ライフサイエンスコーパス: esophagectomy

1 ed esophagectomy) or esophagectomy (extended esophagectomy).

2 her-volume hospital (25% pancreatectomy; 26% esophagectomy).

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

4 orer prognosis than other ADCs after primary esophagectomy.

5 cebo-controlled trial in patients undergoing esophagectomy.

6 guidelines or reviews have been published in esophagectomy.

7 In total, 1282 patients underwent esophagectomy.

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

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

10 ure was searched for descriptions of ERAS in esophagectomy.

11 ERAS in principle seems logical and safe for esophagectomy.

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

13 rbidity and in-hospital mortality than total esophagectomy.

14 hospital mortality between partial and total esophagectomy.

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

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

17 ave adopted a minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy.

18 ase after 12 months and died 37 months after esophagectomy.

19 All patients underwent an en bloc esophagectomy.

20 e anesthetic care of patients presenting for esophagectomy.

21 alue: 31%), with 69% having local disease at esophagectomy.

22 o patients in whom metaplasia persisted; and esophagectomy.

23 cer, (2) post-CRT endoscopic biopsy, and (3) esophagectomy.

24 QL) in patients after thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy.

25 treated with PDT with patients treated with esophagectomy.

26 ageal adenocarcinoma who received CRT before esophagectomy.

27 Drug Administration-approved alternative to esophagectomy.

28 operative mortality between gastrectomy and esophagectomy.

29 ntained postoperatively with a vagal-sparing esophagectomy.

30 postprandial gut hormone profiles following esophagectomy.

31 65%) were treated with PDT and 70 (35%) with esophagectomy.

32 hospital stay than a transhiatal or en bloc esophagectomy.

33 comparable to that of patients treated with esophagectomy.

34 (n=49), transhiatal (n=39) or en bloc (n=21) esophagectomy.

35 .61 (95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.03) for esophagectomy.

36 o 6 weeks after chemoradiation, prior to the esophagectomy.

37 adical cystectomy, pancreatic resection, and esophagectomy.

38 ted with current curative procedures such as esophagectomy.

39 ee-hole (23%), or left thoracoabdominal (8%) esophagectomy.

40 often affect choice of surgical approach for esophagectomy.

41 tic value of extended lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy.

42 ymphadenectomy required when carrying out an esophagectomy.

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

44 uvant chemotherapy followed by transthoracic esophagectomy.

45 erated HGD are more effectively treated with esophagectomy.

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

47 sfully completed neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy.

48 copic evaluation having previously undergone esophagectomy.

49 nt risk factor for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy.

50 pectively, with 2 postoperative deaths after esophagectomy.

51 ional studies), reporting outcomes of 57,299 esophagectomies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59 (67% of the decline), cystectomy (37%), and esophagectomy (32%), but not for the other procedures.

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

61 Of the 874 hospitals that performed esophagectomies, 83% (723) were low-volume hospitals whe

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 operations in 2005 to 2006: pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronar

65 be considered in evaluation of patients for esophagectomy after chemoradiation.

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

67 A total of 4627 patients who had esophagectomy alone for esophageal cancer were identifie

68 eteen consecutive patients underwent radical esophagectomy alone for treatment of superficial esophag

69 atterns of failure of trimodality therapy to esophagectomy alone in patients with nonmetastatic esoph

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

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

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

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

74 ients were resected by transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy and 2-field lymphadenectomy.

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

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

77 percentage of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up is due to leakage of t

78 postoperative morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up.

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

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

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

82 ong high-grade dysplasia patients undergoing esophagectomy and similar long-term survival in endoscop

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

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

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

86 aortic aneurysms, colectomy, pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and repair of hip fracture.

87 n in mortality, particularly for the partial esophagectomy approach.

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

89 e significantly lower for pancreatectomy and esophagectomy at Specialized Centers.

90 follow-up of 5 years, only patients who had esophagectomy before October 2002 were included.

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

92 All patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 1994 and December 2002 wer

93 rical thresholds of 250 CABG, 15 AAA, and 22 esophagectomies, but were unable to find a meaningful th

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

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

96 Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed safely, with good results

97 e whether the risk of systemic disease after esophagectomy can be predicted by the number of involved

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

99 tient Sample (NIS) database: lung resection, esophagectomy, colectomy, pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, a

100 s significantly reduced with a vagal-sparing esophagectomy compared with a transhiatal or en bloc res

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

102 e whether the risk of systemic disease after esophagectomy could be predicted by angiogenesis-related

103 e volumes and was unrelated to mortality for esophagectomy, cystectomy, lung resection, aortic valve

104 Using the authors' prospective Esophagectomy Database, this single institution experien

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

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

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

108 olume hospitals, while the overall number of esophagectomies dropped by 22%.

