Annals of translational medicine · 2020
Spontaneous ventilation video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal tumor resection in patients with pulmonary function deficiency.
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.
Huang Weizhe, Deng Hongsheng, Lan Yuting, Wang Runchen, Ge Fan, Huo Zhenyu, Lu Yi, Lin Weiyi, Lin Guo, Liang Wenhua, Liang Hengrui, He Jianxing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Whether non-intubated spontaneous ventilation video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (SV-VATS) is a safe procedure remains controversial for mediastinal tumor patients with impaired lung function. Herein, we assessed feasibility of SV-VATS in lung function deficiency patients underwent mediastinal tumor resection.
METHODS: From December 2015 to February 2020, 32 mediastinal tumor patients with impaired lung function (preoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second <70% of the predicted value) were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into two groups: SV-VATS group and mechanical ventilation VATS (MV-VATS) group. Intraoperative and postoperative variables were compared between two cohorts.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients (46.88%) underwent SV-VATS and 17 patients (53.12%) were performed with MV-VATS. The most common causes of lung function deficiency were smoking (81.25%) and COPD (71.88%). Patients in the SV-VATS group had similar blood loss (20.63 vs. 18.76 mL, P=0.417) with MV-VATS group. The anesthesia time (217.51 vs. 197.76 min; P=0.343) and surgery time (141.23 vs. 132.36 min; P=0.209) were also similar between groups. Five people suffered postoperative complications in each group, in which 1 patient underwent MV-VATS was transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) because of prolonged extubation owing to hypoxia. There was no difference on chest tube removal time (2.6 vs. 2.3 days; P=0.172) or hospital duration (5.03 vs. 4.74 days; P=0.297) in patients underwent SV-VATS and MV-VATS.
CONCLUSIONS: SV-VATS is safe and provides similar short-term results to MV-VATS for mediastinal tumor resection in patients with limited pulmonary function.
METHODS: From December 2015 to February 2020, 32 mediastinal tumor patients with impaired lung function (preoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second <70% of the predicted value) were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into two groups: SV-VATS group and mechanical ventilation VATS (MV-VATS) group. Intraoperative and postoperative variables were compared between two cohorts.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients (46.88%) underwent SV-VATS and 17 patients (53.12%) were performed with MV-VATS. The most common causes of lung function deficiency were smoking (81.25%) and COPD (71.88%). Patients in the SV-VATS group had similar blood loss (20.63 vs. 18.76 mL, P=0.417) with MV-VATS group. The anesthesia time (217.51 vs. 197.76 min; P=0.343) and surgery time (141.23 vs. 132.36 min; P=0.209) were also similar between groups. Five people suffered postoperative complications in each group, in which 1 patient underwent MV-VATS was transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) because of prolonged extubation owing to hypoxia. There was no difference on chest tube removal time (2.6 vs. 2.3 days; P=0.172) or hospital duration (5.03 vs. 4.74 days; P=0.297) in patients underwent SV-VATS and MV-VATS.
CONCLUSIONS: SV-VATS is safe and provides similar short-term results to MV-VATS for mediastinal tumor resection in patients with limited pulmonary function.