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 c...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Huang, Yi-Chun [verfasserIn] Yeh, Chun-Nan [verfasserIn] Chen, Ming-Yang [verfasserIn] Wang, Shang-Yu [verfasserIn] Liu, Keng-Hao [verfasserIn] Tsai, Chun-Yi [verfasserIn] Yeh, Ta-Sen [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: BMC surgery - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:20 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; day:06 ; month:08 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR04057721X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR04057721X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230519104956.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201007s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR04057721X | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q ASE |
| 084 | |a 44.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Huang, Yi-Chun |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a 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. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Submucosal tumor |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Esophagogastric junction |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Minimally invasive surgery |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Gastrointestinal stromal tumor |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Gastrointestinal tract |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yeh, Chun-Nan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chen, Ming-Yang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Shang-Yu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Liu, Keng-Hao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tsai, Chun-Yi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yeh, Ta-Sen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC surgery |d London : BioMed Central, 2001 |g 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. |w (DE-627)331018837 |w (DE-600)2050442-1 |x 1471-2482 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:20 |g year:2020 |g number:1 |g day:06 |g month:08 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.00 |q ASE |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 20 |j 2020 |e 1 |b 06 |c 08 | ||
| author_variant |
y c h ych c n y cny m y c myc s y w syw k h l khl c y t cyt t s y tsy |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:14712482:2020----::ugclpinfrumcsluoserheohggsrcucino |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020 |
| bklnumber |
44.00 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 doi (DE-627)SPR04057721X (SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl Huang, Yi-Chun verfasserin aut Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Submucosal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Esophagogastric junction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Minimally invasive surgery (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal tract (dpeaa)DE-He213 Yeh, Chun-Nan verfasserin aut Chen, Ming-Yang verfasserin aut Wang, Shang-Yu verfasserin aut Liu, Keng-Hao verfasserin aut Tsai, Chun-Yi verfasserin aut Yeh, Ta-Sen verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:20 year:2020 number:1 day:06 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 20 2020 1 06 08 |
| spelling |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 doi (DE-627)SPR04057721X (SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl Huang, Yi-Chun verfasserin aut Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Submucosal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Esophagogastric junction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Minimally invasive surgery (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal tract (dpeaa)DE-He213 Yeh, Chun-Nan verfasserin aut Chen, Ming-Yang verfasserin aut Wang, Shang-Yu verfasserin aut Liu, Keng-Hao verfasserin aut Tsai, Chun-Yi verfasserin aut Yeh, Ta-Sen verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:20 year:2020 number:1 day:06 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 20 2020 1 06 08 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 doi (DE-627)SPR04057721X (SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl Huang, Yi-Chun verfasserin aut Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Submucosal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Esophagogastric junction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Minimally invasive surgery (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal tract (dpeaa)DE-He213 Yeh, Chun-Nan verfasserin aut Chen, Ming-Yang verfasserin aut Wang, Shang-Yu verfasserin aut Liu, Keng-Hao verfasserin aut Tsai, Chun-Yi verfasserin aut Yeh, Ta-Sen verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:20 year:2020 number:1 day:06 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 20 2020 1 06 08 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 doi (DE-627)SPR04057721X (SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl Huang, Yi-Chun verfasserin aut Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Submucosal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Esophagogastric junction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Minimally invasive surgery (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal tract (dpeaa)DE-He213 Yeh, Chun-Nan verfasserin aut Chen, Ming-Yang verfasserin aut Wang, Shang-Yu verfasserin aut Liu, Keng-Hao verfasserin aut Tsai, Chun-Yi verfasserin aut Yeh, Ta-Sen verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:20 year:2020 number:1 day:06 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 20 2020 1 06 08 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 doi (DE-627)SPR04057721X (SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl Huang, Yi-Chun verfasserin aut Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Submucosal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Esophagogastric junction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Minimally invasive surgery (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal tract (dpeaa)DE-He213 Yeh, Chun-Nan verfasserin aut Chen, Ming-Yang verfasserin aut Wang, Shang-Yu verfasserin aut Liu, Keng-Hao verfasserin aut Tsai, Chun-Yi verfasserin aut Yeh, Ta-Sen verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC surgery London : BioMed Central, 2001 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. (DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 1471-2482 nnns volume:20 year:2020 number:1 day:06 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 20 2020 1 06 08 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in BMC surgery 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. volume:20 year:2020 number:1 day:06 month:08 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in BMC surgery 20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug. volume:20 year:2020 number:1 day:06 month:08 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Submucosal tumor Esophagogastric junction Minimally invasive surgery Gastrointestinal stromal tumor Gastrointestinal tract |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
