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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2013

01-11-2013 | Letter to the Editor--Reply

Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?

Authors: Lesley Uttley, Fiona Campbell, Michael Rhodes, Anna Cantrell, Heather Stegenga, Myfanwy Lloyd-Jones

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 11/2013

Login to get access

Excerpt

Hamilton and Griffiths [1] make a number of points in their letter to the editor responding to Uttley et al. [2]. We thank the authors for highlighting these trials and also agree with the argument that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the best way for a robust comparison of the two treatments. …
Literature
1.
Hamilton E, Griffiths E (2013) Letter to the editor: commentary on Uttley L, Campbell F, Rhodes M et al.: minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 27:724–731CrossRef
2.
Uttley L, Campbell F, Rhodes M, Cantrell A, Stegenga H, Lloyd-Jones M (2013) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 27:724–731PubMedCrossRef
3.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM 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.
Torgerson DJ, Torgerson CJ (2008) Designing randomised trials in health, education and the social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, HampshireCrossRef
5.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 24:340
6.
Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Method 1:2CrossRef
7.
Schulz KFCI (1994) Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 272:125–128PubMedCrossRef
8.
Metcalfe C (2013) The ROMIO trial: randomised oesophagectomy: minimally invasive or open: a feasibility study. National Institute for Health Research: Health Technology Assessment programme project in progress. http://​www.​hta.​ac.​uk/​project/​2827.​asp. Accessed 21 June 2013
9.
Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM et al (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068PubMedCrossRef
10.
Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892PubMedCrossRef
11.
McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451PubMedCrossRef
12.
Godlee F (2001) Publishing study protocols: making them visible will improve registration, reporting, and recruitment. BMC News Views 2:4
13.
Avery KN, Barham CP, Berrisford R, Blazeby JM, Blencowe NS, Donovan J et al (2005) Understanding surgical interventions in RCTs: the need for better methodology. Lancet 381:27–28CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?
Authors
Lesley Uttley
Fiona Campbell
Michael Rhodes
Anna Cantrell
Heather Stegenga
Myfanwy Lloyd-Jones
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/s00464-013-3068-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2013

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2013 Go to the issue

Dynamic Manuscript

Tunneling endoscopic muscularis dissection for subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria of the esophagus and gastric cardia

OriginalPaper

High serum CA19-9 levels are associated with an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with intrahepatic duct stones: a case–control study

OriginalPaper

Does laparoscopic adrenalectomy jeopardize oncologic outcomes for patients with adrenocortical carcinoma?

OriginalPaper

Colonoscopy using a small-caliber colonoscope with passive-bending after incomplete colonoscopy due to sharp angulation or pain

OriginalPaper

Blend mode reduces unintended thermal injury by laparoscopic monopolar instruments: a randomized controlled trial

Letter to the Editor -- Reply

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis