• 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

机器人辅助食管癌切除术后单根胸腔引流管并不逊色于双根胸腔引流管:一项倾向评分匹配分析。

Single chest drain is not inferior to double chest drain after robotic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.

作者信息

Eckert F, Merboth F, Giehl-Brown E, Hasanovic J, Müssle B, Plodeck V, Richter T, Welsch T, Kahlert C, Fritzmann J, Distler M, Weitz J, Kirchberg J

机构信息

Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

National Center for Tumor Diseases Dresden (NCT/UCC), Dresden, Germany.

出版信息

Front Surg. 2023 Jul 14;10:1213404. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1213404. eCollection 2023.

DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2023.1213404
PMID:37520151
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10375402/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chest drain management has a significant influence on postoperative recovery after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). The use of chest drains increases postoperative pain by irritating intercostal nerves and hinders patients from early postoperative mobilization and recovery. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the use of two vs. one intercostal chest drains after RAMIE.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients undergoing elective RAMIE with gastric conduit pull-up and intrathoracic anastomosis. Patients were divided into two groups according to placement of one (11/2020-08/2022) or two (08/2018-11/2020) chest drains. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio, and the incidences of overall and pulmonary complications, drainage-associated re-interventions, radiological diagnostics, analgesic use, and length of hospital stay were compared between single drain and double drain groups.

RESULTS

During the study period, 194 patients underwent RAMIE. Twenty-two patients were included after propensity score matching in the single and double chest drain group, respectively. Time until removal of the last chest drain [postoperative day (POD) 6.7 ± 4.4 vs. POD 9.4 ± 2.7,  = 0.004] and intensive care unit stay (4.2 ± 5.1 days vs. 5.3 ± 3.5 days,  = 0.01) were significantly shorter in the single drain group. Overall and pulmonary complications, drainage-associated events, re-interventions, number of diagnostic imaging, analgesic use, and length of hospital stay were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to demonstrate the safety of single intercostal chest drain use and, at least, non-inferiority to double chest drains in terms of perioperative complications after RAMIE.

摘要

背景

胸腔引流管理对机器人辅助微创食管切除术(RAMIE)后的术后恢复有重大影响。胸腔引流的使用会刺激肋间神经,增加术后疼痛,并阻碍患者术后早期活动和恢复。据我们所知,尚无研究探讨RAMIE术后使用一根与两根肋间胸腔引流管的情况。

方法

这项回顾性队列研究评估了接受择期RAMIE并采用胃管道上提和胸内吻合术的患者。根据放置一根(2020年11月至2022年8月)或两根(2018年8月至2020年11月)胸腔引流管将患者分为两组。以1:1的比例进行倾向评分匹配,并比较单引流组和双引流组的总体和肺部并发症发生率、与引流相关的再次干预、放射学诊断、镇痛药物使用情况以及住院时间。

结果

在研究期间,194例患者接受了RAMIE。倾向评分匹配后,单胸腔引流组和双胸腔引流组分别纳入22例患者。单引流组最后一根胸腔引流管拔除时间[术后第(POD)6.7±4.4天 vs. POD 9.4±2.7天,P = 0.004]和重症监护病房住院时间(4.2±5.1天 vs. 5.3±3.5天,P = 0.01)明显更短。两组之间的总体和肺部并发症、与引流相关的事件、再次干预、诊断性影像学检查次数、镇痛药物使用情况以及住院时间相当。

结论

本研究首次证明了单肋间胸腔引流使用的安全性,并且在RAMIE术后围手术期并发症方面至少不劣于双胸腔引流。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/10375402/7b048782431e/fsurg-10-1213404-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/10375402/b06b87c803ff/fsurg-10-1213404-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/10375402/7b048782431e/fsurg-10-1213404-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/10375402/b06b87c803ff/fsurg-10-1213404-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/10375402/7b048782431e/fsurg-10-1213404-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Single chest drain is not inferior to double chest drain after robotic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.机器人辅助食管癌切除术后单根胸腔引流管并不逊色于双根胸腔引流管:一项倾向评分匹配分析。
Front Surg. 2023 Jul 14;10:1213404. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1213404. eCollection 2023.
2
Drainless robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy-randomized controlled trial (RESPECT).无引流管机器人辅助微创食管切除术随机对照试验(RESPECT)。
Trials. 2023 May 2;24(1):303. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07233-z.
3
Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center.机器人辅助微创食管切除术(RAMIE)与杂交微创食管切除术:来自欧洲大容量中心的倾向评分匹配短期结果分析。
Surg Endosc. 2022 Oct;36(10):7747-7755. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09254-2. Epub 2022 May 3.
4
Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.机器人辅助微创食管切除术(RAMIE)与传统微创食管切除术(MIE)治疗食管癌的比较:倾向评分匹配分析。
Dis Esophagus. 2020 Apr 15;33(4). doi: 10.1093/dote/doz060.
5
Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis.机器人辅助微创食管癌切除术的短期疗效:倾向评分匹配分析
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 May 23;13(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s13019-018-0727-4.
6
Perioperative and mid-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of 842 patients.机器人辅助与电视辅助微创食管癌切除术的围手术期及中期结果:842例患者的回顾性倾向匹配分析
Front Oncol. 2024 Aug 27;14:1447393. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1447393. eCollection 2024.
7
Outcomes after total robotic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched comparison with hybrid robotic esophagectomy.全机器人食管癌切除术的术后结果:与杂交机器人食管癌切除术的倾向评分匹配比较。
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Dec;11(12):5310-5320. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.11.58.
8
Robot-assisted esophagectomy with robot-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): surgical technique and early results.机器人辅助经胸食管切除术机器人吻合术(Ivor Lewis):手术技术和早期结果。
Updates Surg. 2023 Jun;75(4):941-952. doi: 10.1007/s13304-022-01439-7. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
9
Does robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy really have the advantage of lymphadenectomy over video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? A propensity score-matched analysis based on short-term outcomes.机器人辅助微创食管切除术在治疗食管鳞癌方面真的比电视辅助微创食管切除术具有淋巴结清扫优势吗?基于短期结果的倾向评分匹配分析。
Dis Esophagus. 2019 Jul 1;32(7). doi: 10.1093/dote/doy110.
10
Is a Chest Tube Necessary after Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Mediastinal Tumor Resection?电视胸腔镜纵隔肿瘤切除术后是否需要放置胸腔引流管?
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 Mar;69(2):181-188. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1683879. Epub 2019 Apr 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Drainless robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy-randomized controlled trial (RESPECT).无引流管机器人辅助微创食管切除术随机对照试验(RESPECT)。
Trials. 2023 May 2;24(1):303. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07233-z.
2
Robotic Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy Reduces Sarcopenia within the First Postoperative Year: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.机器人食管癌切除术与开放食管癌切除术相比可减少术后第一年内的肌肉减少症:一项倾向评分匹配分析。
J Thorac Oncol. 2023 Feb;18(2):232-244. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2022.10.018. Epub 2022 Nov 4.
3
Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.
食管癌:ESMO 诊断、治疗及随访临床实践指南
Ann Oncol. 2022 Oct;33(10):992-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.003. Epub 2022 Jul 29.
4
[Change of strategy to minimally invasive esophagectomy-Results at a certified center].[向微创食管切除术转变的策略——一家认证中心的结果]
Chirurgie (Heidelb). 2022 Jul;93(7):694-701. doi: 10.1007/s00104-021-01550-2. Epub 2021 Dec 21.
5
Chest drainage after oesophageal resection: A systematic review.食管切除术后的胸腔引流:一项系统评价。
Dis Esophagus. 2022 Jul 12;35(7). doi: 10.1093/dote/doab069.
6
Long-term Survival in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared to Open Esophagectomy.微创食管切除术与开放食管切除术治疗食管癌的长期生存比较。
Ann Surg. 2022 Dec 1;276(6):e744-e748. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004645. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
7
Single versus double chest drains after pulmonary lobectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.肺叶切除术后单根与双根胸管引流的系统评价与Meta分析
World J Surg Oncol. 2020 Jul 20;18(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01945-1.
8
Perianastomotic drainage in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, does habit affect utility? An 11-year single-center experience.Ivor-Lewis 食管癌根治术中吻合口周围引流,习惯是否影响其应用价值?一项 11 年单中心经验。
Updates Surg. 2020 Mar;72(1):47-53. doi: 10.1007/s13304-019-00674-9. Epub 2019 Aug 13.
9
Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.杂交微创食管癌切除术。
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 10;380(2):152-162. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805101.
10
Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracolaparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.机器人辅助微创胸腹腔镜食管切除术与开胸经胸食管癌切除术治疗可切除食管癌的随机对照试验。
Ann Surg. 2019 Apr;269(4):621-630. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031.