BMC surgery |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Huang, Yi-Chun @@aut@@ Yeh, Chun-Nan @@aut@@ Chen, Ming-Yang @@aut@@ Wang, Shang-Yu @@aut@@ Liu, Keng-Hao @@aut@@ Tsai, Chun-Yi @@aut@@ Yeh, Ta-Sen @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-08-06T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
331018837 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
SPR04057721X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR04057721X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519104956.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR04057721X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huang, Yi-Chun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Submucosal tumor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Esophagogastric junction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Minimally invasive surgery</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastrointestinal stromal tumor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastrointestinal tract</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yeh, Chun-Nan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Ming-Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Shang-Yu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liu, Keng-Hao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tsai, Chun-Yi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yeh, Ta-Sen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331018837</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2050442-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2482</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:20</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">20</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Huang, Yi-Chun |
| spellingShingle |
Huang, Yi-Chun ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Submucosal tumor misc Esophagogastric junction misc Minimally invasive surgery misc Gastrointestinal stromal tumor misc Gastrointestinal tract Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? |
| authorStr |
Huang, Yi-Chun |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)331018837 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1471-2482 |
| topic_title |
610 ASE 44.00 bkl Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? Submucosal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Esophagogastric junction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Minimally invasive surgery (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Gastrointestinal tract (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Submucosal tumor misc Esophagogastric junction misc Minimally invasive surgery misc Gastrointestinal stromal tumor misc Gastrointestinal tract |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Submucosal tumor misc Esophagogastric junction misc Minimally invasive surgery misc Gastrointestinal stromal tumor misc Gastrointestinal tract |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Submucosal tumor misc Esophagogastric junction misc Minimally invasive surgery misc Gastrointestinal stromal tumor misc Gastrointestinal tract |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
BMC surgery |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
331018837 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
BMC surgery |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)331018837 (DE-600)2050442-1 |
| title |
Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR04057721X (SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e |
| title_full |
Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? |
| author_sort |
Huang, Yi-Chun |
| journal |
BMC surgery |
| journalStr |
BMC surgery |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Huang, Yi-Chun Yeh, Chun-Nan Chen, Ming-Yang Wang, Shang-Yu Liu, Keng-Hao Tsai, Chun-Yi Yeh, Ta-Sen |
| container_volume |
20 |
| class |
610 ASE 44.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Huang, Yi-Chun |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 |
| dewey-full |
610 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? |
| title_auth |
Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? |
| abstract |
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. |
| abstractGer |
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. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
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. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter? |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Yeh, Chun-Nan Chen, Ming-Yang Wang, Shang-Yu Liu, Keng-Hao Tsai, Chun-Yi Yeh, Ta-Sen |
| author2Str |
Yeh, Chun-Nan Chen, Ming-Yang Wang, Shang-Yu Liu, Keng-Hao Tsai, Chun-Yi Yeh, Ta-Sen |
| ppnlink |
331018837 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T16:54:02.305Z |
| _version_ |
1803577607907704832 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR04057721X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519104956.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR04057721X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12893-020-00840-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huang, Yi-Chun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Surgical options for submucosal tumors near the esophagogastric junction: does size or location matter?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Submucosal tumor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Esophagogastric junction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Minimally invasive surgery</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastrointestinal stromal tumor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gastrointestinal tract</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yeh, Chun-Nan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Ming-Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Shang-Yu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liu, Keng-Hao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tsai, Chun-Yi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yeh, Ta-Sen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">20(2020), 1 vom: 06. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)331018837</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2050442-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2482</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:20</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00840-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">20</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400078 |