Page 151 - Read Online

de Pascale et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2019;3:18 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2019.04 Page 9 of 10

learning curve. Quality of life should also be evaluated in a randomized prospective setting as this element
is considered one of principal issue in favor of a totally minimally invasive approach for IL esophagectomy.

DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Conceived and designed the study: de Pascale S, Fumagalli Romario U
Implemented the study and drafted the article: de Pascale S
Made substantial contributions to the analysis of data: Ghidinelli F, Piccioli AN, Borin S
Substantially contributed to the interpretation of data, made critical revisions related to important intellectual
content of the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript: All authors

Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship
None.

Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate
Patients were not required to provide informed consent to this study because the analysis used anonymous
clinical data that were obtained after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent.

Consent for publication
Not applicable.

Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019.

REFERENCES
1. Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, Christie NA, McCaughan JS, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in
222 patients. Ann Surg 2003;238:486-95.
2. Burdall OC, Boddy AP, Fullick J, Blazeby J, Krysztopik R, et al. A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open
oesophagectomy. Surg Endosc 2015;29:431-7.
3. Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, Boone J, V Hillegersberg R. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of
esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 2017;30:1-7.
4. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Balliol collaboration. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.
Lancet 2009;374:1089-96.
5. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009;374:1097-104.
6. Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, Campbell B, Campbell M, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further
development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg 2019;269:211-20.
7. Lordick F, Mariette C, Haustermans K, Obermannová R. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis,
treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2016;27:v50-7.
8. Irino T, Tsai JA, Ericson J, Nilsson M, Lundell L, et al. Thoracoscopic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy by use of linear stapler-a
simplified technique facilitating a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis operation. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2016;401:315-22.
9. Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling GE, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for
complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg 2015;262:286-94.
10. Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, Bains MS, Turnbull AD, et al. The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal
and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198:42-50.
11. Gockel I, Kneist W, Keilmann A, Junginger T. Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (RLNP) following esophagectomy for carcinoma.
Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:277-81.