Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2013

01-11-2013 | Letter to the Editor

Commentary on “Uttley L, Campbell F, Rhodes M et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 2013;27(3):724–731”

Authors: Emma Hamilton, Ewen A. Griffiths

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 11/2013

Login to get access

Excerpt

In their systematic review of open versus minimal access esophagectomy (MIO), Uttley et al. [1] correctly conclude that due to factors such as selection bias, sufficient evidence does not exist to suggest the MIO is either equivalent to or superior to open surgery. However, they suggest that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) would be difficult to conduct for ethical reasons (e.g., variations in surgical skill between procedures and complex decision making in determining the optimal operative interventions) and that it would be time consuming due to recruitment issues. We agree that a RCT would pose particular issues, but it is the only way for a robust comparison of the two techniques. …
Literature
1.
Uttley L, Campbell F, Rhodes M et al (2013) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 27:724–731PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term end points of conventional versus laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726PubMedCrossRef
4.
Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E et al (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group Trial. Ann Surg 246:655–664PubMedCrossRef
5.
Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892PubMedCrossRef
6.
Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F et al (2011) Open versus laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial: the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 11:310PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Commentary on “Uttley L, Campbell F, Rhodes M et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 2013;27(3):724–731”
Authors
Emma Hamilton
Ewen A. Griffiths
Publication date
01-11-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 11/2013
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3067-4

Other articles of this Issue 11/2013

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2013 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Disease-based mortality after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: utility of the enterprise data warehouse

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernias: new classification supported by long-term results

Dynamic Manuscript

Laparoscopic splenectomy plus preoperative endoscopic variceal ligation versus splenectomy with pericardial devascularization (Hassab’s operation) for control of severe varices due to portal hypertension

Letter to the Editor--Reply

Reply to “The importance of subgrouping refractory NERD patients according to esophageal pH-impedance testing”

Review

Mesh in laparoscopic large hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature

OriginalPaper

Short-term outcome of total laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for overweight and obese patients with gastric cancer