Cargando…

Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?

BACKGROUND: Submucosal tumors (SMTs) of different etiologies exist from esophagus to rectum. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is one of the known difficult locations for tumor resection. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a well-established approach for gastrointestinal surgery, there is no...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Yi-Chun, Yeh, Chun-Nan, Chen, Ming-Yang, Wang, Shang-Yu, Liu, Keng-Hao, Tsai, Chun-Yi, Yeh, Ta-Sen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7430816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32762661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6
_version_ 1783571485818880000
author Huang, Yi-Chun
Yeh, Chun-Nan
Chen, Ming-Yang
Wang, Shang-Yu
Liu, Keng-Hao
Tsai, Chun-Yi
Yeh, Ta-Sen
author_facet Huang, Yi-Chun
Yeh, Chun-Nan
Chen, Ming-Yang
Wang, Shang-Yu
Liu, Keng-Hao
Tsai, Chun-Yi
Yeh, Ta-Sen
author_sort Huang, Yi-Chun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Submucosal tumors (SMTs) of different etiologies exist from esophagus to rectum. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is one of the known difficult locations for tumor resection. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a well-established approach for gastrointestinal surgery, there is no consensus that MIS for resection of SMTs around EGJ is superior to laparotomy. We tried to clarify the factors that determine the surgeons’ choices between these two approaches. METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2016, 909 patients with SMTs underwent resection in our department. Among them, 119 patients (13%) had SMTs around EGJ were enrolled by retrospective review. The clinicopathological features and tumor-related parameters were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: The cohort was stratified into three groups according to the extent of gastrectomy and surgical approaches. The three groups are as following: major gastrectomy (n = 13), minor gastrectomy by laparotomy (n = 51), and minor gastrectomy with MIS (n = 55). The average tumor size was significantly larger in the major gastrectomy group than in the two minor gastrectomy groups; however, there was no difference between the two minor gastrectomy groups (5.33 cm, 4.07 cm, and 3.69 cm, respectively). The minor gastrectomy with MIS required least hospital stay and operation duration also. We re-stratify the two minor gastrectomy groups (n = 106) according to the orientation of SMTs around the EGJ into 4 zones. Most of SMTs located on the greater curvature side of the EGJ were resected with MIS (82% versus 18%), whereas SMTs in the other zones were resected more often by laparotomy (59% versus 41%). There was no surgical mortality within the cohort, while minor gastrectomy with MIS yielded least number of leakages among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: For SMTs around the EGJ, larger tumors (diameter of more than 5 cm) are more likely to be resected with major gastrectomy. To resect SMTs around the EGJ in a wedge-like (minor gastrectomy) fashion, tumors located other than the greater curvature side were more often resected by laparotomy. However, MIS yielded acceptable safety and surgical outcomes compared to conventional laparotomy for SMTs around the EGJ of the same size.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7430816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74308162020-08-18 Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? Huang, Yi-Chun Yeh, Chun-Nan Chen, Ming-Yang Wang, Shang-Yu Liu, Keng-Hao Tsai, Chun-Yi Yeh, Ta-Sen BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Submucosal tumors (SMTs) of different etiologies exist from esophagus to rectum. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is one of the known difficult locations for tumor resection. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a well-established approach for gastrointestinal surgery, there is no consensus that MIS for resection of SMTs around EGJ is superior to laparotomy. We tried to clarify the factors that determine the surgeons’ choices between these two approaches. METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2016, 909 patients with SMTs underwent resection in our department. Among them, 119 patients (13%) had SMTs around EGJ were enrolled by retrospective review. The clinicopathological features and tumor-related parameters were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: The cohort was stratified into three groups according to the extent of gastrectomy and surgical approaches. The three groups are as following: major gastrectomy (n = 13), minor gastrectomy by laparotomy (n = 51), and minor gastrectomy with MIS (n = 55). The average tumor size was significantly larger in the major gastrectomy group than in the two minor gastrectomy groups; however, there was no difference between the two minor gastrectomy groups (5.33 cm, 4.07 cm, and 3.69 cm, respectively). The minor gastrectomy with MIS required least hospital stay and operation duration also. We re-stratify the two minor gastrectomy groups (n = 106) according to the orientation of SMTs around the EGJ into 4 zones. Most of SMTs located on the greater curvature side of the EGJ were resected with MIS (82% versus 18%), whereas SMTs in the other zones were resected more often by laparotomy (59% versus 41%). There was no surgical mortality within the cohort, while minor gastrectomy with MIS yielded least number of leakages among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: For SMTs around the EGJ, larger tumors (diameter of more than 5 cm) are more likely to be resected with major gastrectomy. To resect SMTs around the EGJ in a wedge-like (minor gastrectomy) fashion, tumors located other than the greater curvature side were more often resected by laparotomy. However, MIS yielded acceptable safety and surgical outcomes compared to conventional laparotomy for SMTs around the EGJ of the same size. BioMed Central 2020-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7430816/ /pubmed/32762661 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Huang, Yi-Chun
Yeh, Chun-Nan
Chen, Ming-Yang
Wang, Shang-Yu
Liu, Keng-Hao
Tsai, Chun-Yi
Yeh, Ta-Sen
Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?
title Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?
title_full Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?
title_fullStr Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?
title_full_unstemmed Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?
title_short Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?
title_sort surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7430816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32762661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6
work_keys_str_mv AT huangyichun surgicaloptionsforsubmucosaltumorsneartheesophagogastricjunctiondoessizeorlocationmatter
AT yehchunnan surgicaloptionsforsubmucosaltumorsneartheesophagogastricjunctiondoessizeorlocationmatter
AT chenmingyang surgicaloptionsforsubmucosaltumorsneartheesophagogastricjunctiondoessizeorlocationmatter
AT wangshangyu surgicaloptionsforsubmucosaltumorsneartheesophagogastricjunctiondoessizeorlocationmatter
AT liukenghao surgicaloptionsforsubmucosaltumorsneartheesophagogastricjunctiondoessizeorlocationmatter
AT tsaichunyi surgicaloptionsforsubmucosaltumorsneartheesophagogastricjunctiondoessizeorlocationmatter
AT yehtasen surgicaloptionsforsubmucosaltumorsneartheesophagogastricjunctiondoessizeorlocationmatter