These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Transhiatal esophagectomy for benign disease.
    Author: Orringer MB.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1985 Nov; 90(5):649-55. PubMed ID: 4058037.
    Abstract:
    Transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy has been performed in 65 adult patients with dysphagia from benign esophageal disease: strictures (30), neuromotor dysfunction (24), acute iatrogenic perforation (five), acute caustic injury (four), and recurrent gastroesophageal reflux (two). Nearly 70% (45) had undergone at least one prior esophageal operation, and 26% (17) had a history of between two and four esophageal operations. The esophagus was replaced with stomach in 53 patients (82%), colon being used only when there was a history of either prior gastric resection or caustic injury to the stomach (10 patients). Intraoperative blood loss averaged 1,050 ml. Intraoperative complications included pneumothorax in 38 patients (58%) and a tracheal laceration in one patient. Postoperative complications included transient recurrent laryngeal nerve paresis (11 patients, 17%), chylothorax (four patients, 6%), anastomotic leak (four patients, 6%), and small bowel obstruction (two patients). There were five hospital deaths (8% mortality), none related to the technique of esophagectomy. Follow-up ranges from 1 to 84 months (average 28 months). Of 46 patients with a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis in the original esophageal bed, 42 have had an excellent functional result although 17 have required at least one postoperative esophageal dilation. Two have developed true anastomotic strictures. Clinically significant gastroesophageal reflux has not occurred. Transhiatal esophagectomy for benign disease is feasible and safe, even after multiple previous esophageal operations. The stomach appears to be a better visceral esophageal substitute than colon, because it allows an initially easier technical operation and superior long-term functional results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]