Aims. In order to determine the indications of transoral surgery for a tumor located at the pharyngoesophageal junction, the trumpet maneuver with transnasal endoscopy was used. Its efficacy is reported here. Material and Methods. An 88-year-old woman complaining of dysphagia, diagnosed with cervical esophageal cancer, and hoping to preserve her voice and swallowing function was admitted to our hospital. Conventional endoscopy showed that the tumor had invaded the hypopharynx. When inspecting the hypopharynx and the orifice of the esophagus, we asked the patient to blow hard and puff her cheeks with her mouth closed (trumpet maneuver). After the trumpet maneuver, the pharyngeal mucosa was stretched out. The pedicle of the tumor arose from the left-anterior wall of the pharyngoesophageal junction, so we decided to perform endoscopic resection. Result. Under general anesthesia, the curved laryngoscope made it possible to view the whole hypopharynx, including the apex of the piriform sinus and the orifice of the esophagus. The cervical esophageal cancer was pulled up to the hypopharynx. Under collaboration between a head and neck surgeon and an endoscopist, the tumor was resected en bloc by endoscopic laryngopharyngeal surgery combined with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Conclusion. Transnasal endoscopy using the trumpet maneuver is useful for a precise diagnosis of the pharyngoesophageal junction. Close collaboration between head and neck surgeons and endoscopists can provide good results in treating tumors of the pharyngoesophageal junction.

Background/Aim: Esophagectomy is still the best therapeutic option for curing resectable esophageal cancer (EC). Radical surgical resection with three-field lymphadenectomy (3FLD) is a potentially curative treatment option. We compared the predictive accuracy of 5 different scores in patients with EC who underwent 3FLD. Methods: Five years’ worth of medical records in a single institution were analyzed (January 2010 to January 2015) from 311 patients who underwent esophagectomy for EC. We selected 191 in whom 3FLD was performed. Mortality was calculated based on 5 predictive scores. Outcomes measures were intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, and 1- and 2-year mortality after surgery. Results: Intraoperative mortality and 30-day mortality after surgery was 0%; 1 and 2-year mortality were 19.8 and 31.4%, respectively. The area under the curve showed poor discriminatory power for all 5 scores (<0.7). In one-way analysis of variance, for 1 year mortality, Portsmouth-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for mortality (P-Possum) was significant (p = 0.0424); in a multivariable analysis for 2-year mortality, P-Possum (p < 0.0001) remained significant. Conclusion: There is no accurate prognosis score for esophagectomy in patients who undergo high-risk procedures like 3FLD. New scores are needed to predict the mortality after 3FLD with good discriminatory power. Independent factors affect survival and may function as the baseline for obtaining a new accurate mortality score.

Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are promising therapeutic options for early esophageal cancer (EC). The factors that can affect mid- and long-term survival in patients with submucosal EC (SM1 and SM2) have not been described in the literature. We aim to describe clinicopathological outcomes and factors that can affect the mid- and long-term survival in patients with resected submucosal tumors. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent endoscopic resection (ER) for submucosal tumors over a 20-year period. The final study population included 119 cases with 137 lesions. Information was collected according to the Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer 11-edition and factors affecting survival for 2 and 5 years after ER were analyzed. Results EMR was performed in 99 cases (72.3 %), ESD in 38 cases (27.7 %). There were no significant complications. Two- and 5-year survival rates were 91 % and 82 %, respectively. Mean age was 67.22 years (± 9.49 years), mortality caused by EC occurred in 13 cases (11 %). Factors that had a significant impact on long-term survival were age > 65 years (P = 0.0026), number of resected specimens (P = 0.0031), presence of another progressive disease (not EC) (P ≤ 0.001), recurrence (P = 0.0002), and relation between histopathological positive vertical margin and recurrence (P = 0.0112). Conclusions ER is viable treatment for esophageal submucosal cancer, selection between ESD/EMR can depend on tumor size and patient condition, and en bloc ER is the recommended technique for submucosal tumors. Long-term survival factors were identified.

Background Data: A new pilon fracture classification system based on CT scan data was recently published, showing almost perfect interobserver and intraobserver agreement among the authors who developed it. However, an independent assessment has not been done. Objective: To do an independent agreement evaluation of the new pilon fracture classification system with physicians with different levels of expertise in the management of pilon fractures. Methods: Seventy-one cases of acute pilon fracture were retrospectively collected. Fractures were classified by six evaluators (three foot and ankle surgeons and three orthopaedic surgery residents) using CT scans according to the morphological grading of the new pilon fracture classification system developed by Leonetti et al. Cases were presented to the same evaluators in a random sequence after a 6-week interval to determine intraobserver agreement. The kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine agreement among evaluators. Results: The interobserver agreement was substantial regarding the main fracture type (I, II, III, or IV), with an overall κ value of 0.69 (0.65 to 0.72). When including the II and III subtypes, the overall agreement was still substantial, with a κ value of 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 0.64). The intraobserver agreement was substantial when considering the main fracture categories (I, II, III, or IV), with a κ value of 0.78 (confidence interval: 0.72 to 0.84), and full agreement at the type level was observed in 76% (324/426) of evaluations. There was no notable difference between the foot and ankle surgeons and orthopaedic surgery residents in the interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Conclusion: The new classification system demonstrated substantial interobserver and intraobserver agreement between evaluators with different levels of expertise in the management of pilon fractures. Prospective studies should be done to evaluate its prognostic value and utility in clinical practice.