The impact of operative approach on outcome of surgery for gastro-oesophageal tumours.
BACKGROUND
The choice of operation for tumours at or around the gastro-oesophageal junction remains controversial with little evidence to support one technique over another. This study examines the prevalence of margin involvement and nodal disease and their impact on outcome following three surgical approaches (Ivor Lewis, transhiatal and left thoraco-laparotomy) for these tumours.


METHODS
A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients undergoing surgery for distal oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction tumours by a single surgeon over ten years. Comparisons were undertaken in terms of tumour clearance, nodal yield, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and median survival. All patients were followed up until death or the end of the data collection (mean follow up 33.2 months).


RESULTS
A total of 104 patients were operated on of which 102 underwent resection (98%). Median age was 64.1 yrs (range 32.1-79.4) with 77 males and 25 females. Procedures included 29 Ivor Lewis, 31 transhiatal and 42 left-thoraco-laparotomies. Postoperative mortality was 2.9% and median survival 23 months. Margin involvement was 24.1% (two distal, one proximal and 17 circumferential margins). Operative approach had no significant effect on nodal clearance, margin involvement, postoperative mortality or morbidity and survival. Lymph node positive disease had a significantly worse median survival of 15.8 months compared to 39.7 months for node negative (p = 0.007), irrespective of approach.


CONCLUSIONS
Surgical approach had no effect on postoperative mortality, circumferential tumour, nodal clearance or survival. This suggests that the choice of operative approach for tumours at the gastro-oesophageal junction may be based on the individual patient and tumour location rather than surgical dogma.
Suttie
Stuart A
SA
Department of Surgery, Ward 33, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK. Ken.Park@arh.grampian.scot.nhs.uk.
Li
Alan Gk
AG
Quinn
Martha
M
Park
Kenneth Gm
KG
Arch Surg. 2004 Jun;139(6):627-31; discussion 631-3
15197089
Ann Surg. 1994 Sep;220(3):364-72; discussion 372-3
8092902
Endoscopy. 1993 Nov;25(9):660-3
8119227
World J Surg. 1999 Mar;23(3):271-5; discussion 275-6
9933699
Dis Esophagus. 2001;14(2):104-9
11553218
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993 Nov;106(5):850-8; discussion 858-9
8231207
Br J Cancer. 1999 May;80(5-6):834-42
10360663
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1986 Feb;91(2):242-7
3945092
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004 Apr;30(3):313-7
15028315
Br J Surg. 2004 Aug;91(8):943-7
15286953
Aust N Z J Surg. 1999 Mar;69(3):187-94
10075357
Br J Surg. 1998 Nov;85(11):1457-9
9823902
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 1;22(11):2069-77
15082726
Lancet. 2002 May 18;359(9319):1727-33
12049861
Am J Surg. 1998 Sep;176(3):286-90
9776161
ANZ J Surg. 2005 Dec;75(12):1045-8
16398807
Am J Surg. 1996 Nov;172(5):478-81; discussion 481-2
8942548
Gut. 2001 May;48(5):667-70
11302966
Br J Surg. 1990 Jul;77(7):815-9
1696513
N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 21;347(21):1662-9
12444180
J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Dec;199(6):880-6
15555971
Am J Surg. 1997 Sep;174(3):320-4
9324146
Br J Surg. 1993 Mar;80(3):367-70
8472154
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Aug;7(8):644-51
16887481
Am J Surg. 1998 May;175(5):422-5
9600292
Br J Cancer. 2003 May 19;88(10):1549-52
12771920