Nguyen N T, Follette D M, Wolfe B M, Schneider P D, Roberts P, Goodnight J E
Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, 2221 Stockton Blvd, Third Floor, Sacramento, CA 95817-1418, USA.
Arch Surg. 2000 Aug;135(8):920-5. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.135.8.920.
Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed as safely as conventional esophagectomy and has distinct perioperative outcome advantages.
A retrospective comparison of 3 methods of esophagectomy: minimally invasive, transthoracic, and blunt transhiatal.
University medical center.
Eighteen consecutive patients underwent combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy from October 9, 1998, through January 19, 2000. These patients were compared with 16 patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy and 20 patients who underwent blunt transhiatal esophagectomy from June 1, 1993, through August 5, 1998.
Operative time, amount of blood loss, number of operative transfusions, length of intensive care and hospital stays, complications, and mortality.
Patients who had minimally invasive esophagectomy had shorter operative times, less blood loss, fewer transfusions, and shortened intensive care unit and hospital courses than patients who underwent transthoracic or blunt transhiatal esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak or respiratory complications among the 3 groups.
Minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and provides clinical advantages compared with transthoracic and blunt transhiatal esophagectomy.
微创食管切除术的实施安全性可与传统食管切除术相媲美，且在围手术期结局方面具有明显优势。
对三种食管切除方法进行回顾性比较：微创、经胸和钝性经裂孔。
大学医学中心。
从1998年10月9日至2000年1月19日，连续18例患者接受了胸腔镜和腹腔镜联合食管切除术。将这些患者与1993年6月1日至1998年8月5日期间接受经胸食管切除术的16例患者以及接受钝性经裂孔食管切除术的20例患者进行比较。
手术时间、失血量、术中输血次数、重症监护时间和住院时间、并发症及死亡率。
与接受经胸或钝性经裂孔食管切除术的患者相比，接受微创食管切除术的患者手术时间更短、失血量更少、输血次数更少，重症监护病房和住院疗程也更短。三组之间吻合口漏或呼吸并发症的发生率无显著差异。
与经胸和钝性经裂孔食管切除术相比，微创食管切除术安全且具有临床优势。
