomy from 2004 to 2014.

151 pancreaticoduodenectomy, lung resection, or esophagectomy from 2006-2017.

152 patients with EAC who had undergone curative esophagectomy from the United States and Europe (N = 666

153 Surgeon volume ranged from 2 to 29 esophagectomies, from 1 to 14 gastrectomies, and from 2

154 We retrieved data on esophagectomies, gastrectomies, and pancreatectomies for

155 rgeries (pulmonary lobectomy, pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and colectomy) for a primary

156 Each additional case of esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy would red

157 Patients undergoing colectomy, cystectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hysterectomy, lung resection

158 tients who underwent colectomy, proctectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, and hepatect

159 In the esophagectomy group, the median tumoral diameter was 85

160 ectomy: >=80 cases/yr, proctectomy: >=35/yr, esophagectomy: >=41/yr, gastrectomy: >=16/yr, pancreatec

161 Esophagectomy has been associated with decreased HRQOL a

162 shed in colorectal surgery, experience after esophagectomy has been minimal.

163 Esophagectomy has substantial effects upon short-term HR

164 Esophagectomies have an acceptable mortality rate but a

165 Patients undergoing esophagectomy have a high risk of postoperative complica

166 Since 2001, complex procedures such as esophagectomy have been centralized in England, but in t

167 g minimally invasive with open transthoracic esophagectomy have shown improved short-term outcomes; h

168 for cT1a cancers, ER had similar survival to esophagectomy [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% confidence i

169 Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been shown to reduce major post

170 open procedure) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (hybrid procedure).

171 is study was to determine whether weekday of esophagectomy impacts 30-day mortality, and short- and l

172 Esophagectomies in 1,821 patients with esophageal cancer

173 nts undergoing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in 4 European expert centers.

174 l for 16 patients, with enucleation in 8 and esophagectomy in 8.

175 outcome of endoscopic resection (ER) versus esophagectomy in node-negative cT1a and cT1b esophageal

176 ous report that suggests that the weekday of esophagectomy in patients diagnosed with potentially cur

177 trial comparing minimally invasive with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer.

178 ADVICE 5: BET is a reasonable alternative to esophagectomy in patients with submucosal esophageal ade

179 treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy in the National Cancer Data Base (2006-201

180 Esophagectomy involves resection of the esophagus and su

181 Esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure, as

182 tion demonstrate that lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy is a valuable component of neoadjuvant the

183 Esophagectomy is an important, potentially curative trea

184 nclear whether a strategy of surveillance or esophagectomy is appropriate after cCR to CRT.

185 py (AC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with improved overall surviv

186 AC after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with improved survival in pa

187 One-lung ventilation during esophagectomy is associated with inflammation, alveolar

188 Esophagectomy is associated with significant weight loss

189 reating dysplastic BE and early EAC, whereas esophagectomy is indicated for patients with locally adv

190 therapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is unclear.

191 gectomy results in lower morbidity than open esophagectomy is unclear.

192 Metaplasia in the esophageal remnant after esophagectomy is well described, but incidence and the p

193 For esophagectomy, lung resection, and cystectomy, the adjus

194 Both a total gastrectomy and an esophagectomy may be valid treatment options in patients

195 long-term survival after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE), and con

196 of oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with standard of care.

197 The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has reduced postoperative morbidity.

198 Research on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has shown faster postoperative recov

199 assess the feasibility of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a multi-institutional setting.

200 n esophagectomy (OE) with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a population-based setting.

201 standard of care after a minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) performed in a center with a stable

202 g-term survival following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE) for e

203 ndomized TIME trial, when minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was implemented nationally in the Ne

204 Data of consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy (n = 320, 1992 to 2016) were abstracted.

205 r who underwent local excision (n = 1625) or esophagectomy (n = 3255).

206 and randomly assigned to open (n = 56) or MI esophagectomy (n = 59).

207 ional Cancer Database (2006-2012) performing esophagectomy (n = 968), proctectomy (n = 1250), or panc

208 r neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with planned esophagectomy (NCRS) (n = 13,555).

209 juvant chemoradiotherapy followed by planned esophagectomy (NCRS; n = 540) were compared.

210 lly invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer using a nationw

211 stoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer.

212 The aim of this study was to compare open esophagectomy (OE) with minimally invasive esophagectomy

213 imally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE), and conduct a meta-analysis based on

214 (lower extremity revascularization) to 57% (esophagectomy) of the observed variation in failure to r

215 y advanced disease is generally managed with esophagectomy, often accompanied by neoadjuvant chemorad

216 performed for the effect of MIE versus open esophagectomy on clinical outcomes.

217 The impact of esophagectomy on gastrointestinal symptoms and long-term

218 enefit of an increased lymph node yield from esophagectomy on overall and disease-free survival.

219 ificant benefit of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy on POM, potentially due to small populatio

220 domly assigned to undergo transthoracic open esophagectomy (open procedure) or hybrid minimally invas

221 ulmonary dead space (Vd/Vt) at 6 hours after esophagectomy or before extubation.

222 gus has become an encouraging alternative to esophagectomy or continued endoscopic surveillance.

223 tional cohort study, all patients undergoing esophagectomy or gastrectomy for cancer between 2016 and

224 nal cohort study, all patients who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy for cancer with curative in

225 0 patients before and after open transhiatal esophagectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.

226 and pathology results in patients following esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for GEJ cancer.

227 and pathology results in patients following esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for GEJ cancer.

228 oradiotherapy followed by open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE).

