الفهرس 
Organs that replace, the esophagusOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 196 |  |  |
| | | from | 196 | | |
Abstract
Advocates of the transhiatal approach mention the following
advantages of it: (
• Shorter operation time
- . ----- -·--·-· --
• Less respiratory cotnplicaiions
’ ,,.
• Cervical
proximal anastomosis with less hazardous
consequences on the occurrence of leak.
• Complete lymphadenectomy has not been shown to result in a gain in long-term survival in
esophag_eal carcinoma.
Advocates of the transthoraciC- . approach mention the following advantages:
• Avoidance of the · mam disadvantages of the transhiatal
approach which is being blunt, blind and could result in significant
·mediastinal bleeding, chylothorax, airway injury and recurrent nerve paresis.
• They also stress on the fact that the given advantages of TH approach are either
unproven, or achieved in the TT approach.
If resection is done for carcinoma, they add another two
advantages:
... Jhe ability to remove the tumor and lymph nodes en block. ·
• Accurate staging of the disease and thus proper estimation of prognosis and prbper selection
of the adjuvant therapy
This prospecti ve study was conducted to compare both approaches for esophagectomy in benign
esophageal lesions in children.
We conclude that the transhiatal approach yfelded better outcome: shorter operation
time, less pulmonary cprrlpl_i_cations, shorter ICU anil . hospital stay, some compli-cations
as anastomotic leak were easier to deal with.
Although anastomotic stricture was more frequent in this approach, it needed only few settings
of dilatation, with no additional interference.
We recommend this approach for benign esophageal lesions 111
· children .