Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;28(1):175-183.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08760-8. Epub 2020 Jun 30.

Transthoracic Versus Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis

Affiliations

Transthoracic Versus Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis

Alexander C Mertens et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Chemoradiation followed by resection has been the standard therapy for resectable (cT1-4aN0-3M0) esophageal carcinoma in the Netherlands since 2010. The optimal surgical approach remains a matter of debate. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the transhiatal and the transthoracic approach concerning morbidity, mortality and oncological quality.

Methods: Data was acquired from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. Patients who underwent esophagectomy with curative intent and gastric tube reconstruction for mid/distal esophageal or esophagogastric junction carcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3M0) from 2011 to 2016 were included. Patients who underwent a transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy were compared after propensity score matching.

Results: After propensity score matching, 1532 of 4143 patients were included for analysis. The transthoracic approach yielded more lymph nodes (transthoracic median 19, transhiatal median 14; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the number of positive lymph nodes, however, the median (y)pN-stage was higher in the transthoracic group (p = 0.044). The transthoracic group experienced more chyle leakage (9.7% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001), more pulmonary complications (35.5% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001), and more cardiac complications (15.4% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.003). The transthoracic group required a longer hospital stay (median 14 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001), ICU stay (median 3 vs. 1 day, p < 0.001), and had a higher 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate (4.0% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.009).

Conclusions: In a propensity score-matched cohort, the transthoracic esophagectomy provided a more extensive lymph node dissection, which resulted in a higher lymph node yield, at the cost of increased morbidity and short-term mortality.

Keywords: Esophagectomy; Neoplasms; Transhiatal; Transthoracic; Upper gastrointestinal tract.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Van Berge Henegouwen reports to be a consultant for Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Stryker, and Mylan, in addition to institutional grants from Stryker and Olympus. The remaining have no conflict of interest to report.

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262. - DOI - PubMed
    1. IKNL. Nederlandse Kankerregistratie (NKR). https://www.cijfersoverkanker.nl. Accessed 20 Nov 2018.
    1. Van Hagen P, Hulshof MCCM, Van Lanschot JJB, et al. Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2074–2084. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112088. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hulscher JBF, Van Sandick JW, De Boer AGEM, et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(21):1662–1669. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31815c4037. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Omloo JMT, Lagarde SM, Hulscher JBF, et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the mid/distal esophagus: five-year survival of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246(6):992–1000. 10.1097/sla.0b013e31815c4037. (discussion 1000-1) - PubMed