109 Low-volume hospitals performed a median of 1 esophagectomy during the 4-year study period and cared f

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

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

112 rysm repair (AAA), pancreatectomy (PAN), and esophagectomy (ESO) as primary procedures were selected.

113 rysm repair (AAA), pancreatectomy (PAN), and esophagectomy (ESO).

114 After gastrectomy or esophagectomy, esophagogastrostomy and esophagojejunosto

115 clusive evidence of its benefits over "open" esophagectomy, especially in the absence of randomized t

116 into gastrectomy (limited esophagectomy) or esophagectomy (extended esophagectomy).

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

118 A retrospective review of all esophagectomies for cancer from 1970 to 2004 (n = 1223)

119 Esophagectomies for nonmetastatic esophageal cancer pati

120 well tolerated and effective alternative to esophagectomy for a select patient population with high-

121 s were obtained from each patient undergoing esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma.

122 in 2, esophagectomy for malignancy in 3, and esophagectomy for benign stricture in 2.

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 ies comparing transthoracic with transhiatal esophagectomy for cancer demonstrates no difference in 5

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

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

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

130 n in most patients who survive 5 years after esophagectomy for cancer, although a subgroup of patient

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

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

133 n HRQL in patients who survive 5 years after esophagectomy for cancer.

134 2009 reporting morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer.

135 s an independent predictor of survival after esophagectomy for cancer.

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

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

138 us (BE) include endoscopic surveillance with esophagectomy for early-stage cancer, although new techn

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

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

141 Data on patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were extracted from

142 -2013) identified all patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

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

144 im of this review is to evaluate the role of esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and intramu

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

146 perations included colon interposition in 2, esophagectomy for malignancy in 3, and esophagectomy for

147 ciated with the occurrence of delirium after esophagectomy for malignancy.

148 ency ablation (RFA) is a safe alternative to esophagectomy for patients with dysplastic Barrett's eso

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

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

151 y specimens of all patients that had primary esophagectomy for T1 adenocarcinoma of the distal esopha

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

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

154 outcomes following intrathoracic leaks after esophagectomy from 1970 to 2004 to evaluate the impact o

155 udied 4498 elderly patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 2004 to 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

161 des were employed for colorectal procedures, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, thyroidectom

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

163 The minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy has attracted attention as a potentially l

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

165 An intrathoracic leak following esophagectomy has historically been considered a catastr

166 Esophagectomies have an acceptable mortality rate but a

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

168 gh minimally invasive surgical approaches to esophagectomy have been reported since 1992, MIE is stil

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

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

171 Esophagectomies in 1,821 patients with esophageal cancer

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

173 With the decline in mortality from esophagectomy in high-volume centers over the last 30 ye

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

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

176 g esophagectomy with transhiatal and en bloc esophagectomy in patients with intramucosal adenocarcino

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

178 Esophagectomy is a complex operation and is associated w

179 Esophagectomy is an important, potentially curative trea

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

181 Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with higher reintervention r

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

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

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

185 However, traditional esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity a

186 Esophagectomy is associated with significant weight loss

187 A vagal-sparing esophagectomy is associated with significantly less peri

188 hood of lymphatic or systemic metastases and esophagectomy is curative in most patients.

189 Primary esophagectomy is curative in some but not all patients w

190 Minimally invasive esophagectomy is feasible with a low conversion rate, ac

191 Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed in the United Ki

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

193 Consequently a vagal-sparing esophagectomy is the preferred procedure for patients wi

194 therapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is unclear.

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

196 lementary and sensitivity analyses comprised esophagectomy management of high-grade dysplasia or intr

197 lution of the minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy may improve outcomes of this major operati

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

199 evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a large group of patients.

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

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

202 d to identify the effect of minimal invasive esophagectomy (MIE) on the outcomes after adjustment for

203 In contrast, for esophagectomy, mortality rates in 1998 to 1999 differed

204 ansthoracic en bloc (n = 161) or transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 10) for pT1 esophageal cancer [121 ad

205 nts underwent R0/R1 gastrectomy (n = 153) or esophagectomy (n = 352) without neoadjuvant treatment.

