HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Andrew C. Chang Mark B. Orringer Permission Requests Google Scholar Articles by Chang, A. C. Articles by Birkmeyer, J. D. PubMed Articles by Chang, A. C. Articles by Birkmeyer, J. D. Related Collections Esophagus - cancer

---

Original Articles: General Thoracic

Outcomes After Transhiatal and Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Cancer

^a Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
^b Michigan Surgical Collaborative for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (M-SCORE), University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Accepted for publication October 2, 2007.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Chang, Section of Thoracic Surgery, TC2120G/0344, 1500 East Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (Email: andrwchg{at}umich.edu).

Background: Although single-center series evaluating esophagectomy for cancer have demonstrated that this operation can be performed safely and with excellent outcomes, controversy remains regarding the comparable oncologic efficacy of the transhiatal and transthoracic approaches. This study was performed to determine outcomes after transhiatal and transthoracic esophagectomy for patients undergoing resection nationwide.

Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database (1992 to 2002), we identified registered patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We evaluated operative mortality, late survival, and length of stay while adjusting for patient characteristics, tumor grade, and stage. As a surrogate for postoperative quality of life, we also assessed subsequent need for anastomotic dilation.

Results: Of 868 patients undergoing either approach, for whom distinct Current Procedural Technology codes could be identified, 225 underwent transhiatal and 643 received transthoracic esophagectomy. Lower operative mortality rate was observed after a transhiatal than transthoracic approach (6.7% versus 13.1%, p = 0.009). Observed 5-year survival was higher for patients undergoing transhiatal rather than transthoracic esophagectomy (30.5% versus 22.7%, p = 0.02). After adjusting for differences in tumor stage, patient, and provider factors, this survival advantage was no longer statistically significant (adjusted hazard ratio for mortality, 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 1.20). Patients undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy were more likely to require endoscopic dilatation within 6 months of surgery (43.1% versus 34.5% for transthoracic operations, p = 0.02).

Conclusions: In the largest population-based study to date assessing long-term outcome after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, transhiatal esophagectomy confers an early survival advantage, but long-term survival does not appear to differ according to surgical approach.