[Skip to Content]
Outline
Quiz
PDF
Surgical Oncology

Intrathoracic vs Cervical Anastomosis After Totally or Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal CancerA Randomized Clinical Trial

Educational Objective To study to what extent the location of the esophageal anastomosis is associated with leakage requiring reintervention in patients with transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy.
1 Credit CME
JAMA Surgery
Published Online: May 12, 2021
Original Investigation
Frans van Workum, MD1;
Moniek H. P. Verstegen, MD1;
Bastiaan R. Klarenbeek, MD, PhD1;
Stefan A. W. Bouwense, MD, PhD1,2;
Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, MD, PhD3;
Freek Daams, MD, PhD4;
Suzanne S. Gisbertz, MD, PhD3;
Gerjon Hannink, PhD5;
Jan Willem Haveman, MD, PhD6;
Joos Heisterkamp, MD, PhD7;
Walther Jansen, MSc7;
Ewout A. Kouwenhoven, MD, PhD8;
Jan J. B. van Lanschot, MD, PhD9;
Grard A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, MD, PhD10;
Donald L. van der Peet, MD, PhD4;
Fatih Polat, MD11;
Sander Ubels, MD1;
Bas P. L. Wijnhoven, MD, PhD9;
Maroeska M. Rovers, PhD5;
Camiel Rosman, MD, PhD1;
for the ICAN collaborative research group
Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • 2Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
  • 3Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • 4Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • 5Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • 6Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
  • 7Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
  • 8Department of Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep (Hospital Group) Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
  • 9Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • 10Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
  • 11Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • ICAN collaborative research groupfor the
Read article on JAMA Network

MOC/CME Information

editorial comment icon
Editorial
Comment
 related articles icon
Related
Articles
 author interview icon
Interviews
 multimedia icon
Multimedia
Read Article Take Quiz
Key Points

Question  Is an intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis the preferable location of the anastomosis after a transthoracic, minimally invasive esophagectomy, in terms of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention?

Findings  In this randomized clinical trial of 245 patients, anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients (12.3%) with intrathoracic anastomosis and 39 of 123 patients (31.7%) with cervical anastomosis.

Meaning  In this study, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Abstract

Background  Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE.

Objective  To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020.

Intervention  Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life.

Results  Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, −19.4% [95% CI, −29.5% to −9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, −21.9% [95% CI, −32.1% to −11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, −11.3% [−20.4% to −2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, −7.3% [95% CI, −12.1% to −2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, −12.2 [95% CI, −19.6 to −4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, −10.3 [95% CI, −16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, −15.3 [95% CI, −22.9 to −7.7]).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Trial Registration  Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333)

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Related Articles

  1. Does the Location Matter for the Anastomosis for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy?

  2. Generalizability of the Results and Concerns About Leakage Rates of the ICAN Trial

  3. Generalizability of the Results and Concerns About Leakage Rates of the ICAN Trial

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

See More About

Esophageal Cancer Gastroenterology Gastrointestinal Cancer Gastrointestinal Surgery Minimally Invasive Surgery Oncology Gastric Cancer Surgery Surgical Oncology Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: April 21, 2021.

Published Online: May 12, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1555

Corresponding Author: Camiel Rosman, MD, PhD (camiel.rosman@radboudumc.nl), and Moniek H. P. Verstegen, MD (moniek.verstegen@radboudumc.nl), Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Author Contributions: Dr Rosman had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs van Workum and Verstegen contributed equally to this article and are co–first authors.

Concept and design: van Workum, Verstegen, Bouwense, van Berge Henegouwen, Daams, Gisbertz, Hannink, Heisterkamp, Jansen, van Lanschot, Nieuwenhuijzen, van der Peet, Polat, Rovers, Rosman.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: van Workum, Verstegen, Klarenbeek, van Berge Henegouwen, Daams, Gisbertz, Hannink, Haveman, Heisterkamp, Kouwenhoven, van Lanschot, van der Peet, Ubels, Wijnhoven, Rovers, Rosman.

Drafting of the manuscript: van Workum, Verstegen, Bouwense, Hannink, Jansen, van der Peet, Ubels, Rosman.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: van Workum, Verstegen, Klarenbeek, Bouwense, van Berge Henegouwen, Daams, Gisbertz, Hannink, Haveman, Heisterkamp, Kouwenhoven, van Lanschot, Nieuwenhuijzen, van der Peet, Polat, Ubels, Wijnhoven, Rovers, Rosman.

Statistical analysis: van Workum, Verstegen, Bouwense, Hannink, Ubels, Rosman.

Obtained funding: van Workum, Rovers, Rosman.

Administrative, technical, or material support: van Workum, Verstegen, Bouwense, van Berge Henegouwen, Daams, Gisbertz, Heisterkamp, Jansen, Kouwenhoven, Polat, Ubels, Wijnhoven.

