[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"esophagectomy\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:esophagectomy":26},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,14,0,[8,44,70,91,121,148,186,218,245,270,293,320,345,368],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":13,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":14,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":17,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":22,"conditions":23,"keywords":29,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":32,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":33,"startDateStruct":36,"completionDateStruct":38,"leadSponsor":40,"locationsCount":43},"100616775","postoperative-hypoxemia-increases-the-risk-of-anastomotic-leak-after-radical-esophagectomy-100616775",false,"NCT07309991","Postoperative Hypoxemia Increases the Risk of Anastomotic Leak After Radical Esophagectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma or benign esophageal tumors\n* Patients requiring surgical resection of the lesion with subsequent esophageal reconstruction\n* Patients must have had at least one postoperative arterial blood gas analysis\n* Patients must have routinely undergone at least one of the following for postoperative evaluation of the anastomosis: endoscopy, CT scan, or esophagram\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who did not require esophageal reconstruction\n* Patients undergoing esophageal replacement with colon\n* Patients with incomplete data","ALL","18 Years","80 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},2500,"ESTIMATED","OBSERVATIONAL","This study aims to determine whether postoperative hypoxia (arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂)\\\u003C80 mmHg) is an independent risk factor for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. The investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of cases from their center over the past five years, stratifying patients into Low Pa0₂ Group and Normal Pa0₂ Group based on postoperative oxygen levels and comparing the incidence of anastomotic leakage between the groups. The goal is to establish whether hypoxia is a causative risk factor and whether correcting it can reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage.",[24,25,26,27,28],"Esophageal Carcinoma","Esophageal Adenocarcinoma","Esophagectomy","PaO2","Esophageal Anastomotic Leakeage",[30],"Effect of Postoperative PaO₂ on Anastomotic Leakage Following Esophagectomy","RECRUITING","2026-06-13",{"date":34,"type":35},"2026-06-16","ACTUAL",{"date":37,"type":35},"2021-01-01",{"date":39,"type":20},"2026-12-01",{"name":41,"class":42},"Sun Yat-sen University","OTHER",6,{"id":45,"slug":46,"hasResults":11,"nctId":47,"briefTitle":48,"officialTitle":49,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":50,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":51,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":53,"conditions":54,"keywords":57,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":60,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":61,"startDateStruct":63,"completionDateStruct":65,"leadSponsor":67,"locationsCount":69},"100640243","dumping-syndrome-after-esophagectomy-100640243","NCT07605481","Dumping Syndrome After Esophagectomy","Prospective Observational Study on the Utility of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for the Diagnosis of Dumping Syndrome After Esophagectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n-1. aged 18 or older. 2. people who underwent esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction for esophageal cancer.\n\n3\\. Sigstad score of 7 or higher.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* 1\\. Diabetes with autonomic neuropathy. 2. Inability to complete the diagnostic procedure (e.g., cognitive decline). 3. Refusal to participate.",{"count":52,"type":20},30,"Background:\n\nDumping syndrome is a common complication for patients who have undergone surgery for esophageal cancer. It occurs when food moves too quickly from the stomach (or the reconstructed gastric tube) into the small intestine. This rapid movement causes various symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, and sweating. Sometimes, it leads to \"late dumping,\" where blood sugar levels drop significantly, causing tremors, cold sweats, and fatigue. Currently, there is no standardized tool to easily diagnose this condition after esophagectomy.\n\nPurpose of the Study:\n\nThe objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in diagnosing dumping syndrome. CGM is a small, wearable sensor that tracks glucose levels in real-time. The investigators aim to determine whether CGM can serve as a valuable tool for the early detection of dumping syndrome in patients who have undergone esophagectomy.",[26,55,56],"Dumping Syndrome","Continous Glucose Measurement",[58,59],"esophagectomy","dumping syndrome","2026-05-21",{"date":62,"type":35},"2026-05-26",{"date":64,"type":20},"2026-06-15",{"date":66,"type":20},"2028-12-31",{"name":68,"class":42},"Samsung Medical Center",1,{"id":71,"slug":72,"hasResults":11,"nctId":73,"briefTitle":74,"officialTitle":75,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":76,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":77,"enrollmentInfo":78,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":80,"conditions":81,"keywords":82,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":60,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":84,"startDateStruct":85,"completionDateStruct":87,"leadSponsor":89,"locationsCount":69},"100512283","investigating-outcomes-of-elective-robotic-transhiatal-esophagectomy-100512283","NCT05950438","Investigating