229 Esophagectomy outcomes are associated with surgeon and h

230 th 43 (23.9%) patients who had a transhiatal esophagectomy (P = 0.026).

231 "Take the Volume Pledge" aims to centralize esophagectomies, pancreatectomies, and proctectomies to

232 ho underwent surgery during 2001 to 2014 for esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, lung resection, or cystec

233 A total of 596,222 patients undergoing esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, partial or total gastrect

234 id endarterectomy, aortic valve replacement, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, pulmonary resection, hepa

235 pectrum of etiology and severity in the post-esophagectomy patient, with infection per se rarely prov

236 A total of 15,796 esophagectomy patients at 977 hospitals were available f

237 re significantly impaired when compared with esophagectomy patients without TBN.

238 Of 151 salvage esophagectomy patients, 32.5% had failure to cure.

239 Of 4330 esophagectomy patients, 3515 (81%) were male, median age

240 After esophagectomy, patients demonstrate an exaggerated postp

241 There were 7433 esophagectomies performed in 66 English hospitals and 58

242 Dominance of EMR-RFA over esophagectomy persists for all age groups.

243 a) from 1998 to 2011 treated with definitive esophagectomy +/- postoperative radiation and/or chemoth

244 ere was an overall increase in the number of esophagectomy procedures performed (1402 to 1975), with

245 aimed to identify the presence and length of esophagectomy proficiency gain curves in terms of short-

246 isted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (RAMIE) may reduce complications.

247 Examination of 90-day mortality after esophagectomy reflects cancer patient management decisio

248 ment and chemoradiation, whereas the rate of esophagectomies remained approximately 50%.

249 However, esophagectomy remains an extremely high-risk operation,

250 The extent of lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial, with several studie

251 We found that hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in a lower incidence of intraoper

252 sthoracic and transhiatal minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in a more extended lymphadenectom

253 Whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy results in lower morbidity than open esoph

254 moradiotherapy (DCR) with or without salvage esophagectomy (SALV) in the treatment of esophageal canc

255 Esophagectomy samples from 2 patients with eosinophilic

256 were derived from 12 freshly resected human esophagectomy specimens.

257 val after thoracoscopically assisted McKeown esophagectomy (TAMK) and open transthoracic Ivor Lewis e

258 Described in all esophagectomy techniques, rapid adoption has been attrib

259 Patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) were compared with a THORACIC group

260 en volume and outcomes has been observed for esophagectomy, though little is known about why or how p

261 Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) is increasingly used in treatment o

262 Patients who underwent elective esophagectomy, total/partial gastrectomy, major hepatect

263 omy (TAMK) and open transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (TTIL) for esophageal or gastroesophageal

264 d for total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (ttMIE) and to analyze the associated morb

265 es in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (ttMIE).

266 radiation with or without chemotherapy after esophagectomy, using a large, hospital-based dataset.

267 6.4 years, 2 recurrences were observed after esophagectomy versus 0 after enucleation.

268 o determine the comparative effectiveness of esophagectomy versus endoscopic mucosal resection follow

269 Current Leapfrog Group esophagectomy volume guidelines may not predict optimal

270 We examine how esophagectomy volume thresholds reflect outcomes relativ

271 re to establish if R1 resection margin after esophagectomy was (i) a poor prognostic factor independe

272 postoperatively among 13 patients undergoing esophagectomy was 11.1 +/- 2.3% (P < 0.001) and 16.3 +/-

273 Transhiatal minimally invasive esophagectomy was accompanied with more post-operative m

274 tion of dysphagia, which improved over time, esophagectomy was associated with decreased HRQOL and la

275 (either sequentially or concomitantly) after esophagectomy was associated with improved OS for patien

276 Risk-adjusted Cox modeling showed esophagectomy was associated with improved survival [haz

277 Long-term survival after minimally invasive esophagectomy was equivalent to open in both propensity-

278 immune function, and clinical outcomes post-esophagectomy was not supported.

279 GEJ cancer in whom a total gastrectomy or an esophagectomy was performed between 2011-2016 were compa

280 4 consecutive total gastrectomies and distal esophagectomies were analysed.

281 Between 2001 and 2010, 15,190 esophagectomies were performed for cancer.

282 The corresponding 5-year survival for ER and esophagectomy were 53% versus 61% (P = 0.3), respectivel

283 The corresponding 5-year survival for ER and esophagectomy were 70% and 74% (P = 0.1), respectively.

284 Adult patients undergoing elective esophagectomy were allocated to prerandomized, sequentia

285 Patients who underwent either enucleation or esophagectomy were compared.

286 in the United States continues to be partial esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis, which w

287 esected nodes and survival in patients after esophagectomy with and without nCRT.

288 wert I), were randomized between open and MI esophagectomy with curative intent.

289 esophagus or GEJ who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with en bloc 2-field lymphadenectomy after

290 node yields are possible after transthoracic esophagectomy with en bloc 2-field lymphadenectomy in pa

291 ctive study, consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were s

292 leaks are a major source of morbidity after esophagectomy with gastric pull-up (GPU).

293 al imperative to reconsider the necessity of esophagectomy with its substantial morbidity and mortali

294 s with esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy and investigating the

295 nodal metastasis and thus would benefit from esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy.

296 from a cohort of 160 patients who underwent esophagectomy with no preoperative chemoradiotherapy at

297 n patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy with or without neoadjuvant therapy.

298 usion in 150 consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy with planned GPU reconstruction.

299 patients had undergone transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy, with a median of 27 resected lymph nodes

300 cifically pulmonary complications, than open esophagectomy, without compromising overall and disease-