Supervision: van Workum, Klarenbeek, Gisbertz, Hannink, Haveman, Heisterkamp, van der Peet, Polat, Rovers, Rosman.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Verstegen reported grants from Netherlands Organization for Health Research (ZonMw) during the conduct of the study. Dr van Berge Henegouwen reported personal fees to his institution from Mylan, Alesi Surgical, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic outside the submitted work and grants paid to his institution from Olympus and Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr Ubels reported grants from ZonMw during the conduct of the study and grants from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Rovers reported grants from ZonMw during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work and grants from Siemens Healthineers outside the submitted work. Dr Rosman reported grants from ZonMw during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research Development Health Care Efficiency Research program (ZonMw; grant 843002607) financially supported this trial.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: ZonMw had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Group Information: The members of the ICAN collaborative research group appear in Supplement 4.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

Additional Contributions: We thank Tjarda Tromp, research nurse, and Marianne Stenstra, MD, Radboud University Medical Center, for their support in coordinating this trial and Marja Bulte-ter Meer, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, for designing the figure used in the visual abstract. We thank Henk Hartgrink, MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center, Ton de Haan, MSc, Radboud University Medical Center, and Hein Gooszen, MD, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, for their role as member of the data safety monitoring board.

References
1.
Bray  F , Ferlay  J , Soerjomataram  I , Siegel  RL , Torre  LA , Jemal  A .  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.   CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424. doi:10.3322/caac.21492 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Al-Batran  SE , Homann  N , Pauligk  C ,  et al; FLOT4-AIO Investigators.  Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial.   Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1948-1957. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
van Hagen  P , Hulshof  MC , van Lanschot  JJ ,  et al; CROSS Group.  Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2074-2084. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1112088 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Lewis  I .  The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus; with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third.   Br J Surg. 1946;34:18-31. doi:10.1002/bjs.18003413304 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
McKeown  KC .  Total three-stage oesophagectomy for cancer of the oesophagus.   Br J Surg. 1976;63(4):259-262. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800630403 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Biere  SS , Maas  KW , Cuesta  MA , van der Peet  DL .  Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Dig Surg. 2011;28(1):29-35. doi:10.1159/000322014 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Alanezi  K , Urschel  JD .  Mortality secondary to esophageal anastomotic leak.   Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;10(2):71-75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Goense  L , Meziani  J , Ruurda  JP , van Hillegersberg  R .  Impact of postoperative complications on outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer.   Br J Surg. 2019;106(1):111-119. doi:10.1002/bjs.11000 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Markar  S , Gronnier  C , Duhamel  A ,  et al; FREGAT (French Eso-Gastric Tumors) working group, FRENCH (Fédération de Recherche EN CHirurgie), and AFC (Association Française de Chirurgie).  The impact of severe anastomotic leak on long-term survival and cancer recurrence after surgical resection for esophageal malignancy.   Ann Surg. 2015;262(6):972-980. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Biere  SS , van Berge Henegouwen  MI , Maas  KW ,  et al.  Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.   Lancet. 2012;379(9829):1887-1892. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Mariette  C , Markar  SR , Dabakuyo-Yonli  TS ,  et al; Fédération de Recherche en Chirurgie (FRENCH) and French Eso-Gastric Tumors (FREGAT) Working Group.  Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2019;380(2):152-162. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1805101 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Straatman  J , van der Wielen  N , Cuesta  MA ,  et al.  Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial.   Ann Surg. 2017;266(2):232-236. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002171 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
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):1-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Seesing  MFJ , Gisbertz  SS , Goense  L ,  et al.  A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands.   Ann Surg. 2017;266(5):839-846. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002393 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Brown  AM , Pucci  MJ , Berger  AC ,  et al.  A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown.   Surg Endosc. 2018;32(1):204-211. doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5660-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
van Workum  F , Berkelmans  GH , Klarenbeek  BR , Nieuwenhuijzen  GAP , Luyer  MDP , Rosman  C .  McKeown or Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(suppl 8):S826-S833. doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.03.173 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
van Workum  F , Slaman  AE , van Berge Henegouwen  MI ,  et al.  Propensity score-matched analysis comparing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis versus minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy.   Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):128-133. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002982PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Gooszen  JAH , Goense  L , Gisbertz  SS , Ruurda  JP , van Hillegersberg  R , van Berge Henegouwen  MI .  Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer.   Br J Surg. 2018;105(5):552-560. doi:10.1002/bjs.10728 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
van Workum  F , Bouwense  SA , Luyer  MD ,  et al.  Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: study protocol of the ICAN randomized controlled trial.   Trials. 2016;17(1):505. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1636-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Rüdiger Siewert  J , Feith  M , Werner  M , Stein  HJ .  Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: results of surgical therapy based on anatomical/topographic classification in 1,002 consecutive patients.   Ann Surg. 2000;232(3):353-361. doi:10.1097/00000658-200009000-00007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
van Workum  F , van den Wildenberg  FJ , Polat  F , de Wilt  JH , Rosman  C .  Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: preliminary results after introduction of an intrathoracic anastomosis.   Dig Surg. 2014;31(2):95-103. doi:10.1159/000358812 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
