• 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

剑突下与经胸膜心包开窗术治疗心包积液的中期疗效

Mid-Term Efficacy of Subxiphoid Versus Transpleural Pericardial Window for Pericardial Effusion.

作者信息

Balla Sujana, Zea-Vera Rodrigo, Kaplan Rachel A, Rosengart Todd K, Wall Matthew J, Ghanta Ravi K

机构信息

Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

出版信息

J Surg Res. 2020 Aug;252:9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.01.014. Epub 2020 Mar 23.

DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2020.01.014
PMID:32213328
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical technique for drainage of pericardial effusions is frequently debated. Transpleural drainage via thoracotomy or thoracoscopy is hypothesized to provide more durable freedom from recurrent pericardial effusion than a subxiphoid pericardial window. We sought to compare operative outcomes and mid-term freedom from recurrent effusion between both approaches in patients with nontraumatic pericardial effusions.

METHODS

All patients at our institution who underwent a pericardial window from 2001 to 2018 were identified. After excluding those who underwent recent cardiothoracic surgery or trauma, patients (n = 46) were stratified by surgical approach and presence of malignancy. Primary outcome was freedom from recurrent moderate or greater pericardial effusion. Secondary outcomes included operative mortality and morbidity and mid-term survival. Follow-up was determined by medical record review, with a follow-up of 67 patient-years. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare groups. Mid-term survival and freedom from effusion recurrence were determined using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Subxiphoid windows (n = 31; 67%) were more frequently performed than transpleural windows (n = 15; 33%) and baseline characteristics were similar. Effusion etiologies included malignancy (n = 22; 48%), idiopathic (n = 12; 26%), uremia (n = 8; 17%), and collagen vascular disease (n = 4; 9%). Perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two surgical approaches, except for longer drain duration (7 versus 4 d, P = 0.029) in the subxiphoid group. Operative mortality was 19.6% overall and 36.4% in patients with malignancy. Mid-term survival and freedom from moderate or greater pericardial effusion recurrence was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19%-54%) and 69% (95% CI: 52%-86%) at 5 y, respectively. There was no difference in mid-term survival (P = 0.90) or freedom from pericardial effusion recurrence (P = 0.70) between surgical approaches. Although malignant etiology had worse late survival (P < 0.01), freedom from effusion recurrence was similar to nonmalignant etiology (P = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Pericardial window provides effective mid-term relief of pericardial effusion. Subxiphoid and transpleural windows are equivalent in mid-term efficacy and both surgical approaches can be considered. Patients with malignancy have acceptable operative mortality with low incidence of recurrent effusion, supporting palliative indications.

摘要

背景

心包积液引流的最佳手术技术一直存在诸多争议。经胸廓切开术或胸腔镜进行经胸膜引流,相较于剑突下心包开窗术,被认为能更持久地避免心包积液复发。我们旨在比较非创伤性心包积液患者两种手术方式的手术效果及中期无复发性积液情况。

方法

确定我院2001年至2018年期间接受心包开窗术的所有患者。排除近期接受心胸外科手术或创伤患者后,根据手术方式和是否存在恶性肿瘤对患者(n = 46)进行分层。主要结局为无中度或更大量心包积液复发。次要结局包括手术死亡率、发病率及中期生存率。通过病历审查确定随访情况,随访时间共67患者年。采用Fisher精确检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验比较组间差异。使用Kaplan-Meier法确定中期生存率和无积液复发情况。

结果

剑突下心包开窗术(n = 31;67%)比经胸膜开窗术(n = 15;33%)更常施行,且基线特征相似。积液病因包括恶性肿瘤(n = 22;48%)、特发性(n = 12;26%)、尿毒症(n = 8;17%)和胶原血管病(n = 4;9%)。两种手术方式的围手术期结局相当,但剑突下组引流时间更长(7天对4天,P = 0.029)。总体手术死亡率为19.6%,恶性肿瘤患者为36.4%。5年时中期生存率和无中度或更大量心包积液复发率分别为37%(95%置信区间[CI]:19% - 54%)和69%(95% CI:52% - 86%)。两种手术方式在中期生存率(P = 0.90)或无心包积液复发率(P = 0.70)方面无差异。尽管恶性病因患者后期生存率较差(P < 0.01),但其无积液复发情况与非恶性病因相似(P = 0.70)。

