Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Surgery. 2021 Jun;169(6):1493-1499. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.023. Epub 2021 Jan 22.
There are conflicting reports in the literature comparing outcomes after open Ravitch and minimally invasive Nuss procedures for pectus excavatum repair, and there is relatively little data available comparing the outcomes of these procedures performed by thoracic surgeons.
The 2010 to 2018 Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database was queried for patients age 12 or greater undergoing open or minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum. Patients were stratified by operative approach. Multivariable logistic regression was performed with a composite outcome of 30-day complications.
A total of 1,767 patients met inclusion criteria, including 1,017 and 750 patients who underwent minimally invasive pectus repair and open repair, respectively. Open repair patients were more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III or greater (24% vs 14%; P < .001), have a history of prior cardiothoracic surgery (26% vs 14%; P < .001), and require longer operations (median 268 vs 185 minutes; P < .001). Open repair patients were more likely to require greater than 6 days of hospitalization (18% vs 7%; P < .001), undergo transfusion (7% vs 2%; P < .001), and be readmitted (8% vs 5%; P = .004). After adjustment, open repair was not associated with an increased risk of a composite of postoperative complications (odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.67-1.46). This finding persisted after propensity score matching (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.67).
Pectus excavatum repair procedure type was not associated with the risk of postoperative complications after adjustment. Further investigation is necessary to determine the impact of pectus excavatum repair type on recurrence and patient reported outcomes, including satisfaction, quality of life, and pain control.
在比较开放性 Ravitch 和微创 Nuss 手术治疗漏斗胸修复的结果的文献中存在相互矛盾的报道,并且比较由胸外科医生进行这些手术的结果的数据相对较少。
2010 年至 2018 年,查询了 Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery 数据库,以获取年龄在 12 岁或以上的接受开放性或微创性漏斗胸修复的患者。患者根据手术方法分层。使用 30 天并发症的综合结果进行多变量逻辑回归。
共有 1767 名患者符合纳入标准,其中微创性漏斗胸修复患者 1017 名,开放性修复患者 750 名。开放性修复患者更可能是美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)III 级或更高(24%比 14%;P <.001),有心脏胸外科手术史(26%比 14%;P <.001),需要更长的手术时间(中位数 268 分钟比 185 分钟;P <.001)。开放性修复患者更有可能需要住院时间超过 6 天(18%比 7%;P <.001),输血(7%比 2%;P <.001)和再次入院(8%比 5%;P =.004)。调整后,开放性修复与术后并发症综合风险增加无关(比值比 0.99,95%置信区间 0.67-1.46)。在倾向评分匹配后,这一发现仍然存在(比值比 1.11,95%置信区间 0.74-1.67)。
在调整后,漏斗胸修复程序类型与术后并发症风险无关。需要进一步调查以确定漏斗胸修复类型对复发和患者报告结果(包括满意度、生活质量和疼痛控制)的影响。