Outcomes of Elective Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy","A Prospective Clinical Registry Investigating Outcomes of Elective Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients (18 years or older)\n* Patients undergoing elective esophagectomy for any indication\n* Patients who have already had an elective esophagectomy for any indication\n* Patients with consent providing capacity\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients undergoing emergent esophagectomy\n* Adults unable to consent\n* Individuals who are not yet adults (infants, children, teenagers)\n* Pregnant women\n* Prisoners\n* Vulnerable Populations","89 Years",{"count":79,"type":20},120,"The primary goal of this study is to collect short-term and long-term health outcomes of a robotic transhiatal esophagectomy procedure. Clinical (or health) outcomes measure the effect of the procedure on your overall health status. During this procedure, the surgeon will remove all or part of your esophagus. We want to identify patients who will have this procedure. We will look at data elements before, during, and after your procedure to understand the impact of this surgery on your post-operative clinical outcomes.",[26],[83],"Robotic Transhiatal",{"date":62,"type":35},{"date":86,"type":35},"2023-07-11",{"date":88,"type":20},"2028-05-25",{"name":90,"class":42},"Northwestern University",{"id":92,"slug":93,"hasResults":11,"nctId":94,"briefTitle":95,"officialTitle":95,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":96,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":97,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":99,"conditions":100,"keywords":102,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":111,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":112,"startDateStruct":114,"completionDateStruct":116,"leadSponsor":118,"locationsCount":120},"100077246","outcomes-after-esophagectomy-with-a-focus-on-minimally-invasive-esophagectomy-and-quality-of-life-100077246","NCT00260559","Outcomes After Esophagectomy With a Focus on Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy and Quality of Life","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients scheduled for MIE (Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy)\n* Patients scheduled for open esophagectomy\n* Signed informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who are unable to comprehend or complete the QOL instruments.\n* Patients less than 18 years of age.",{"count":98,"type":20},3500,"To assess short and long term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy. To compare both standard outcome measures as well as patient derived outcome measures, in particular, quality of life (QOL). To look at the applicability of this QOL instrument to this patient group.",[26,101],"Esophageal Cancer",[26,101,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110],"Quality of Life","Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy","Laparoscopic Transhiatal Esophagectomy","Open Esophagectomy","Karnofsky Score","Dysphagia score","Heartburn Scale","Nutrition Score","2026-04-09",{"date":113,"type":35},"2026-04-14",{"date":115,"type":4},"1999-05",{"date":117,"type":20},"2050-12",{"name":119,"class":42},"University of Pittsburgh",2,{"id":122,"slug":123,"hasResults":11,"nctId":124,"briefTitle":125,"officialTitle":125,"acronym":126,"eligibilityCriteria":127,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":128,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":130,"conditions":131,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":139,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":140,"startDateStruct":142,"completionDateStruct":144,"leadSponsor":146,"locationsCount":69},"100249843","mayo-clinic-upper-digestive-disease-survey-100249843","NCT02530983","Mayo Clinic Upper Digestive Disease Survey","UDD","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients undergoing or having already undergone an esophagectomy or esophageal reconstruction.",{"count":129,"type":20},1000,"The Mayo Clinic Conduit Report Card Questionnaires have been created in order to have a consistent evaluation tools for patients undergoing esophageal reconstruction or treatment or patients that are experiencing an upper digestive disease in order to standardize and validate outcome measures. Data will be used to establish the validation of the questionnaires\u002Fsurvey. Data will also lead to the establishment of \"normal\" or expected scores for patients undergoing each type of esophagectomy procedure and for upper digestive diseases. Data will contribute to creating treatment algorithms for symptom management for upper digestive diseases and for post-operative complications and symptoms as well as contribute to pre-operative education.",[132,133,134,101,135,136,26,137,138],"Esophageal Neoplasms","Cancer of Esophagus","Cancer of the Esophagus","Esophagus Cancer","Neoplasm, Esophageal","Abnormalities, Digestive System","Digestive System Abnormalities","2026-03-24",{"date":141,"type":35},"2026-03-30",{"date":143,"type":35},"2015-08-15",{"date":145,"type":20},"2028-12",{"name":147,"class":42},"Mayo