结论

心包开窗术能有效缓解心包积液的中期症状。剑突下和经胸膜开窗术在中期疗效上相当,两种手术方式均可考虑。恶性肿瘤患者手术死亡率可接受,积液复发率低,支持姑息治疗指征。

相似文献

1
Mid-Term Efficacy of Subxiphoid Versus Transpleural Pericardial Window for Pericardial Effusion.剑突下与经胸膜心包开窗术治疗心包积液的中期疗效
J Surg Res. 2020 Aug;252:9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.01.014. Epub 2020 Mar 23.
2
Contemporary outcomes after pericardial window surgery: impact of operative technique.心包开窗术后的当代疗效:手术技术的影响
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Apr 26;11(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13019-016-0466-3.
3
Surgical management of pericardial effusion in patients with malignancies. Comparison of subxiphoid window versus pericardiectomy.恶性肿瘤患者心包积液的外科治疗。剑突下开窗术与心包切除术的比较。
Cancer. 1991 Jan 1;67(1):76-80. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19910101)67:1<76::aid-cncr2820670115>3.0.co;2-6.
4
Risk factors affecting the survival rate in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion undergoing surgical intervention.影响有症状心包积液患者手术干预后生存率的危险因素。
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;16(4):495-500. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivs491. Epub 2012 Dec 18.
5
Long-term results of surgical subxiphoid pericardial drainage.剑突下心包切开引流术的长期效果
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997 Apr;45(2):65-9. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1013689.
6
Comparative study of subxiphoid versus video-thoracoscopic pericardial "window".剑突下与电视胸腔镜心包“开窗术”的对比研究
Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 Dec;80(6):2013-9. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.05.059.
7
Subxiphoid pericardial window for pericardial effusive disease.用于心包积液性疾病的心包剑突下开窗术
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1989 Sep-Oct;30(5):768-73.
8
The pericardial window: is a video-assisted thoracoscopy approach better than a surgical approach?心包开窗术:电视辅助胸腔镜手术方法是否优于外科手术方法?
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011 Feb;12(2):174-8. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2010.243725. Epub 2010 Nov 16.
9
Ten-year surgical experience with nontraumatic pericardial effusions: a comparison between the subxyphoid and transthoracic approaches to pericardial window.非创伤性心包积液的十年手术经验:剑突下与经胸心包开窗术式的比较
Arch Surg. 2005 Feb;140(2):191-5. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.140.2.191.
10
Pericardial drainage: subxiphoid vs. transthoracic approach.心包引流:剑突下与经胸入路
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1991;5(2):99-103; discussion 104. doi: 10.1016/1010-7940(91)90007-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Surgical Management Strategies for Pericardial Effusion-A Systematic Review.心包积液的外科治疗策略——一项系统评价
J Clin Med. 2025 Jul 14;14(14):4985. doi: 10.3390/jcm14144985.
2
Cardiac tamponade.心脏压塞。
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2023 Jul 20;9(1):36. doi: 10.1038/s41572-023-00446-1.
3
Awake uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for the management of pericardial effusion.清醒单孔电视辅助胸腔镜手术治疗心包积液
J Minim Access Surg. 2023 Oct-Dec;19(4):482-488. doi: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_337_22.
4
Diagnosis, treatment, and management of pericardial effusion- review.心包积液的诊断、治疗及管理——综述
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 Jul 9;80:104142. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104142. eCollection 2022 Aug.
5
Incarcerated Small-Bowel Pericardial Diaphragmatic Hernia After Pericardio-Peritoneal Window Creation: Report of a Rare Case.心包-腹膜开窗术后嵌顿性小肠心包膈疝:1例罕见病例报告
Am J Case Rep. 2021 Apr 14;22:e930441. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.930441.