Suppr超能文献

机器人与电视辅助胸腔镜食管切除术术后乳糜漏风险。

Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

机构信息

Division of Thoracic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Department of Thoracic Surgery, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2022 Feb;36(2):1332-1338. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08410-4. Epub 2021 Mar 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We investigate the incidence and risk factors for post-operative outcomes including chyle leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIE from May 2016 until August 2020 were prospectively followed. Outcomes of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy were analyzed.

RESULTS

347 esophagectomies were performed: 70 cases were done robotically by 2 surgeons and 277 by VATS by 14 surgeons. Patients had similar demographics, surgical technique, length of stay (LOS), and re-operation rates. Overall complication rates between robotic and VATS MIE were statistically similar (61% vs. 50%; p = 0.082). The majority of complications for either VATS (41.5%) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) (51.4%) were grade II. Nineteen patients developed a chyle leak. Patients with a chyle leak were similar in age, gender, and hospital LOS (all p > 0.05), but were more likely to undergo a three-hole or robotic esophagectomy (both p < 0.05) as well as have higher rehabilitation requirements on discharge (26% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Among the two surgeons who each performed > 20 robotic esophagectomies (n = 70), nine chyle leaks occurred. Rates varied by surgeon (7 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Lower leak rates occurred in the surgeon with more robotic esophagectomy experience (n = 47 vs. 23). Patients were similar in age, and gender (p > 0.05), but those with a chyle leak were more likely to undergo three-hole esophagectomies, prophylactic thoracic duction ligations, undergo the abdominal portion via laparotomy, and not have a prophylactic omental flap (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robotic and VATS esophagectomy have similar rates of re-operation, length of stay, discharge needs and complications. Differences in outcomes between VATS and Robotic esophagectomy appears to be related to surgeon experience with the robot but may also be associated with techniques such as anastomotic height, omental flap utilization and performance of laparoscopy.

摘要

背景

我们研究了微创食管切除术(MIE)后包括乳糜漏在内的术后结果的发生率和危险因素。

方法

对 2016 年 5 月至 2020 年 8 月期间接受 MIE 的患者进行前瞻性随访。分析了机器人辅助和电视辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)食管切除术的结果。

结果

共进行了 347 例食管切除术:70 例由 2 名外科医生进行机器人手术,277 例由 14 名外科医生进行 VATS 手术。患者的人口统计学、手术技术、住院时间(LOS)和再次手术率相似。机器人辅助和 VATS MIE 的总体并发症发生率无统计学差异(61% vs. 50%;p=0.082)。VATS(41.5%)或机器人辅助微创食管切除术(RAMIE)(51.4%)的大多数并发症均为 II 级。19 例发生乳糜漏。乳糜漏患者在年龄、性别和住院 LOS 方面相似(均 p>0.05),但更有可能接受三孔或机器人食管切除术(均 p<0.05),并且出院时康复需求更高(26% vs. 10%;p=0.05)。在各进行了 20 多例机器人食管切除术的 2 名外科医生中(n=70),有 9 例发生乳糜漏。外科医生之间的发生率不同(7 例 vs. 2 例;p=0.003)。具有更多机器人食管切除术经验的外科医生(n=47)的漏率较低。患者在年龄和性别方面相似(p>0.05),但乳糜漏患者更有可能接受三孔食管切除术、预防性胸导管结扎术、通过剖腹手术进行腹部部分手术,并且没有预防性大网膜瓣(均 p<0.05)。

结论

机器人辅助和 VATS 食管切除术的再次手术、住院时间、出院需求和并发症发生率相似。VATS 和机器人食管切除术之间结果的差异似乎与外科医生使用机器人的经验有关,但也可能与吻合口高度、大网膜瓣使用和腹腔镜操作等技术有关。

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