143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38030524)
1. National trends in technique use for esophagectomy: Does primary surgeon specialty matter?
Dyas AR; Mungo B; Bronsert MR; Stuart CM; Mungo AH; Mitchell JD; Randhawa SK; David E; Stewart CL; McCarter MD; Meguid RA
Surgery; 2024 Feb; 175(2):353-359. PubMed ID: 38030524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Minimally invasive surgery is associated with decreased postoperative complications after esophagectomy.
Dyas AR; Stuart CM; Bronsert MR; Schulick RD; McCarter MD; Meguid RA
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2023 Jul; 166(1):268-278. PubMed ID: 36577613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Impact of surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer.
Verma A; Hadaya J; Kronen E; Sakowitz S; Chervu N; Bakhtiyar SS; Benharash P
Surg Endosc; 2023 Nov; 37(11):8309-8315. PubMed ID: 37679585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Postoperative Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort.
Turner KM; Delman AM; Johnson K; Patel SH; Wilson GC; Shah SA; Van Haren RM
J Surg Res; 2023 Mar; 283():152-160. PubMed ID: 36410231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique.
Meredith KL; Maramara T; Blinn P; Lee D; Huston J; Shridhar R
J Gastrointest Surg; 2020 Jun; 24(6):1261-1268. PubMed ID: 31197697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A 10-year ACS-NSQIP Analysis of Trends in Esophagectomy Practices.
Zheng R; Tham EJH; Rios-Diaz AJ; Grenda TR; Evans NR; Rosato EL; Palazzo F; Berger AC
J Surg Res; 2020 Dec; 256():103-111. PubMed ID: 32683050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Clinical observation on perioperative complications of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis and minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy].
Zhou JM; Jing SJ; Lu QT; Chu X; Xue T
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2022 Jun; 44(6):577-580. PubMed ID: 35754233
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown.
Brown AM; Pucci MJ; Berger AC; Tatarian T; Evans NR; Rosato EL; Palazzo F
Surg Endosc; 2018 Jan; 32(1):204-211. PubMed ID: 28643075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of preoperative risk factors and postoperative indicators for anastomotic leak of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy: a single-center retrospective analysis.
Gao C; Xu G; Wang C; Wang D
J Cardiothorac Surg; 2019 Feb; 14(1):46. PubMed ID: 30819240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Short-term efficacy comparison between Ivor-Lewis approach and McKeown approach in minimally invasive esophagectomy].
Lin J; Kang M; Lin J; Chen S; Deng F; Han W; Lin R
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2014 Sep; 17(9):888-91. PubMed ID: 25273657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy.
Dezube AR; Kucukak S; De León LE; Kostopanagiotou K; Jaklitsch MT; Wee JO
Surg Endosc; 2022 Feb; 36(2):1332-1338. PubMed ID: 33660122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. McKeown Versus Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Patients with a History of Total Pharyngolaryngectomy: A Comparison Study.
Kuriyama K; Okamura A; Kanie Y; Maruyama S; Sakamoto K; Kanamori J; Imamura Y; Watanabe M
World J Surg; 2023 Oct; 47(10):2479-2487. PubMed ID: 37432423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive esophagectomy portends worse short-term outcomes: an analysis of the National Cancer Database.
Halpern AL; Friedman C; Torphy RJ; Al-Musawi MH; Mitchell JD; Scott CD; Meguid RA; McCarter MD; Weyant MJ; Gleisner AL
Surg Endosc; 2020 Aug; 34(8):3470-3478. PubMed ID: 31591657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a matched-pair single-center cohort analysis.
Chouliaras K; Attwood K; Brady M; Takahashi H; Peng JS; Yendamuri S; Demmy TL; Hochwald SN; Kukar M
Dis Esophagus; 2022 Dec; 36(1):. PubMed ID: 35758409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of Robotic Approach on Post-Anastomotic Leaks After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.
Wu J; Putnam LR; Silva JP; Houghton C; Bildzukewicz N; Lipham JC
Am Surg; 2022 Oct; 88(10):2499-2507. PubMed ID: 35652374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Circular vs. linear stapling after minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy: a pooled analysis.
Finze A; Betzler J; Hetjens S; Reissfelder C; Otto M; Blank S
Langenbecks Arch Surg; 2022 Aug; 407(5):1831-1838. PubMed ID: 35731445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Ivor Lewis vs Mckeown esophagectomy: analysis of operative outcomes from the ACS NSQIP database.
Sabra MJ; Alwatari YA; Wolfe LG; Xu A; Kaplan BJ; Cassano AD; Shah RD
Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2020 Apr; 68(4):370-379. PubMed ID: 31933140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of intraoperative fluid management on postoperative complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a retrospective single-center study.
Takahashi M; Toyama H; Takahashi K; Kaiho Y; Ejima Y; Yamauchi M
BMC Anesthesiol; 2024 Jan; 24(1):29. PubMed ID: 38238681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Mu JW; Gao SG; Xue Q; Mao YS; Wang DL; Zhao J; Gao YS; Huang JF; He J
World J Gastroenterol; 2015 Dec; 21(45):12873-81. PubMed ID: 26668512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Short-term outcomes after esophagectomy at 164 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hospitals: effect of operative approach and hospital-level variation.
Merkow RP; Bilimoria KY; McCarter MD; Phillips JD; DeCamp MM; Sherman KL; Ko CY; Bentrem DJ
Arch Surg; 2012 Nov; 147(11):1009-16. PubMed ID: 23165615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