Clinic",{"id":149,"slug":150,"hasResults":11,"nctId":151,"briefTitle":152,"officialTitle":153,"acronym":154,"eligibilityCriteria":155,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":156,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":158,"phases":159,"briefSummary":162,"conditions":163,"keywords":170,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":177,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":178,"startDateStruct":180,"completionDateStruct":182,"leadSponsor":184,"locationsCount":69},"100571535","phase-2-effectiveness-of-methods-for-pyloric-drainage-in-esophagectomy-botox-vs-pyloromyotomy-100571535","NCT06721520","Effectiveness of Methods for Pyloric Drainage in esophagecTomY: Botox vs. Pyloromyotomy","Comparative Effectiveness of Intrapyloric Botulinum Toxin Injection Versus Pyloromyotomy for Pyloric Drainage During Esophagectomy: A Registry-Based, Pragmatic Randomized Noninferiority Trial","EMPTY","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* 18 years of age or older\n* Undergoing elective esophagectomy (thoracoabdominal, Ivor-Lewis, McKeown)\n* Receiving a gastric conduit for alimentary reconstruction\n* Technically able to receive either intrapyloric Botox injection or pyloromyotomy as ultimately determined intraoperatively\n* Willing and able to provide informed consent\n* Willing and able to participate in long-term follow up including study visits and surveys\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Undergoing emergent esophagectomy (e.g., for esophageal perforation)\n* Patients with underlying neuromuscular disease as Botox would be contraindicated (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, muscular dystrophies, Lambert-Eaton syndrome)\n* Patients undergoing left thoracoabdominal without left cervical neck incision (i.e., Sweet esophagectomy) - excluded due to the extent of gastric resection\n* Pregnancy\n* Allergy or hypersensitivity to botulinum toxin\n* Cannot feasibly receive both pyloric interventions as determined intraoperatively (e.g., patients with central obesity undergoing thoracoabdominal esophagectomy makes for a technically difficult pyloromyotomy)",{"count":157,"type":20},170,"INTERVENTIONAL",[160,161],"PHASE2","PHASE3","The goal of this pragmatic, registry-based, randomized clinical trial is to find out if using botulinum toxin (Botox) to help drain the stomach during an esophagectomy works as well as a pyloromyotomy in patients undergoing elective esophagectomy for benign or malignant esophageal disease. Both methods are intended to prevent problems with food emptying too slowly from the stomach (delayed gastric emptying), which can cause discomfort after surgery. The main question it aims to answer is:\n\nIs intrapyloric Botox injection as a drainage procedure during esophagectomy non-inferior in preventing symptoms of delayed gastric emptying at 6 months postoperatively compared to pyloromyotomy?\n\nResearchers will compare intrapyloric Botox injection to pyloromyotomy to see if Botox is non-inferior to pyloromyotomy in easing symptoms of delayed gastric emptying.\n\nParticipants will:\n\nBe randomized to one of two treatment groups-either intrapyloric Botox injection or pyloromyotomy-during their esophagectomy.\n\nComplete surveys assessing digestive symptoms at standard postoperative follow-up intervals (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively).\n\nUndergo a standard gastric emptying study at 6 months after surgery.",[164,26,165,166,167,168,169],"Esophageal Cancer Surgery","Delayed Gastric Emptying Following Procedure","Esophageal Diseases","Esophageal Achalasia","Pylorus Dysfunction","Esophageal Dysmotility",[26,171,172,173,174,175,176],"Delayed gastric emptying","Delayed conduit emptying","Botox","botulinum toxin","Pyloromyotomy","Pyloric drainage","2026-02-23",{"date":179,"type":35},"2026-02-25",{"date":181,"type":35},"2024-12-03",{"date":183,"type":20},"2028-05-31",{"name":185,"class":42},"The Cleveland Clinic",{"id":187,"slug":188,"hasResults":11,"nctId":189,"briefTitle":190,"officialTitle":191,"acronym":192,"eligibilityCriteria":193,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":194,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":158,"phases":196,"briefSummary":198,"conditions":199,"keywords":202,"overallStatus":208,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":209,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":210,"startDateStruct":212,"completionDateStruct":214,"leadSponsor":216,"locationsCount":69},"100626369","paravertebral-catheter-versus-epidural-analgesia-in-totally-minimally-invasive-esophagectomies-100626369","NCT07434739","PAravertebral CaTheter Versus Epidural Analgesia in Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies","PAravertebral CaTheter Versus Epidural Analgesia in Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies: a Randomized Controlled Trial","PACEMIE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient requiring totally minimally invasive surgical esophagectomy (robot-assisted or not) with 2 Ivor-Lewis type approaches: laparoscopy for the abdominal approach and thoracoscopy for the thoracic approach.\n* Age ≥ 18 years old\n* Patient who has given written consent to participate in the trial\n* Socially insured patient\n* Patient willing to comply with all study procedures and duration\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* \\- Intervention planned by open esophagectomy (laparotomy and\u002For thoracotomy)\n* 3-stage esophagectomy, McKeown type\n* Obesity with body mass index ≥ 35 kg.m-2 (due to the foreseeable difficulties arising from this BMI).