Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lymph Node Retrieval is Inferior in the Modified Merendino Resection for Early Barrett’s Carcinoma: A Matched-Pair Comparison with Ivor Lewis Resection

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim of the study

A matched-pair comparison between the modified Merendino resection (MER) and Ivor Lewis resection (ILR) for early Barrett’s carcinoma.

Background

Early adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (eACE) with positive risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) needs surgery for cure. MER appeared to be an alternative to ILR.

Methods

Between July 2000 and July 2012, 156 patients with high-grade dysplasia or eACE received ILR, whereas in 30 cases MER was performed in a tertiary care center for GI Surgery. A matched-pair analysis was performed on the basis of sex, age, BMI, ASA classification and tumor stage. Thirty patients were assigned to each group. The data were analyzed regarding perioperative aspects (e.g., operating time, hospital stay, complications, number of lymph nodes) and survival analysis.

Results

The mean operating time was 301.7 min for ILR, compared to 255.4 min for MER (p = 0.044). The hospital stay following ILR was significantly longer than for MER (22.4 days ILR vs. 16.4 days MER, p = 0.023). There was no statistically significant difference regarding complications between the two groups (p = 0.463). The number of resected lymph nodes was significantly lower in the MER group (median 21) compared to the ILR group, where a median of 31 lymph nodes could be removed (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall (p = 0.145) or tumor-specific survival (p = 0.353).

Conclusions

Lymph node retrieval is significantly inferior in the MER. Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two operating techniques, although the operation time for ILR took longer and these patients required a longer hospital stay. MER should not be applied in cases with high risk of LNM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E et al (2005) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 1:10–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chennat J, Konda VJA, Ross AS et al (2009) Complete Barrett’s eradication endoscopic mucosal resection: an effective treatment modality for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma: an American single-center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 11:2684–2692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dunbar KB, Spechler SJ (2012) The risk of lymph-node metastases in patients with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 6:850–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pech O, May A, Manner H, Behrens A, Pohl J, Weferling M, Hartmann U, Manner N, Huijsmans J, Gossner L, Rabenstein T, Vieth M, Stolte M, Ell C (2014) Long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for patients with mucosal adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Gastroenterology 146(3):652–660. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lorenz D, Origer J, Pauthner M, Graupe F, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Stolte M, Pech O, Ell C (2014) Prognostic risk factors of early esophageal adenocarcinomas. Ann Surg 259(3):469–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jamieson GG, Mathew G, Ludemann R et al (2004) Postoperative mortality following oesophagectomy and problems in reporting its rate. Br J Surg 8:943–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Viklund P, Lindblad M, Lu M et al (2006) Risk factors for complications after esophageal cancer resection: a prospective population-based study in Sweden. Ann Surg 2:204–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atkins BZ, Shah AS, Hutcheson KA, Mangum JH, Pappas TN, Harpole DH Jr, D’Amico TA (2004) Reducing hospital morbidity and mortality following esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 78(4):1170–1176 discussion 1170–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stein HJ, Feith M, Mueller J et al (2000) Limited resection for early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Ann Surg 6:733–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Merendino KA, Dillard DH (1955) The concept of sphincter substitution by an interposed jejunal segment for anatomic and physiologic abnormalities at the esophagogastric junction; with special reference to reflux esophagitis, cardiospasm and esophageal varices. Ann Surg 3:486–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zapletal C, Heesen C, Origer J, Pauthner M, Pech O, Ell C, Lorenz D (2014) Quality of life after surgical treatment of early Barrett’s cancer: a prospective comparison of the Ivor-Lewis resection versus the modified Merendino resection. World J Surg 38(6):1444–1452. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2410-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lerut T, Moons J, Coosemans W et al (2009) Postoperative complications after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction are correlated with early cancer recurrence: role of systematic grading of complications using the modified Clavien classification. Ann Surg 250:798–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tokunaga M, Kondo J, Tanizawa Y et al (2012) Postoperative intra-abdominal complications assessed by the Clavien–Dindo classification following open and laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1854–1859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Japan Esophageal Society (2017) Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer, 11th edition: part I. Esophagus 14(1):1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ando S, Tsuji H (2008) Surgical technique of vagus nerve-preserving gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. ANZ J Surg 3:172–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pech O, May A, Günter E et al (2006) The impact of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography on the TNM staging of early cancer in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2223–2229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pouw RE, Heldoorn N, Herrero LA et al (2011) Do we still need EUS in the workup of patients with early esophageal neoplasia? A retrospective analysis of 131 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 73:662–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pech O, Günter E, Dusemund F, Origer J, Lorenz D, Ell C (2010) Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound in preoperative staging of esophageal cancer: results from a referral center for early esophageal cancer. Endoscopy 42(6):456–461. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1244022 Epub 2010 Mar 19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bergeron EJ, Lin J, Chang AC, Orringer MB, Reddy RM (2014) Endoscopic ultrasound is inadequate to determine which T1/T2 esophageal tumors are candidates for endoluminal therapies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147(2):765–771. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.003 Discussion 771–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Omloo JM, Lagarde SM, Hulscher JB, Reitsma JB, Fockens P, van Dekken H, Ten Kate FJ, Obertop H, Tilanus HW, van Lanschot JJ (2007) Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the mid/distal esophagus: five-year survival of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 246(6):992–1000 discussion 1000-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peyer P, Christian G, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR, Altorki NK, Ancona E, Griffin SM, Hölscher A, Lerut T, Law S, Rice TW, Ruol A, van Lanschot JJB, Wong J, DeMeester TR (2008) The number of lymph nodes removed predicts survival in esophageal cancer: an international study on the impact of extent of surgical resection. Ann Surg 248(4):549–556

