The American surgeon · 2024
Is Minimally Invasive Resection of Large Thymoma Appropriate?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Manyak Grigory A, Bassiri Aria, Alvarado Christine E, Sarnaik Kunaal S, Sinopoli Jilian, Tapias Leonidas, Linden Philip A, Towe Christopher W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current practice patterns suggest open rather than minimally invasive (MIS) approaches for thymomas >4 cm. We hypothesized there would be similar perioperative outcomes and overall survival between open and MIS approaches for large (>4 cm) thymoma resection.
METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent thymectomy from 2010 to 2020. Surgical approach was characterized as either open or MIS. The primary outcome was overall survival and secondary outcomes were margin status, and length of stay (LOS). Differences between approach cohorts were compared after a 1:1 propensity match.
RESULTS: Among 4121 thymectomies, 2474 (60%) were open and 1647 (40%) were MIS. Patients undergoing MIS were older, had fewer comorbidities, and had smaller tumors (median; 4.6 vs 6 cm, P < .001). In the unmatched cohort, MIS and open had similar 90-day mortality (1.1% vs 1.8%, P = .158) and rate of positive margin (25.1% vs 27.9%, P = .109). MIS thymectomy was associated with shorter LOS (2 (1-4) vs 4 (3-6) days, P < .001). Propensity matching reduced the bias between the groups. In this cohort, overall survival was similar between the groups by log-rank test (P = .462) and multivariate cox hazard analysis (HR .882, P = .472). Multivariable regression showed shorter LOS with MIS approach (Coef -1.139, P < .001), and similar odds of positive margin (OR 1.130, P = .150).
DISCUSSION: MIS has equivalent oncologic benefit to open resection for large thymomas, but is associated with shorter LOS. When clinically appropriate, MIS thymectomy may be considered a safe alternative to open resection for large thymomas.
METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent thymectomy from 2010 to 2020. Surgical approach was characterized as either open or MIS. The primary outcome was overall survival and secondary outcomes were margin status, and length of stay (LOS). Differences between approach cohorts were compared after a 1:1 propensity match.
RESULTS: Among 4121 thymectomies, 2474 (60%) were open and 1647 (40%) were MIS. Patients undergoing MIS were older, had fewer comorbidities, and had smaller tumors (median; 4.6 vs 6 cm, P < .001). In the unmatched cohort, MIS and open had similar 90-day mortality (1.1% vs 1.8%, P = .158) and rate of positive margin (25.1% vs 27.9%, P = .109). MIS thymectomy was associated with shorter LOS (2 (1-4) vs 4 (3-6) days, P < .001). Propensity matching reduced the bias between the groups. In this cohort, overall survival was similar between the groups by log-rank test (P = .462) and multivariate cox hazard analysis (HR .882, P = .472). Multivariable regression showed shorter LOS with MIS approach (Coef -1.139, P < .001), and similar odds of positive margin (OR 1.130, P = .150).
DISCUSSION: MIS has equivalent oncologic benefit to open resection for large thymomas, but is associated with shorter LOS. When clinically appropriate, MIS thymectomy may be considered a safe alternative to open resection for large thymomas.