\n* Pregnancy\n* Haemostasis trouble\n* ASA score \\> 3\n* Renal failure (eGFR \\\u003C 50 mL\u002Fmin)\n* Ongoing opioid use (\\>3 months prior to the day of surgery)\n* Contraindication to local anesthesia\n* Local infection\n* Inability to receive informed information\n* Person deprived of the liberty\n* Person benefiting from a system of legal protection (guardianship…)",{"count":195,"type":20},506,[197],"NA","Esophageal cancer ranks as the seventh leading cause of cancer globally, with 604,100 new cases, and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.\n\nWhen applicable, surgery is the gold standard treatment for resectable oesophageal-esophagogastric junction cancer. The surgical technique requires both an abdominal approach and a transthoracic approach to resect the esophagus, perform the anastomosis, and allow optimal lymph node removal.\n\nSurgery Historically, esophagectomy was performed entirely through open surgery. This procedure was complex, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as intense acute and chronic postoperative pain.\n\nIn this context, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the gold standard in the management of acute postoperative pain. It allows for opioid sparing and reduces postoperative pulmonary complications.\n\nIn order to reduce postoperative pain, facilitate postoperative recovery and limit postoperative complications, particularly respiratory complications, the minimally invasive approach has been proposed for several surgical indications. This principle has led to the development of hybrid esophagectomy, i.e. an abdominal approach by laparoscopy and a thoracic approach by right thoracotomy. An abdominal laparoscopic approach during esophagectomy, even in combination with a right thoracotomy, would therefore limit postoperative complications compared to open surgery.\n\nIn parallel to the wider use of hybrid esophagectomy, some teams have demonstrated the feasibility of a totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE), first video-assisted, then robot-assisted.\n\nThe rise of minimally invasive surgery (both hybrid and totally minimally invasive) has led to a decrease in postoperative pain compared to open surgery.\n\nEnhanced recovery after surgery protocols have been developed to improve postoperative recovery and management of acute postoperative pain. In this context, thoracic epidural analgesia TEA may prove counterproductive by inducing arterial hypotension requiring vasopressor drugs, acute urinary retention, and limiting mobilization. Moreover, thoracic epidural analgesia TEA failure occurs in 30% of cases. In minimally invasive surgery, it may be inadequate in half of the patients.\n\nParavertebral block (PVB) appears as a satisfactory alternative for postoperative analgesia management. In this sense, PVB is recommended for pain management in thoracoscopic lung.\n\nEvidence of the effectiveness and interest of the paravertebral catheter is lacking regarding totally minimally invasive esophageal surgery as most studies demonstrating the benefit of Paravertebral block PVB in esophageal surgery were retrospective.",[101,26,200,201],"Multimodal Analgesia","Minimally Invasive Surgery",[203,204,205,206,207],"Minimally Invasive surgery","Multimodal analgesia","Paravertebral","Epidural","Esophagectomies","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-02-19",{"date":211,"type":35},"2026-02-27",{"date":213,"type":20},"2026-05-01",{"date":215,"type":20},"2028-10-01",{"name":217,"class":42},"University Hospital, Lille",{"id":219,"slug":220,"hasResults":11,"nctId":221,"briefTitle":222,"officialTitle":223,"acronym":224,"eligibilityCriteria":225,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":226,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":228,"conditions":229,"keywords":233,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":236,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":237,"startDateStruct":239,"completionDateStruct":241,"leadSponsor":243,"locationsCount":120},"100586152","infectious-complications-after-esophagectomy-100586152","NCT06911658","Infectious Complications After Esophagectomy","Infectious Complications, Associated Factors, and Prognosis After Esophagectomy for Cancer: A French, Multicenter, Retrospective Study - CIFO-study","CIFO","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients over 18 years of age\n* Underwent esophagectomy for cancer between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2024\n* Scheduled admission to intensive care for postoperative monitoring\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Opposition to the use of data",{"count":227,"type":20},350,"Infectious complications represent the most common postoperative adverse events following esophagectomy for cancer, such as pneumonia (15% of cases). These complications increase immediate risks, lengthen hospital stays, and worsen patient quality of life.\n\nThe population includes patients admitted to intensive care after esophagectomy for cancer between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2024.