*Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange; and †Department of Statistics, University of California Irvine, Irvine.
Ann Surg. 2013 Sep;258(3):450-8. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a1b11d.
To examine the trends and outcomes of partial esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis compared with total esophagectomy with a cervical anastomosis.
Controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical approach in the management of esophageal cancer.
Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, yearly trends of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent partial and total esophagectomy were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality between partial and total esophagectomy. In addition, outcomes were analyzed according to hospital volume, with low-volume centers defined as those with fewer than 10 cases per year and high-volume centers as those with 10 or more cases per year.
Between 2001 and 2010, 15,190 esophagectomies were performed for cancer. There was an overall increase in the number of esophagectomy procedures performed (1402 to 1975), with a concomitant reduction in the mortality rate (8.3% to 4.2%), particularly for partial esophagectomy. Partial esophagectomy was the predominant operation (76%). Most operations were performed at low-volume centers (62%), with a recent shift of cases to high-volume center. Compared with total esophagectomy, partial esophagectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (16 ± 6 vs 19 ± 9 days; P < 0.05), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (5.8% vs 8.3%; P < 0.05), and a lower hospital charge ($119,339 vs $138,496; P < 0.05). On multivariate regression analysis, total esophagectomy was associated with higher serious morbidity (odds ratio, 1.39; P < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.67; P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted outcomes between low-volume centers and high-volume center.
The number of esophagectomies performed for esophageal cancer has increased over the past decade accompanied by an overall reduction in mortality, particularly for the partial esophagectomy approach. The predominant operation in the United States continues to be partial esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis, which was associated with lower morbidity and in-hospital mortality than total esophagectomy. Hospital volume at a threshold of 10 cases per year was not a predictor of outcome.
研究与全食管切除术加颈吻合术相比,经胸内吻合术行部分食管切除术的趋势和结果。
在食管癌的治疗中,最佳手术方法仍存在争议。
利用全国住院患者样本数据库,分析了接受部分和全食管切除术的食管癌患者的年度趋势。采用多变量逻辑回归分析比较部分和全食管切除术的严重发病率和院内死亡率。此外,还根据医院容量对结果进行了分析,低容量中心定义为每年少于 10 例,高容量中心定义为每年 10 例或以上。
2001 年至 2010 年,共行 15190 例食管癌切除术。手术数量总体呈上升趋势(从 1402 例增加到 1975 例),死亡率相应下降(从 8.3%下降到 4.2%),尤其是部分食管切除术。部分食管切除术是主要手术方式(76%)。大多数手术在低容量中心进行(62%),最近已向高容量中心转移。与全食管切除术相比,部分食管切除术的住院时间更短(16±6 天比 19±9 天;P<0.05),院内死亡率更低(5.8%比 8.3%;P<0.05),医院费用也更低(119339 美元比 138496 美元;P<0.05)。多变量回归分析显示,全食管切除术与更高的严重发病率(比值比,1.39;P<0.01)和院内死亡率(比值比,1.67;P=0.03)相关。低容量中心和高容量中心的风险调整后结果无显著差异。
过去十年间,美国行食管癌切除术的数量有所增加,死亡率总体下降,尤其是采用部分食管切除术。美国主要的手术方式仍是经胸内吻合术的部分食管切除术,其发病率和院内死亡率低于全食管切除术。每年 10 例的手术量阈值不是预后的预测因素。