Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
Ann Surg. 2012 Feb;255(2):197-203. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823e39fa.
To compare short-term outcomes of open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and possible advantages of MIE in selected cohorts of patients. The increasing use of MIE is not coupled with conclusive evidence of its benefits over "open" esophagectomy, especially in the absence of randomized trials.
Hospital Episode Statistics data were analyzed from April 2005 to March 2010. This is a routinely collected database of all English National Health Service Trusts. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures, 4th revision (OPCS-4), procedure codes were used to identify index resections and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10), diagnostic codes were used to ascertain comorbidity status and complications. Thirty-day in-hospital mortality, medical complications, and surgical reinterventions were analyzed. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted regression analyses were undertaken.
Seven thousand five hundred and two esophagectomies were undertaken; of these, 1155 (15.4%) were MIE. In 2009-2010, 24.7% of resections were MIE. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (4.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.605) and overall medical morbidity (38.0% vs 39.2%; P = 0.457) rates between open and MIE groups, respectively. A higher reintervention rate was associated with the MIE group than with the open group (21% vs 17.6%, P = 0.006; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.38; P = 0.040).
Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed in the United Kingdom. Although the study confirmed the safety of MIE in a population-based national data, there are no significant benefits demonstrated in mortality and overall morbidity. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with higher reintervention rate. Further evidence is needed to establish the long-term survival of MIE.
比较癌症开放手术与微创食管切除术(MIE)的短期疗效。
多项研究表明,MIE 对于特定患者群体是安全的,并且可能具有优势。MIE 的应用日益广泛,但目前尚无结论性证据表明其优于“开放”食管切除术,尤其是在缺乏随机试验的情况下。
对 2005 年 4 月至 2010 年 3 月的医院住院统计数据进行分析。这是一个包含所有英国国民保健系统信托基金的常规数据库。采用手术操作和程序的第 4 次修订版(OPCS-4)的英国国家医疗服务系统手术分类和国际疾病分类第 10 版(ICD-10)的诊断代码来确定索引切除术和合并症的状态和并发症。分析了 30 天院内死亡率、医疗并发症和外科再干预情况。进行了未调整和风险调整回归分析。
共进行了 7502 例食管切除术,其中 1155 例(15.4%)为 MIE。2009-2010 年,MIE 占切除术的 24.7%。开放组和 MIE 组的 30 天死亡率(4.3%比 4.0%;P=0.605)和总医疗发病率(38.0%比 39.2%;P=0.457)无差异。MIE 组的再干预率高于开放组(21%比 17.6%,P=0.006;比值比,1.17;95%置信区间,1.00-1.38;P=0.040)。
微创食管切除术在英国的应用日益广泛。尽管该研究在基于人群的全国性数据中证实了 MIE 的安全性,但在死亡率和总发病率方面并未显示出明显的优势。微创食管切除术与更高的再干预率相关。需要进一步的证据来确定 MIE 的长期生存率。