\n\nThe study focuses on this population due to the increasing incidence of esophageal cancer, the increased use of surgery for these indications, and the importance of postoperative infections in these complex procedures, despite their understudied nature in the current literature. Identifying modifiable risk factors could lead to corrective measures and thus improve the prognosis of postoperative patients.\n\nThe research focuses primarily on the incidence, types, factors, and prognosis associated with the occurrence of infections after esophagectomy for cancer. It also includes an analysis of the pathogens involved, their resistance profiles, and the antibiotic therapies used in first-line probabilistic treatment.",[26,230,231,232],"Postoperative Complications","Infections","Pneumonia",[234,235],"Postoperative infection","Esophagectomy complications","2025-12-09",{"date":238,"type":35},"2025-12-17",{"date":240,"type":35},"2025-08-27",{"date":242,"type":20},"2026-07-28",{"name":244,"class":42},"Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris",{"id":246,"slug":247,"hasResults":11,"nctId":248,"briefTitle":249,"officialTitle":250,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":251,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":252,"enrollmentInfo":253,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":158,"phases":255,"briefSummary":257,"conditions":258,"keywords":261,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":240,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":262,"startDateStruct":264,"completionDateStruct":266,"leadSponsor":268,"locationsCount":69},"100536967","phase-4-stellate-ganglion-block-100536967","NCT06271707","Stellate Ganglion Block","Left Sided Stellate Ganglion Blocks Impact on the Rate of Post-operative Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery: A Pilot Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients undergoing esophagectomy, pneumonectomy, or lobectomy aged 18-85.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who have an exclusion to regional anesthesia.\n* Patients who have exclusion to stellate blockade.\n* Patients who are pregnant assessed via self-report or pregnancy test if they have taken one","85 Years",{"count":254,"type":20},48,[256],"PHASE4","The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of an ultrasound guided left sided stellate ganglion block with bupivacaine in patients undergoing esophagectomy, pneumonectomy, or lobectomy will result in lower rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation as compared to standard of care.",[26,259,260],"Pneumonectomy","Lobectomy",[26,259,260,249],{"date":263,"type":35},"2025-09-04",{"date":265,"type":35},"2025-05-19",{"date":267,"type":20},"2027-07-15",{"name":269,"class":42},"University of Minnesota",{"id":271,"slug":272,"hasResults":11,"nctId":273,"briefTitle":274,"officialTitle":275,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":276,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":277,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":278,"targetDuration":280,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":281,"conditions":282,"keywords":283,"overallStatus":208,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":286,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":287,"startDateStruct":289,"completionDateStruct":290,"leadSponsor":292,"locationsCount":4},"100597912","non-gastric-conduit-reconstruction-after-esophagectomy-100597912","NCT07064655","Non-gastric Conduit Reconstruction After Esophagectomy","A Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Patients Undergoing Non-gastric Conduit Reconstruction After Esophagectomy to Assess Surgical Outcomes","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who have voluntarily signed an informed consent form and are willing and able to complete all requirements of the study.\n* Age 20 years or older.\n* Patients who are scheduled for esophagectomy and reconstruction with a conduit other than a gastric conduit is planned.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who do not consent to participate in this study\n* The investigator determines that the patient should not participate in the study because the investigator believes that the patient will not be able to comply with the study procedures, requirements, and procedures","20 Years",{"count":279,"type":20},25,"6 Months","This study is to collect and analyze the clinical information of patients who underwent reconstruction using conduits other than the stomach, such as the colon and small intestine, after esophagectomy. Currently, reconstruction after esophagectomy is mainly performed using the stomach, and there is very little information on reconstruction using the colon and small intestine.\n\nTherefore, this study aims to collect information on patients who underwent reconstruction using conduits other than the stomach, analyze the surgical performance, find clinical improvements, and build a foundation for future clinical quality improvement.",[26,101],[284,58,285],"esophageal cancer","non-gastric conduit reconstruction","2025-07-05",{"date":288,"type":35},"2025-07-15",{"date":288,"type":20},{"date":291,"type":20},"2030-12-30",{"name":68,"class":42},{"id":294,"slug":295,"hasResults":11,"nctId":296,"briefTitle":297,"officialTitle":298,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":299,"healthyVolunteers":300,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":301,"enrollmentInfo":302,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":304,"conditions":305,"keywords":307,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":311,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":312,"startDateStruct":314,"completionDateStruct":316,"leadSponsor":318,"locationsCount":69},"100349858","oesophagectomy-and-chest-wall-and-respiratory-function-100349858","NCT03835273","Oesophagectomy and Chest Wall and Respiratory Function","Changes in Respiratory Function and Chest Wall Movement Following Oesophagectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Exposure group:\n\n  1. Patients treated more than a year ago with oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer, by an open approach.