ABSTRACT
Lymph node involvement in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is similar to that of gastric cancer. The impact on survival of the number and site of lymph nodes involved in a subgroup of patients undergone surgery for adenocarcinoma of EGJ is reported. Sixty-four patients undergone transthoracic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the EGJ were retrospectively assessed. Five-year survival according to AJCC gastric cancer nodal classification and central node invasion was evaluated. In N0 patients survival was assessed in relation to the number of lymph nodes removed. Five-year survival was 72% in N0, 46% in N1 and 0% in N2 and N3 group. Intergroup differences were statistically significant (P<0.05) except between N2 and N3 groups. Overall survival was different depending on the infiltration of distal or proximal site nodes, 23% vs. 58% (P<0.05); in N0 patients it was related to the number of lymph nodes removed (83% >15 vs. 57% <15, P<0.05). Classification of lymph node involvement in adenocarcinoma of the EGJ by gastric cancer criteria is adequate for prognostic purposes. The involvement of distal nodes in all cases and the removal of <15 nodes in N0 group resulted as independent negative predictive factors.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/secondary , Esophageal Neoplasms/mortality , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Esophagogastric Junction/pathology , Lymph Nodes/pathology , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Disease-Free Survival , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophagectomy/methods , Esophagectomy/mortality , Esophagogastric Junction/surgery , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lymph Node Excision/methods , Lymph Nodes/surgery , Lymphatic Metastasis , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Invasiveness/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Probability , Prognosis , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Survival Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Perforation of the esophagus after pneumatic dilation for achalasia is a severe complication which should be treated accurately in order to obtain a successful immediate outcome and a satisfactory result for the underlying condition. METHODS: Five consecutive patients presenting with distal esophageal perforation after pneumatic dilation for achalasia were included in this study. All patients had gastrografin swallow performed to confirm the perforation, and one patient was also submitted to flexible esophagoscopy. Laparoscopic approach was performed in all patients with five portals. The phrenoesophageal membrane was opened on its anterior aspect. The distal esophagus was dissected free, and perforations were identified with the help of methylene blue or milk administration through the esophageal tube. All perforations were sutured with interrupted absorbable sutures. Contralateral myotomy and partial anterior Dor fundoplication completed the operation. Endoscopic control of length of myotomy and watertightness of mucosal closure was performed in all cases. RESULTS: There were no intraoperative complications. After surgery all patients were maintained with nil per os until a barium swallow showed no leakage. One patient had a radiologic leakage sustained for 1 week. All patients were dismissed uneventfully. At 6 months after surgery, esophageal manometry was performed. Mean lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure had fallen from 30 to 8.7 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy offers an excellent approach to treat distal esophageal instrumental perforations, perhaps even better than open surgery. Suture of the perforation, contralateral myotomy and partial anterior fundoplication is a good option in the treatment of perforated achalasia after pneumatic dilation.
