International journal of clinical oncology · 2023
Clinical advantage of transmediastinal esophagectomy in terms of postoperative respiratory complications.
ОбзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ogawa Koichi, Akashi Yoshimasa, Hisakura Katsuji, Kim Jaejeong, Owada Yohei, Ohara Yusuke, Enomoto Tsuyoshi, Furuya Kinji, Moue Shoko, Miyazaki Yoshihiro, Doi Manami, Shimomura Osamu, Takahashi Kazuhiro, Hashimoto Shinji, Oda Tatsuya
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although the transmediastinal approach as a radical esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma patients has attracted attention, its advantages over the transthoracic approach remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of transmediastinal esophagectomy (TME) in terms of postoperative respiratory complications compared to that of open transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE).
METHODS: We reviewed patients with thoracic and abdominal esophageal carcinoma who underwent TME or TTE between February 2014 and November 2021. We compared postoperative respiratory complications as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included perioperative operation time, blood loss, postoperative complications, and the number of harvested mediastinal lymph nodes.
RESULTS: Overall, 60 and 54 patients underwent TME and TTE, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for age and histological type. There were no intraoperative lethal complications in either group. The incidence of respiratory complications was significantly lower in the TME group than in the TTE group (6.7 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03). The TME group had a shorter operation time (403 vs. 451 min, p < 0.01), less blood loss (107 vs. 253 mL, p < 0.01), and slightly higher anastomotic leakage (11.7 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.33). The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar in both groups (24 vs. 26, p = 0.10). Multivariate analysis revealed that TME is an independent factor in reducing respiratory complications (odds ratio = 0.27, p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: TME for esophageal carcinoma was performed safely. TME was superior to TTE in terms of postoperative respiratory complications; however, the relatively higher frequency of anastomotic leakage should be considered and requires further evaluation.
METHODS: We reviewed patients with thoracic and abdominal esophageal carcinoma who underwent TME or TTE between February 2014 and November 2021. We compared postoperative respiratory complications as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included perioperative operation time, blood loss, postoperative complications, and the number of harvested mediastinal lymph nodes.
RESULTS: Overall, 60 and 54 patients underwent TME and TTE, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for age and histological type. There were no intraoperative lethal complications in either group. The incidence of respiratory complications was significantly lower in the TME group than in the TTE group (6.7 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03). The TME group had a shorter operation time (403 vs. 451 min, p < 0.01), less blood loss (107 vs. 253 mL, p < 0.01), and slightly higher anastomotic leakage (11.7 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.33). The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar in both groups (24 vs. 26, p = 0.10). Multivariate analysis revealed that TME is an independent factor in reducing respiratory complications (odds ratio = 0.27, p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: TME for esophageal carcinoma was performed safely. TME was superior to TTE in terms of postoperative respiratory complications; however, the relatively higher frequency of anastomotic leakage should be considered and requires further evaluation.