\n  2. Patients able to understand and retain the information provided, thereby being able to give informed consent for inclusion in this study.\n* Control group:\n\n  1. Healthy volunteers with no underlying respiratory disease and no history of upper gastrointestinal surgery.\n  2. Individuals able to understand and retain the information provided, thereby being able to give informed consent for inclusion in this study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Any participant who lacks capacity or is unable to provide informed consent.\n* Any participant younger than 18 or older than 90 years of age.\n* Any patient with evidence of cancer recurrence or on-going postoperative complication at more than one year following surgery for oesophageal cancer.\n* Any pregnant participant.\n* unable to or excluded from performing spirometry or respiratory muscle strength testing (non-invasive testing)",true,"90 Years",{"count":303,"type":20},100,"Open surgery for esophageal cancer commonly involves large incisions in the chest, associated with a high rate of pulmonary complications (30-50%). Minimally invasive approach through keyhole surgery has been shown to reduce pulmonary infections by 20%. Enhanced recovery programmes are evidence-based protocols, developed to achieve early recovery after surgery with early mobilisation and chest physiotherapy and have been shown to reduce pulmonary complication rates as well. The investigators intend to objectively measure chest wall movement using 3D motion capture system as well as a wearable measurement system to monitor chest wall movement.",[101,26,306],"Respiratory Function Loss",[26,308,309,310],"Motion capture","Respiratory","Oesophageal cancer","2025-06-30",{"date":313,"type":35},"2025-07-03",{"date":315,"type":35},"2019-05-29",{"date":317,"type":20},"2025-08-31",{"name":319,"class":42},"Imperial College London",{"id":321,"slug":322,"hasResults":11,"nctId":323,"briefTitle":324,"officialTitle":325,"acronym":326,"eligibilityCriteria":327,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":16,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":328,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":158,"phases":330,"briefSummary":331,"conditions":332,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":208,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":336,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":337,"startDateStruct":339,"completionDateStruct":341,"leadSponsor":343,"locationsCount":4},"100559394","erasme-randomized-controlled-trial-surveys-hemodynamic-excursions-during-esophagectomy-100559394","NCT06563557","Erasme Randomized Controlled Trial Surveys Hemodynamic Excursions During Esophagectomy","ERASME ULB: Erasme Randomized Controlled Trial Surveys Hemodynamic Excursions During Esophagectomy - a Double Blind Study","ERASME ULB","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult, Capable of giving consent, two or three incisions esophagectomy (thoracoscopic\u002F thoracotomy) no laparotomy\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* patient refusal, total language barrier, coagulation disorders, thrombocytopenia \\\u003C75 000, contraindications to locoregional anesthesia (infection local site, allergy to local anesthesic), scoliosis Cobb \\> 45%, atrial fibrillation, end stage renal disease),",{"count":329,"type":20},75,[197],"In our high volume center, the majority of esophagectomy procedures are performed with minimally invasive techniques. The thoracic epidural technique remains the gold standard and homolateral paravertebral catheter is strongly recommended. The vasoplegia and sympathetic blockade due to the epidural can cause significant hypotension especially as reverse Trendelenburg position is required during surgery. The aim is to study hemodynamic changes caused by two different techniques. Previous studies found a similar pain management between both locoregional techniques, however few studies suggested less side effects in the paravertebral group during major abdominal surgeries.",[26,333,334,335],"Epidural; Anesthesia","Paravertebral Anesthesia","Hemodynamic Instability","2024-08-19",{"date":338,"type":35},"2024-08-21",{"date":340,"type":20},"2024-08",{"date":342,"type":20},"2026-12-12",{"name":344,"class":42},"Erasme University Hospital",{"id":346,"slug":347,"hasResults":11,"nctId":348,"briefTitle":349,"officialTitle":350,"acronym":351,"eligibilityCriteria":352,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":353,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":355,"conditions":356,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":358,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":359,"startDateStruct":361,"completionDateStruct":363,"leadSponsor":365,"locationsCount":367},"100412778","metachronic-brain-metastases-after-esophagectomy-for-esophageal-cancer-metabrec-100412778","NCT04654975","Metachronic Brain Metastases After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer (METABREC)","Risk Factors and Treatment Options for Metachronic Brain Metastases After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: a Multicentric Retrospective Cohort Study (METABREC)","METABREC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients receiving surgical treatment for esophageal cancer between 1 januari 2000 and 31 december 2019\n* All types of neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery, primary surgery or salvage surgery.