206 laparoscopic hand-assisted blunt transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 5), and laparoscopic proximal gastrec

207 osis (n = 47), minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n = 51), laparoscopic hand-assisted blunt

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

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

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

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

212 A vagal-sparing esophagectomy offers the advantages of complete disease

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

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

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

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

217 manage a variety of complications following esophagectomy or gastric surgery.

218 0 patients before and after open transhiatal esophagectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.

219 survival rates than patients receiving open esophagectomy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.46-1.01, P = 0.058)

220 aches were grouped into gastrectomy (limited esophagectomy) or esophagectomy (extended esophagectomy)

221 e performance of pancreatectomy, AAA repair, esophagectomy, or CABG.

222 stems characteristics seem to achieve better esophagectomy outcomes.

223 , extended resection (P = 0.0009), emergency esophagectomy (P = 0.013), and tracheobronchial injuries

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

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

226 cancer surgeries (prostatectomy, cystectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, pneumonectomy, and liver

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

228 Compared with total esophagectomy, partial esophagectomy was associated with

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

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

231 After esophagectomy, patients demonstrate an exaggerated postp

232 The number of esophagectomies performed for esophageal cancer has incr

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

234 a substantial increase in the proportion of esophagectomies performed in high-volume hospitals, whil

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

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

237 us) from 9 international centers that had R0 esophagectomy prior to 2002 and were followed at regular

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

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

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

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

242 Esophagectomy samples from 2 patients with eosinophilic

243 were derived from 12 freshly resected human esophagectomy specimens.

244 s determined from a systematic review of the esophagectomy specimens.

245 In some cases, esophagectomy still remains the best treatment option.

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

247 "Rediscovered" in 1976, transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) has been applicable in most situatio

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

249 After esophagectomy, the prognosis of patients with sm1/sm2 in

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

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

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

253 ediastinal mass resections, lobectomies, and esophagectomies); unfortunately there are very limited r

254 ies comparing transthoracic with transhiatal esophagectomy up to January 31, 2010.

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

256 6.4 years, 2 recurrences were observed after esophagectomy versus 0 after enucleation.

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

258 We divided hospitals into terciles based on esophagectomy volume and examined characteristics of pat

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

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

261 The frequency of systemic disease after esophagectomy was 16% for those without nodal involvemen

262 Compared with total esophagectomy, partial esophagectomy was associated with a shorter length of ho

263 On multivariate regression analysis, total esophagectomy was associated with higher serious morbidi

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

265 ditionally therapy including redo myotomy or esophagectomy was higher in the endoscopically treated g

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

267 Esophagectomy was performed by either transhiatal or tra

268 nventional right-sided transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy was performed.

269 Partial esophagectomy was the predominant operation (76%).

270 4 consecutive total gastrectomies and distal esophagectomies were analysed.

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

272 A total of 18,673 esophagectomies were performed over the 12-year study pe

273 In group Surv, 2 salvage esophagectomies were performed.

274 Seven thousand five hundred and two esophagectomies were undertaken; of these, 1155 (15.4%)

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

276 ageal cancer who underwent partial and total esophagectomy were analyzed.

277 Patients who underwent either enucleation or esophagectomy were compared.

278 ma, 353 squamous carcinoma) who underwent R0 esophagectomy with > or =15 lymph nodes resected at 9 in

279 Operations consisted of esophagectomy with (1700) and without (603) thoracotomy.

280 proaches included thoracoscopic/laparoscopic esophagectomy with a cervical anastomosis (n = 47), mini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

289 The esophagectomy with neoadjuvant therapy is also in immuno

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

291 Patients were randomly assigned to either esophagectomy with node dissection alone or cisplatin 10

292 1.8 Gy/fraction over 5.6 weeks) followed by esophagectomy with node dissection.

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

294 aim was to compare outcome of vagal-sparing esophagectomy with transhiatal and en bloc esophagectomy

295 have compared transthoracic with transhiatal esophagectomy with varying results.

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

297 4 patients with esophageal cancer treated by esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy between Januar

298 with pT1 esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy without preoperative therapy and assess th

299 ed the records of all patients who underwent esophagectomy without preoperative therapy for pT1 esoph

300 fore an effective and durable alternative to esophagectomy; www.trialregister.nl number, NTR2938.