Skip to content

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) in Prone Versus Left Decubitus Position

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Prone or Left Decubitus Position: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial From A Single Institution

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01144325
Enrollment
2
Registered
2010-06-15
Start date
2010-07-31
Completion date
2016-12-31
Last updated
2011-03-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Esophageal Cancer, Esophagectomy

Keywords

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Brief summary

The purpose of this prospective randomized study is to compare clinical outcomes from two different patient position(prone vs left decubitus)with thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization in the procedure of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE). * Comparing morbidities from the two groups * Comparing short-term quality of life from the two groups * Comparing oncological results (3,5 year survival) from the two groups

Detailed description

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy is routinely performed in two positions. The left decubitus position is the most commonly used position at most centers. However prone position is another alternative. The left decubitus position is advocated for its the same position as the open procedure and easy to learn, as well as easy to emergent conversion to open thoracotomy .However, the disadvantage of this position is the need of lung retraction for better exposure and definitely one lung ventilation. They are regarded as potential causes leading lung injury. Prone thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization has been advocated for its potential benefits of increased operative exposure, no lung retraction, avoid one lung ventilation, improved surgeon ergonomics. But it is difficult to make emergent conversion under this positon and not familiar with most thoracic or digestive surgeons. A longer learning curve may be needed. A few publications have compared the two position with thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus in retrospective study of a small cohort. Until now, no prospective randomized study has been carried out in this field.

Interventions

PROCEDUREthoracoscopic esophagectomy

In prone position group, patients are intubated with single lumen endotracheal tube. Surgeon and assistant stand on the right of the patient. A 10 mm camera port is placed 7th intercostals space in posterior axillary line, CO2 pneumothorax is created with pressure of 8mmHg. A 5 mm port is placed just posterior to the scapular tip. The last 10mm port is placed at 9th intercostals space in the scapular line for. The tumor and esophagus are dissected with cleaning of the lymph nodes along bilateral recurrent nerve. In controlling group, The four chest ports were similar to that described by the University of Pittsburgh group. The left two ports are used for surgical exposure, the right two ports is to divide and dissect the esophagus. The dissection is similar to that of the prone position.

Sponsors

Fudan University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
35 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* clinical stage I/II esophageal cancer * normal blood test of basic metabolism panel * pulmonary function: FEV1 \> 1.2L, FEV1% \> 50%, DLCO \> 50% * heart function: NY grade I and grade II * sign informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy * Mental disorders

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Perioperative morbidity and mortality from the two groups1 -5 years after surgery

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
short-term quality of life(postoperative 6 months and 1 year) between the two groups1 year
3-and 5-year survival rate between the two groups1 - 5 years after surgery

Countries

China

Contacts

Primary ContactLijie Tan, MD
tan.lijie@zs-hospital.sh.cn86-21-64041990

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 20, 2026