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prenzel KL, Bollschweiler E, Schröder W, Mönig SP, Drebber U, Vallboehmer D, Hölscher AH (2010) Prognostic relevance of skip metastases in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 90(5):1662–1667. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.07.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zingg U, Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Smith G, Aly A, Clough A, Esterman AJ, Jamieson GG, Watson DI (2011) Factors associated with postoperative pulmonary morbidity after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18(5):1460–1468. doi:10.1245/s10434-010-1474-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Li QG, Li P, Tang D, Chen J, Wang DR (2013) Impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival after radical resection for gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 19(25):4060–4065

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhayani NH, Gupta A, Dunst CM, Kurian AA, Reavis KM, Swanström LL (2013) Esophagectomies with thoracic incisions carry increased pulmonary morbidity. JAMA Surg 148(8):733–738. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.2356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferguson MK, Celauro AD, Prachand V (2011) Prediction of major pulmonary complications after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 91(5):1494–1500. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.12.036 discussion 1500–1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gillinov AM, Heitmiller RF (1998) Strategies to reduce pulmonary complications after transhiatal esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 11(1):43–47

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bakhos CT, Fabian T, Oyasiji TO, Gautam S, Gangadharan SP, Kent MS, Martin J, Critchlow JF, DeCamp MM (2012) Impact of the surgical technique on pulmonary morbidity after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 93(1):221–226. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.07.030 discussion 226–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fagundes CP, Shi Q, Vaporciyan AA, Rice DC, Popat KU, Cleeland CS, Wang XS (2015) Symptom recovery after thoracic surgery: measuring patient-reported outcomes with the MD anderson symptom inventory. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 150(3):613–619. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.05.057

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Teaching Hospital of the University Medicine of Frankfurt, Starkenburgring 66, 63069, Offenbach am Main, Germany

    Thomas Haist, Markus Mann, Michael Pauthner & Dietmar Lorenz

  2. Department of Pathology, Dr. Horst-Schmidt-Klinik, Teaching Hospital of the University Medicine of Mainz, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Annette Fisseler-Eckhoff

  3. Department of Surgery, Dr. Horst-Schmidt-Klinik, Teaching Hospital of the University Medicine of Mainz, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Christina Oetzmann von Sochaczewski

Authors
  1. Thomas Haist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christina Oetzmann von Sochaczewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Pauthner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Annette Fisseler-Eckhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dietmar Lorenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dietmar Lorenz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haist, T., Mann, M., von Sochaczewski, C.O. et al. Lymph Node Retrieval is Inferior in the Modified Merendino Resection for Early Barrett’s Carcinoma: A Matched-Pair Comparison with Ivor Lewis Resection. World J Surg 41, 2583–2590 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4061-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4061-0

Search

Navigation