JTCVS open · 2026
Is phrenic nerve-sparing worthwhile for phrenic-involved thymic epithelial tumors? A retrospective cohort study.
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.
Zhu Junkan, Ao Yongqiang, Lin Zhenyang, Jiang Jiahao, Gao Jian, Zheng Yuansheng, Jiang Xifei, Wu Wei, Liu Junzhen, Luo Rongkui, Dong Jihong, Wang Shuai, Ding Jianyong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether phrenic nerve (PN) sparing offers a worthwhile trade-off between functional preservation and oncologic safety compared with resection in PN-involved thymic epithelial tumors (TETs), and to establish an objective tool for postoperative respiratory risk stratification.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort of patients with TETs with PN invasion, 122 propensity score-matched cases were analyzed from 2016 to 2024. PN preservation or resection was determined intraoperatively based on the extent of invasion. The diaphragmatic elevation (DE) ratio was calculated as [(preoperative diaphragm-apex distance - postoperative distance)/preoperative distance] × 100% according to X-rays, and cutoff values were defined by respiratory complication risk. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared between the PN-sparing and PN resection groups.
RESULTS: Overall perioperative morbidity and recovery outcomes were comparable between the PN-sparing and PN-resection groups; however, tumor progression was significantly more frequent on the PN-sparing group (39.3% vs 23.0%), resulting in worse progression-free survival (PFS) (P = .027), although overall survival (OS) remained comparable in the 2 groups. Multivariable analysis identified PN preservation as an independent predictor of progression (P = .049). Furthermore, our receiver operating characteristic-derived DE classification scheme (mild, ≤15%; moderate, 15-25%; severe, ≥25%) predicted severe postoperative respiratory complications (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: PN resection improves PFS without increasing severe perioperative complications, although OS is comparable to that with PN-sparing.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort of patients with TETs with PN invasion, 122 propensity score-matched cases were analyzed from 2016 to 2024. PN preservation or resection was determined intraoperatively based on the extent of invasion. The diaphragmatic elevation (DE) ratio was calculated as [(preoperative diaphragm-apex distance - postoperative distance)/preoperative distance] × 100% according to X-rays, and cutoff values were defined by respiratory complication risk. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared between the PN-sparing and PN resection groups.
RESULTS: Overall perioperative morbidity and recovery outcomes were comparable between the PN-sparing and PN-resection groups; however, tumor progression was significantly more frequent on the PN-sparing group (39.3% vs 23.0%), resulting in worse progression-free survival (PFS) (P = .027), although overall survival (OS) remained comparable in the 2 groups. Multivariable analysis identified PN preservation as an independent predictor of progression (P = .049). Furthermore, our receiver operating characteristic-derived DE classification scheme (mild, ≤15%; moderate, 15-25%; severe, ≥25%) predicted severe postoperative respiratory complications (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: PN resection improves PFS without increasing severe perioperative complications, although OS is comparable to that with PN-sparing.