European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2022
A national analysis of open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for stage I-III thymic carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hurd Jacob, Haridas Chinmay, Potter Alexandra, Baiu Ioana, Beqari Jorind, Deng John, Liou Douglas, Patel Deven, Yang Chi-Fu Jeffrey
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The oncological efficacy of minimally invasive thymectomy for thymic carcinoma is not well characterized. We compared overall survival and short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgical (video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic) approaches using the National Cancer Database.
METHODS: Perioperative outcomes and overall survival of patients who underwent open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for Masaoka stage I-III thymic carcinoma from 2010 to 2015 in the National Cancer Database were evaluated using propensity score-matched analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modelling. Outcomes by surgical approach were assessed using an intent-to-treat analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 216 thymectomies that were evaluated, 43 (20%) were performed with minimally invasive techniques (22 video-assisted thoracoscopic and 21 robotic). The minimally invasive approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay when compared to the open approach (3 vs 5 days, P < 0.001). In the propensity score-matched analysis of 30 open and 30 minimally invasive thymectomies, the minimally invasive group did not differ significantly in median length of stay (3 vs 4.5 days, P = 0.27), 30-day readmission (P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (P = 0.60), 90-day mortality (P = 0.60), margin positivity (P = 0.39) and 5-year survival (78.6% vs 54.6%, P = 0.15) when compared to the open group.
CONCLUSIONS: In this national analysis, minimally invasive thymectomy for stage I-III thymic carcinoma was found to have no significant differences in short-term outcomes and overall survival when compared to open thymectomy.
METHODS: Perioperative outcomes and overall survival of patients who underwent open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for Masaoka stage I-III thymic carcinoma from 2010 to 2015 in the National Cancer Database were evaluated using propensity score-matched analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modelling. Outcomes by surgical approach were assessed using an intent-to-treat analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 216 thymectomies that were evaluated, 43 (20%) were performed with minimally invasive techniques (22 video-assisted thoracoscopic and 21 robotic). The minimally invasive approach was associated with a shorter median length of stay when compared to the open approach (3 vs 5 days, P < 0.001). In the propensity score-matched analysis of 30 open and 30 minimally invasive thymectomies, the minimally invasive group did not differ significantly in median length of stay (3 vs 4.5 days, P = 0.27), 30-day readmission (P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (P = 0.60), 90-day mortality (P = 0.60), margin positivity (P = 0.39) and 5-year survival (78.6% vs 54.6%, P = 0.15) when compared to the open group.
CONCLUSIONS: In this national analysis, minimally invasive thymectomy for stage I-III thymic carcinoma was found to have no significant differences in short-term outcomes and overall survival when compared to open thymectomy.