European consensus on essential steps of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis and McKeown Esophagectomy through Delphi methodology
-
Published:2021-02-19
Issue:1
Volume:36
Page:446-460
-
ISSN:0930-2794
-
Container-title:Surgical Endoscopy
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Surg Endosc
Author:
Eddahchouri YassinORCID, van Workum Frans, van den Wildenberg Frits J. H., van Berge Henegouwen Mark I., Polat Fatih, van Goor Harry, Chaudry M. Asif, Cheong E., Daams F., van Det M. J., Gutschow C., Heisterkamp J., Van Hillegersberg R., Hölscher A., Kouwenhoven E. A., Luyer M. D. P., Martijnse I. S., Nafteux P., Nieuwenhuijzen G. A. P., Nilsson M., Pattyn P., van der Peet D. L., Räsänen J. V., Ruurda J. P., Schneider P., Schröder W., van Veer H., Wijnhoven B. P. L., Pierie Jean-Pierre E. N., Klarenbeek Bastiaan R., Gisbertz Suzanne S., Rosman Camiel,
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex and technically demanding procedure with a long learning curve, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To master MIE, training in essential steps is crucial. Yet, no consensus on essential steps of MIE is available. The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on essential steps in Ivor Lewis and McKeown MIE through Delphi methodology.
Methods
Based on expert opinion and peer-reviewed literature, essential steps were defined for Ivor Lewis (IL) and McKeown (McK) MIE. In a round table discussion, experts finalized the lists of steps and an online Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international expert panel (7 European countries) of minimally invasive upper GI surgeons. Based on replies and comments, steps were adjusted and rephrased and sent in iterative fashion until consensus was achieved.
Results
Two Delphi rounds were conducted and response rates were 74% (23 out of 31 experts) for the first and 81% (27 out of 33 experts) for the second round. Consensus was achieved on 106 essential steps for both the IL and McK approach. Cronbach’s alpha in the first round was 0.78 (IL) and 0.78 (McK) and in the second round 0.92 (IL) and 0.88 (McK).
Conclusions
Consensus among European experts was achieved on essential surgical steps for both Ivor Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492 2. Mu J, Gao S, Mao Y, Xue Q, Yuan Z, Li N, Su K, Yang K, Lv F, Qiu B, Liu D, Chen K, Li H, Yan T, Han Y, Du M, Xu R, Wen Z, Wang W, Shi M, Xu Q, Xu S, He J (2015) Open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy versus minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: protocol for a multicentre prospective, open and parallel, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 5:e008328–e008328. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008328 3. Haverkamp L, Seesing MFJ, Ruurda JP, Boone J, Hillegersberg R, v. (2016) Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12480 4. Biere SS, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Garcia JR, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Rosman C, Sosef MN, de Lange ES, Bonjer HJ, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL (2011) Traditional invasive vs minimally invasive e sophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial). BMC Surg 11:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-11-2 5. Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, Brigand C, Carrere N, Collet D, Doddoli C, Flamein R, Mabrut J-Y, Meunier B, Msika S, Perniceni T, Peschaud F, Prudhomme M, Triboulet J-P, Mariette C (2011) Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 11:310. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-310
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|