van Workum  F , van der Maas  J , van den Wildenberg  FJ ,  et al.  Improved functional results after minimally invasive esophagectomy: intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis.   Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(1):267-273. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.07.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Castor EDC. The scalable decentralized and hybrid clinical trial platform: castor electronic data capture 2019. Published August 27, 2019. Accessed April 7, 2021. http://www.castoredc.com.
24.
Low  DE , Alderson  D , Cecconello  I ,  et al.  International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG).   Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):286-294. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Fayers  P , Aaronson  N , Bjordal  K , Groenvold  M , Curran  D , Bottomley  A ; EORTC Quality of Life Group. The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Published 2001. Accesssed April 7, 2021. https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/SCmanual.pdf
26.
Aaronson  NK , Ahmedzai  S , Bergman  B ,  et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365-376. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Lagergren  P , Fayers  P , Conroy  T ,  et al; European Organisation for Research Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal and Quality of Life Groups.  Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach.   Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(14):2066-2073. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Musoro  JZ , Bottomley  A , Coens  C ,  et al; EORTC Melanoma Group and EORTC Quality of Life Group.  Interpreting European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 scores as minimally importantly different for patients with malignant melanoma.   Eur J Cancer. 2018;104:169-181. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.09.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Musoro  JZ , Coens  C , Fiteni  F ,  et al; EORTC Breast and Quality of Life Groups.  Minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in patients with advanced breast cancer.   JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019;3(3):pkz037. doi:10.1093/jncics/pkz037 PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Osoba  D , Rodrigues  G , Myles  J , Zee  B , Pater  J .  Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.   J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139-144. doi:10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Metcalfe  C , Avery  K , Berrisford  R ,  et al.  Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial.   Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(48):1-68. doi:10.3310/hta20480 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Claassen  L , van Workum  F , Rosman  C .  Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy.   J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(suppl 5):S777-S785. doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.12.54 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Guo  W , Zou  YB , Ma  Z ,  et al.  One surgeon’s learning curve for video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with the patient in lateral position: how many cases are needed to reach competence?   Surg Endosc. 2013;27(4):1346-1352. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2614-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Lin  J , Kang  M , Chen  C ,  et al.  Thoracolaparoscopy oesophagectomy and extensive two-field lymphadenectomy for oesophageal cancer: introduction and teaching of a new technique in a high-volume centre.   Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43(1):115-121. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs151 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Mu  JW , Gao  SG , Xue  Q ,  et al.  Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.   World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(45):12873-12881. doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i45.12873 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Ramage  L , Deguara  J , Davies  A ,  et al.  Gastric tube necrosis following minimally invasive oesophagectomy is a learning curve issue.   Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013;95(5):329-334. doi:10.1308/003588413X13629960045751 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Song  SY , Na  KJ , Oh  SG , Ahn  BH .  Learning curves of minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery.   Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;35(4):689-693. doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.11.014 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Tapias  LF , Morse  CR .  Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: description of a learning curve.   J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(6):1130-1140. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.02.014 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
van Workum  F , Stenstra  MHBC , Berkelmans  GHK ,  et al.  Learning curve and associated morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective multicenter study.   Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):88-94. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002469 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Briez  N , Piessen  G , Bonnetain  F ,  et al.  Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial—the MIRO trial.   BMC Cancer. 2011;11:310. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-310 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Fransen  LFC , Berkelmans  GHK , Asti  E , van Berge Henegouwen  MI , Berlth  F , Bonavina  L ,  et al  The effect of postoperative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy on long-term survival: an international multicenter cohort study.   Ann Surg. 2020. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004293 Google Scholar
42.
Hulscher  JB , van Sandick  JW , de Boer  AG ,  et al.  Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.   N Engl J Med. 2002;347(21):1662-1669. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa022343 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
van Heijl  M , van Wijngaarden  AK , Lagarde  SM , Busch  OR , van Lanschot  JJ , van Berge Henegouwen  MI .  Intrathoracic manifestations of cervical anastomotic leaks after transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy.   Br J Surg. 2010;97(5):726-731. doi:10.1002/bjs.6971 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
van Workum  F , Fransen  L , Luyer  MD , Rosman  C .  Learning curves in minimally invasive esophagectomy.   World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(44):4974-4978. doi:10.3748/wjg.v24.i44.4974 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

  • 1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;;
  • 1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
  • 1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
  • 1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; and
  • 1.00 credit toward the CME [and Self-Assessment requirements] of the American Board of Surgery’s Continuous Certification program

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
Become an AMA member now
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
Become an AMA member now
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue