Suppr超能文献

经 Sweet 入路微创食管切除术联合颈纵隔镜检查是治疗食管癌的一种有价值的手术方法。

Minimally invasive esophagectomy via Sweet approach in combination with cervical mediastinoscopy is a valuable approach for surgical treatment of esophageal cancer.

机构信息

Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Cancer Hospital & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha 410013.

Department of Thoracic Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi Guizhou 563003, China.

出版信息

Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2021 Jan 28;46(1):60-68. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2021.190568.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer between minimally invasive esophagectomy via Sweet approach in combination with cervical mediastinoscopy (MIE-SM) and minimally invasive esophagectomy via McKeown approach (MIE-MC), and to evaluate the value of MIE-SM in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective, nonrandomized study was adopted. A total of 65 esophageal cancer patients after MIE-SM and MIE-MC from June 2014 to May 2016 were included. Among them, 33 patients underwent MIE-SM and 32 patients underwent MIE-MC. Short-term outcomes (including the duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss volume, ICU stay time, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, open surgery, number of dissected lymph nodes, and 30-day mortality), mid-term outcomes, [including Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the esophageal site-specific module (QLQ-OES18)], long-term outcomes [including overall survival and disease-free survival] were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Radical resection (R0) were achieved in all patients. There were no significant differences in the duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss volume, ICU stay time, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay between the 2 groups (all >0.05). More lymph nodes were dissected in the MIE-SM group (24.1±7.3) than those in the MIE-MC group (17.8±5.0, <0.001). The emotional function, global health status scale scores in QLQ-C30 scale in the MIE-SM group were significantly higher than those in the MIE-MC group (=0.025, <0.001, respectively), and the pain score in the MIE-SM group was significantly lower than that in the MIE-MC group (=0.013). QLQ-OES18 results showed that the pain score in the MIE-SM group was significantly lower than that in the MIE-MC group (=0.021). Survival analysis showed that the overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE-SM appears to be a safe surgical approach, which may get better quality of life, suffer less pain, and can achieve the same therapeutic effect as MIE-MC. Therefore, MIE-SM should be considered as a valuable approach for the treatment of middle and lower esophageal cancer.

摘要

目的

比较经 Sweet 入路微创食管切除术联合颈胸腹三野淋巴结清扫术(MIE-SM)与经 McKeown 入路微创食管切除术(MIE-MC)治疗食管癌的近期、中期和远期疗效,评价 MIE-SM 在食管癌外科治疗中的价值。

方法

采用前瞻性、非随机研究。纳入 2014 年 6 月至 2016 年 5 月间 65 例行 MIE-SM 和 MIE-MC 的食管癌患者,其中 33 例行 MIE-SM,32 例行 MIE-MC。比较两组患者的短期(手术时间、术中出血量、住重症监护病房时间、术后并发症、术后住院时间、再次手术、中转开胸、清扫淋巴结数目和 30 天死亡率)、中期[包括生活质量核心问卷(QLQ-C30)和食管特异性模块(QLQ-OES18)]和长期[包括总生存和无病生存]结局。

结果

所有患者均达到根治性切除(R0)。两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住重症监护病房时间、术后并发症和术后住院时间差异均无统计学意义(均>0.05)。MIE-SM 组清扫的淋巴结数目(24.1±7.3)明显多于 MIE-MC 组(17.8±5.0,<0.001)。QLQ-C30 量表中 MIE-SM 组的情绪功能和全球健康状况评分明显高于 MIE-MC 组(=0.025,<0.001),MIE-SM 组的疼痛评分明显低于 MIE-MC 组(=0.013)。QLQ-OES18 结果显示,MIE-SM 组的疼痛评分明显低于 MIE-MC 组(=0.021)。生存分析显示两组患者的总生存和无病生存情况相似。

结论

MIE-SM 是一种安全的手术方法,可能获得更好的生活质量,减轻疼痛,并能达到与 MIE-MC 相同的治疗效果。因此,MIE-SM 应被视为治疗中下段食管癌的一种有价值的方法。

相似文献

6
[Clinical observation on perioperative complications of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis and minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy].
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2022 Jun 23;44(6):577-580. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20200704-00626.
8
Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1892-1900. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5881-6. Epub 2017 Oct 24.
9
Retrospective Comparison of Two Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer: Pneumatic Mediastinoscopy Versus Thoracoscopy.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 May;29(5):638-642. doi: 10.1089/lap.2018.0512. Epub 2018 Dec 18.
10
Survival and quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-surgeon experience.
Surg Endosc. 2012 Jan;26(1):168-76. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1850-7. Epub 2011 Aug 19.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of Long-term Quality of Life in Patients with Esophageal Cancer after Ivor-Lewis, Mckeown, or Sweet Esophagectomy.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Feb;23(2):225-231. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3999-z. Epub 2018 Oct 8.
4
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Aug;102(2):416-23. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.078. Epub 2016 May 4.
5
Cancer statistics in China, 2015.
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Mar-Apr;66(2):115-32. doi: 10.3322/caac.21338. Epub 2016 Jan 25.
6
Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy.
Int J Surg. 2016 Jan;25:69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.11.023. Epub 2015 Nov 18.
7
Optimal surgical approach for esophageal cancer in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant therapy.
Dis Esophagus. 2016 Oct;29(7):773-779. doi: 10.1111/dote.12407. Epub 2015 Sep 18.
9
Mediastinoscopy-assisted oesophagectomy in T1 oesophageal cancer patients with serious comorbidities: a 5-year long-term follow-up.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015 Apr;20(4):477-81. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu433. Epub 2014 Dec 21.
10
Comparison of outcomes of open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in 183 patients with cancer.
J Thorac Dis. 2014 Sep;6(9):1218-24. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.07.20.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验