• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

胸腔镜与腹腔镜联合手术对可切除食管癌患者根治性食管切除术后肺部并发症的影响

The impact of combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery on pulmonary complications after radical esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

作者信息

Kubo Naoshi, Ohira Masaichi, Yamashita Yoshito, Sakurai Katsunobu, Toyokawa Takahiro, Tanaka Hiroaki, Muguruma Kazuya, Shibutani Masatsune, Yamazoe Sadaaki, Kimura Kenjiro, Nagahara Hisashi, Amano Ryosuke, Ohtani Hiroshi, Yashiro Masakazu, Maeda Kiyoshi, Hirakawa Kosei

机构信息

Department of Surgical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka City University 1-4-3 Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka 545-8585, Japan.

出版信息

Anticancer Res. 2014 May;34(5):2399-404.

PMID:24778050
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary complications (PCs) after esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer have been correlated with prolonged hospital stays and in-hospital mortality. Previous studies have shown that minimally-invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is associated with a lower rate of PCs compared to conventional open surgery. Although PCs were reportedly associated with many factors, including surgical approaches, patients' demographics, and perioperative variables, the predictive factors for PCs including MIE, have not been fully evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 209 patients with resectable esophageal cancer who underwent three types of esophagectomy were included in the present study; (i) 93 cases who underwent the combined thoracoscopic MIE and laparoscopic MIE; (ii) 42 cases who underwent the combined open thoracotomy and laparoscopic MIE; (iii) 74 cases who underwent the combined open thoracotomy and open laparotomy, which were defined as the total MIE group, hybrid MIE group, and total open group, respectively. We compared clinical outcomes of the three groups and identified postoperative predictive factors of PCs using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The incidence of PCs was significantly reduced (p=0.015) in the total-MIE group (8/93: 8.5%) compared with the total-open group (16/74: 21.6%), but it was not significantly reduced in the hybrid MIE group (5/42: 11.9%) compared with the total open group (p=0.19). The multivariate analysis showed that the presence of cardiac comorbidity [odds ratio (OR)=5.90; p=0.013], lung comorbidity (OR=3.95; p=0.031), and anastomotic leakage (OR=6.00; p<0.01) were independent risk factors for PCs after esophagectomy. In contrast, total MIE reduced the risk of PCs (OR=0.328; p=0.036).

CONCLUSION

The combination of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic MIE presents as an excellent surgical procedure for the reduction of PCs after esophagectomy.

摘要

背景

食管癌患者行食管切除术后的肺部并发症(PCs)与住院时间延长和院内死亡率相关。既往研究表明,与传统开放手术相比,微创食管切除术(MIE)的PCs发生率较低。尽管据报道PCs与许多因素有关,包括手术方式、患者人口统计学特征和围手术期变量,但包括MIE在内的PCs预测因素尚未得到充分评估。

患者与方法

本研究共纳入209例可切除食管癌患者,他们接受了三种类型的食管切除术;(i)93例接受胸腔镜MIE和腹腔镜MIE联合手术;(ii)42例接受开胸手术和腹腔镜MIE联合手术;(iii)74例接受开胸手术和开腹手术联合手术,分别定义为全MIE组、混合MIE组和全开放组。我们比较了三组的临床结局,并通过多因素分析确定了PCs的术后预测因素。

结果

与全开放组(16/74:21.6%)相比,全MIE组(8/93:8.5%)的PCs发生率显著降低(p=0.015),但与全开放组相比,混合MIE组(5/42:11.9%)的PCs发生率没有显著降低(p=0.19)。多因素分析显示,心脏合并症(比值比[OR]=5.90;p=0.013)、肺部合并症(OR=3.95;p=0.031)和吻合口漏(OR=6.00;p<0.01)是食管切除术后PCs的独立危险因素。相比之下,全MIE降低了PCs的风险(OR=0.328;p=0.036)。

