Ivor Lewis approach is superior to transhiatal approach in retrieval of lymph nodes at esophagectomy.

Lymph node involvement may impact postoperative therapeutic decision-making and prognosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy. This study evaluates which surgical approach yields the most lymph nodes. We undertook a retrospective chart review of esophagectomies performed by six surgeons from April 1994 to February 2004 using a prospective general thoracic surgery database at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, US. Lymph nodes were categorized into one of 17 regions per the American Joint Committee on Cancer, with the total number of lymph nodes, summed over each region, used as the primary outcome. A total of 517 esophagectomies were performed: 68 transhiatal, 392 Ivor Lewis, and 57 extended Ivor Lewis. A mean of 18.7 (SD 8.5) lymph nodes were retrieved with the Ivor Lewis approach as compared to 17.4 (SD 9.2) with the extended Ivor Lewis approach (P = 0.30). Since there was no statistical difference between the number of nodes collected in either Ivor Lewis approach, they were collapsed into one group for comparison with the transhiatal cases. Significantly more lymph nodes were collected with an Ivor Lewis approach (mean 18.5, SD 8.6) than with a transhiatal approach (mean 9.0, SD 5.0, P < 0.001). As expected, more thoracic lymph nodes were retrieved with the Ivor Lewis approach [mean 12.4 (SD 7.0) vs. 4.7 (SD 5.3), P < 0.001]. The Ivor Lewis approach was also superior for retrieval of abdominal nodes [mean 6.1 (SD 5.6) versus 4.3 (SD 4.4), P = 0.01]. More lymph nodes are obtained at esophagectomy with an Ivor Lewis than a transhiatal approach.

Validation of the Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire.

While multiple instruments characterize upper gastrointestinal symptoms, a validated instrument devoted to the measurement of a spectrum of esophageal dysphagia attributes is not available. Therefore, we constructed and validated the Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire (MDQ). The 27 items of the MDQ underwent content validity, feasibility, concurrent validity, reproducibility, internal consistency, and construct validity testing. To assess content validity, five esophageal subspecialty gastroenterologists reviewed the items to ensure inclusion of pertinent domains. Feasibility testing was done with eight outpatients who refined problematic items. To assess concurrent validity, 70 patient responses on the MDQ were compared to responses gathered in a structured patient-physician interview. A separate group of 70 outpatients completed the MDQ twice to assess the reproducibility of each item. A total of 148 patients participated in the validation process (78 [53%] men; mean age 62). On average, the MDQ took 6 minutes to complete. A single item (odynophagia) tested poorly with a kappa value of <0.4. Otherwise, the majority of concurrent validity kappa values were in the good to excellent range with a mean of 0.63 (95% CI 0.22-0.89). The majority of reproducibility kappa values were also in the good to excellent range with a median kappa value of 0.76 (interquartile range: 0.67-0.81). Cronbach's alpha values were excellent in the range of 0.86-0.88. Spearman rank correlation coefficients to assess construct validity were also excellent in the range of 0.87-0.98. Thus, the MDQ is a concise instrument that demonstrates overall excellent concurrent validity, reproducibility, internal consistency, and construct validity for the features of esophageal dysphagia.