Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2013
Thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilization during thoracolaparoscopy three-stage oesophagectomy: a comparison of lateral decubitus versus semiprone positions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАVideo-Audio MediaНазвание 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.
Lin Jiangbo, Kang Mingqiang, Chen Chun, Lin Ruobai
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare thoracoscopic mobilization of the oesophagus in the lateral decubitus position and the semiprone position and to identify potential differences between the two techniques.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained oesophagectomy database identified 150 patients undergoing combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic oesophagectomy (TLO). Of these, 90 cases underwent thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilization in the left lateral decubitus position. The remaining 60 cases underwent thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilization in the semiprone position.
RESULTS: There were no differences in the clinicopathological factors and tumour characteristics between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the blood loss, operation time, the incidence of conversion, length of hospital stay or in the number of retrieved mediastinal and abdominal nodes between the two groups. There was no significant difference with regard to the incidence of respiratory complications, anastomotic leaks, vocal cord palsy, chylothorax, delayed gastric emptying, arrhythmia and intestinal obstruction between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The semiprone and lateral decubitus positions each have their inherent advantages and disadvantages. Our initial experience confirmed that while the semiprone position is associated with superior surgical ergonomics and better exposure of the posterior mediastinum, there is no convincing evidence that semiprone thoracoscopic oesophagectomy is superior to the left lateral decubitus positioning with respect to the major surgical outcomes and oncological clearance.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained oesophagectomy database identified 150 patients undergoing combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic oesophagectomy (TLO). Of these, 90 cases underwent thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilization in the left lateral decubitus position. The remaining 60 cases underwent thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilization in the semiprone position.
RESULTS: There were no differences in the clinicopathological factors and tumour characteristics between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the blood loss, operation time, the incidence of conversion, length of hospital stay or in the number of retrieved mediastinal and abdominal nodes between the two groups. There was no significant difference with regard to the incidence of respiratory complications, anastomotic leaks, vocal cord palsy, chylothorax, delayed gastric emptying, arrhythmia and intestinal obstruction between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The semiprone and lateral decubitus positions each have their inherent advantages and disadvantages. Our initial experience confirmed that while the semiprone position is associated with superior surgical ergonomics and better exposure of the posterior mediastinum, there is no convincing evidence that semiprone thoracoscopic oesophagectomy is superior to the left lateral decubitus positioning with respect to the major surgical outcomes and oncological clearance.