\n* Adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma histology\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* other histology type than adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma\n* Hypopharyngeal carcinoma extending to the esophagus (requiring total laryngo-pharyngo-esophagectomy)\n* Early esophageal carcinoma (cT IS-1a N0 M0)\n* palliative esophagectomy",{"count":354,"type":20},10000,"Esophagectomy is the cornerstone of the curative treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Despite this treatment, patients can suffer from locoregional or distant metastatic disease and only a very selected group of patients can be cured: mostly those with recurrence in one single organ.\n\nBrain metastases are rare after esophagectomy for cancer, but they have a serious impact on survival. Agressive treatment is often moren difficult for brain metastases compared to other metastases and some risk factors have been identified earlier.\n\nThere is an impression that the incidence of brain metastases in esophageal cancer patients has increased since the introduction of neoadjuvant treatment schemes. However, this is not clear yet. A potential explanation could be that chemotherapy disturbs the blood-brain-barrier, hereby facilitating the migration of tumor cells to the brain.\n\nThe purpose of this study is to retrospectively analyze the incidence and potential risk factors of brain metastases in patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Patients treated between 2000 and 2019 will be included and outcome parameters are Odds Ratio for brain metastases (comparison between primary surgery and neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery), time to recurrence and risk factors, number and characteristics of the brain metastases.",[132,26,357],"Brain Metastases","2024-07-02",{"date":360,"type":35},"2024-07-03",{"date":362,"type":35},"2020-06-02",{"date":364,"type":20},"2025-03-31",{"name":366,"class":42},"Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven",8,{"id":369,"slug":370,"hasResults":11,"nctId":371,"briefTitle":372,"officialTitle":373,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":374,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":15,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":375,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":4,"briefSummary":377,"conditions":378,"keywords":380,"overallStatus":208,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":386,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":387,"startDateStruct":389,"completionDateStruct":390,"leadSponsor":392,"locationsCount":69},"100527393","comparison-of-long-term-survival-and-quality-of-life-after-minimally-invasive-esophagectomy-versus-open-esophagectomy-100527393","NCT06147180","Comparison of Long-term Survival and Quality of Life After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy","Comparison of Long-term Survival and Quality of Life After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: a Retrospective Cohort Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients who had undergone esophageal cancer resection at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, between 2013 and 2021, with pathology results confirming esophageal squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other malignant tumors.\n2. The surgery was successfully completed, the patient was safely discharged from the hospital, the postoperative follow-up was successful, and if the follow-up patient died, his or her death was due to natural causes.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPerioperative patient deaths, pathologic findings other than those listed above, loss of visits, and postoperative unnatural deaths.",{"count":376,"type":20},1474,"To analyze and compare the long-term recurrence-free survival rate, overall survival rate and quality of survival after minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy, and to conduct subgroup analysis according to the type of esophageal cancer and pathological stage, etc., and to explore more deeply the differences between minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in terms of the benefits for different types of patients, so as to provide reference for the selection of the clinical surgical methods. We will also use the available data to analyze the influence of other factors on patients\\' long-term survival after surgery.",[135,26,103,379],"Survival",[381,382,383,384,385],"esophagus Cancer","invasive esophagectomy","open esophagectomy","long-term survival","quality of life","2023-11-19",{"date":388,"type":35},"2023-11-27",{"date":388,"type":20},{"date":391,"type":20},"2026-08-31",{"name":393,"class":42},"Qilu Hospital of Shandong University"]