结论

胸腔镜和腹腔镜MIE联合手术是降低食管切除术后PCs的一种优秀手术方式。

相似文献

1
The impact of combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery on pulmonary complications after radical esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.胸腔镜与腹腔镜联合手术对可切除食管癌患者根治性食管切除术后肺部并发症的影响
Anticancer Res. 2014 May;34(5):2399-404.
2
Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy.开放手术与微创食管切除术的疗效比较。
Ann Surg. 2007 Feb;245(2):232-40. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000225093.58071.c6.
3
A simple method minimizes chylothorax after minimally invasive esophagectomy.一种微创食管癌手术后减少乳糜胸的简单方法。
J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Jan;218(1):108-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.09.014. Epub 2013 Nov 7.
4
Comparative study of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single cancer center.单一癌症中心食管癌微创与开放食管切除术的比较研究
Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(4):747-52.
5
[Comparative study of perioperative complications and lymphadenectomy between minimally invasive esophagectomy and open procedure].[微创食管切除术与开放手术围手术期并发症及淋巴结清扫的比较研究]
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2012 Sep;15(9):922-5.
6
Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study.英国开放性与微创食管癌切除术治疗癌症的短期预后:基于人群的全国性研究。
Ann Surg. 2012 Feb;255(2):197-203. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823e39fa.
7
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Provides Equivalent Survival to Open Esophagectomy: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database.微创食管切除术与开放食管切除术的生存率相当:基于国家癌症数据库的分析
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;29(2):244-253. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 Apr 5.
8
Is there any benefit to incorporating a laparoscopic procedure into minimally invasive esophagectomy? The impact on perioperative results in patients with esophageal cancer.将腹腔镜手术纳入微创食管切除术是否有获益?对食管癌患者围手术期结果的影响。
World J Surg. 2011 Apr;35(4):790-7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-0955-4.
9
Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations.微创食管切除术:104例手术的经验教训
Ann Surg. 2008 Dec;248(6):1081-91. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818b72b5.
10
Change from Hybrid to Fully Minimally Invasive and Robotic Esophagectomy is Possible without Compromises.从杂交手术转变为完全微创和机器人辅助食管切除术是可行的,且不会有任何妥协。
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Oct;67(7):589-596. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1670664. Epub 2018 Sep 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Diaphragmatic dysfunction is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications in the aged patients underwent radical resection of esophageal cancer: a prospective observational study.膈肌功能障碍与老年食管癌根治术后肺部并发症相关:一项前瞻性观察研究。
J Thorac Dis. 2024 Jun 30;16(6):3623-3635. doi: 10.21037/jtd-24-197. Epub 2024 Jun 13.
2
Effects of an artificial pancreas on postoperative inflammation in patients with esophageal cancer.人工胰腺对食管癌患者术后炎症的影响。
BMC Surg. 2024 Mar 2;24(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02365-8.
3
Prediction model using risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive esophagectomy.
使用与微创食管切除术后吻合口漏相关危险因素的预测模型。
Pak J Med Sci. 2023 Sep-Oct;39(5):1345-1349. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.5.8050.
4
A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach.采用完全微创方法进行食管切除术的改良手术步骤。
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022 Mar 4;17(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.
5
Advantages of McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: propensity score matching analysis of 169 cases.麦克伊文微创食管癌切除术治疗食管癌的优势:169 例倾向性评分匹配分析。
World J Surg Oncol. 2022 Feb 25;20(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02527-z.
6
Efficacy of thoracoscopy combined with laparoscopy and esophagectomy and analysis of the risk factors for postoperative infection.胸腔镜联合腹腔镜与食管切除术的疗效及术后感染危险因素分析
Am J Transl Res. 2022 Jan 15;14(1):355-363. eCollection 2022.
7
Pharmacological treatment to reduce pulmonary morbidity after esophagectomy.降低食管癌切除术后肺部并发症的药物治疗。
Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2021 Jul 1;5(5):614-622. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12469. eCollection 2021 Sep.
8
Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?胸腔镜食管切除术真的能降低所有病例的术后肺炎发生率吗?
Esophagus. 2021 Oct;18(4):724-733. doi: 10.1007/s10388-021-00855-9. Epub 2021 Jul 10.
9
The Optimal Definition of Sarcopenia for Predicting Postoperative Pneumonia after Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer.预测食管癌患者食管癌手术后肺炎的最佳肌少症定义。
World J Surg. 2021 Oct;45(10):3108-3118. doi: 10.1007/s00268-021-06223-z. Epub 2021 Jun 29.
10
Prevention of intra-thoracic recurrent laryngeal nerve injury with robot-assisted esophagectomy.机器人辅助食管癌根治术中预防胸内喉返神经损伤。
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020 Jun;405(4):533-540. doi: 10.1007/s00423-020-01904-0. Epub 2020 Jun 3.