517 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25454907)
41. Does the Approach Matter? Comparing Survival in Robotic, Minimally Invasive, and Open Esophagectomies.
Espinoza-Mercado F; Imai TA; Borgella JD; Sarkissian A; Serna-Gallegos D; Alban RF; Soukiasian HJ
Ann Thorac Surg; 2019 Feb; 107(2):378-385. PubMed ID: 30312615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Staging accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound based on pathologic analysis after minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Smith BR; Chang KJ; Lee JG; Nguyen NT
Am Surg; 2010 Nov; 76(11):1228-31. PubMed ID: 21140689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Treatment of clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer.
Hardacker TJ; Ceppa D; Okereke I; Rieger KM; Jalal SI; LeBlanc JK; DeWitt JM; Kesler KA; Birdas TJ
Ann Surg Oncol; 2014 Nov; 21(12):3739-43. PubMed ID: 25047477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: experience at a single institution.
Malaisrie SC; Untch B; Aranha GV; Mohideen N; Hantel A; Pickleman J
Arch Surg; 2004 May; 139(5):532-8; discussion 538-9. PubMed ID: 15136354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. The implementation of minimally-invasive esophagectomy does not impact short-term outcome in a high-volume center.
Schwameis K; Ba-Ssalamah A; Wrba F; Birner P; Prager G; Hejna M; Schmid R; Asari R; Zacherl J; Schoppmann SF
Anticancer Res; 2013 May; 33(5):2085-91. PubMed ID: 23645759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Implications of Lymph Node Staging on Selection of Adjuvant Therapy for Gastric Cancer in the United States: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis.
Datta J; McMillan MT; Ecker BL; Karakousis GC; Mamtani R; Plastaras JP; Giantonio BJ; Drebin JA; Dempsey DT; Fraker DL; Roses RE
Ann Surg; 2016 Feb; 263(2):298-305. PubMed ID: 26135687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Changes in oncological outcomes: comparison of the conventional and minimally invasive esophagectomy, a single institution experience.
Khan M; Muzaffar A; Syed AA; Khatak S; Khan AR; Ashraf MI
Updates Surg; 2016 Dec; 68(4):343-349. PubMed ID: 27629484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Perioperative Treatment, Not Surgical Approach, Influences Overall Survival in Patients with Gastroesophageal Junction Tumors: A Nationwide, Population-Based Study in The Netherlands.
Koëter M; Parry K; Verhoeven RH; Luyer MD; Ruurda JP; van Hillegersberg R; Lemmens VE; Nieuwenhuijzen GA
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 May; 23(5):1632-8. PubMed ID: 26727917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Perioperative chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis comparing toxicity, pathologic outcome, and survival.
Goense L; van der Sluis PC; van Rossum PSN; van der Horst S; Meijer GJ; Haj Mohammad N; van Vulpen M; Mook S; Ruurda JP; van Hillegersberg R
J Surg Oncol; 2017 Jun; 115(7):812-820. PubMed ID: 28267212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Nodal metastasis from locally advanced esophageal cancer: how neoadjuvant therapy modifies their frequency and distribution.
Castoro C; Scarpa M; Cagol M; Ruol A; Cavallin F; Alfieri R; Zanchettin G; Rugge M; Ancona E
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Dec; 18(13):3743-54. PubMed ID: 21556952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database.
Sihag S; Kosinski AS; Gaissert HA; Wright CD; Schipper PH
Ann Thorac Surg; 2016 Apr; 101(4):1281-8; discussion 1288-9. PubMed ID: 26704412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. The effect of perioperative chemotherapy for patients with an adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: A propensity score matched analysis.
Parry K; van Rossum PS; Haj Mohammad N; Ruurda JP; van Hillegersberg R
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2017 Jan; 43(1):226-233. PubMed ID: 27424786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Minimally invasive esophagectomy attenuates the postoperative inflammatory response and improves survival compared with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis.
Yamashita K; Watanabe M; Mine S; Toihata T; Fukudome I; Okamura A; Yuda M; Hayami M; Ishizuka N; Imamura Y
Surg Endosc; 2018 Nov; 32(11):4443-4450. PubMed ID: 29644466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.
Tagkalos E; Goense L; Hoppe-Lotichius M; Ruurda JP; Babic B; Hadzijusufovic E; Kneist W; van der Sluis PC; Lang H; van Hillegersberg R; Grimminger PP
Dis Esophagus; 2020 Apr; 33(4):. PubMed ID: 31206577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Anastomosis in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy via two ports provides equivalent perioperative outcomes to open.
Zhao Y; Jiao W; Zhao J; Wang X; Luo Y; Wang Y
Indian J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51 Suppl 2():e25-8. PubMed ID: 25712837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity.
Woodard GA; Crockard JC; Clary-Macy C; Zoon-Besselink CT; Jones K; Korn WM; Ko AH; Gottschalk AR; Rogers SJ; Jablons DM
J Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 114(7):838-847. PubMed ID: 27569043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Propensity score-matched comparison between open and minimal invasive hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Hölscher AH; DeMeester TR; Schmidt H; Berlth F; Bollschweiler E
Langenbecks Arch Surg; 2020 Jun; 405(4):521-532. PubMed ID: 32388717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. The revised American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (7th edition) improves prognostic stratification after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.
Zahoor H; Luketich JD; Weksler B; Winger DG; Christie NA; Levy RM; Gibson MK; Davison JM; Nason KS
Am J Surg; 2015 Oct; 210(4):610-7. PubMed ID: 26188709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Significance of Microscopically Incomplete Resection Margin After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.
Markar SR; Gronnier C; Duhamel A; Pasquer A; Théreaux J; Chalret du Rieu M; Lefevre JH; Turner K; Luc G; Mariette C;
Ann Surg; 2016 Apr; 263(4):712-8. PubMed ID: 26135681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: influence of esophageal resection margin and operative approach on outcome.
Barbour AP; Rizk NP; Gonen M; Tang L; Bains MS; Rusch VW; Coit DG; Brennan MF
Ann Surg; 2007 Jul; 246(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 17592282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
