ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of mediastinoscope-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (MATHE) and functional minimally invasive esophagectomy (FMIE) for esophageal cancer. MethodsPatients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at Jining No.1 Hospital from March 2018 to September 2022 were retrospectively included. The patients were divided into a MATHE group and a FMIE group according to the procedures. The patients were matched via propensity score matching (PSM) with a ratio of 1 : 1 and a caliper value of 0.2. The clinical data of the patients were compared after the matching. ResultsA total of 73 patients were include in the study, including 54 males and 19 females, with an average age of (65.12±7.87) years. There were 37 patients in the MATHE group and 36 patients in the FMIE group. Thirty pairs were successfully matched. Compared with the FMIE group, MATHE group had shorter operation time (P=0.022), lower postoperative 24 h pain score (P=0.031), and less drainage on postoperative 1-3 days (P<0.001). FMIE group had more lymph node dissection (P<0.001), lower incidence of postoperative hoarseness (P=0.038), lower white blood cell and neutrophil counts on postoperative 1 day (P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the bleeding volume, R0 resection, hospital mortality, postoperative hospital stay, anastomotic leak, chylothorax, or pulmonary infection between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionCompared with the FMIE, MATHE has shorter operation time, less postoperative pain and drainage, but removes less lymph nodes, which is deficient in oncology. For some special patients such as those with early cancer or extensive pleural adhesions, MATHE may be a suitable surgical method.
Objective To evaluate the security and outcomes of thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) versus open approach (OA) for thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Methods From June 2014 to June 2015, 125 patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent esophagectomy through McKeown approach, including TLE (a TLE group, 107 patients, 77 males and 30 females) and OA (an OA group, 18 patients, 13 males and 5 females). The data of operation and postoperative complications of the two groups were analyzed retrospectively. Results There was no statistical difference in the duration of operation and ICU stay and resected lymph nodes around laryngeal recurrent nerve between the TLE group and the OA group (333.58±72.84 min vs. 369.17±91.24 min, P=0.067; 2.84±1.44 d vs. 6.44±13.46 d, P=0.272; 4.71±3.87 vs. 3.89±3.97, P=0.408) . There was a statistical difference in blood loss, total resected lymph nodes and resected lymph nodes groups between TLE group and OA group (222.62±139.77 ml vs. 427.78±276.65, P=0.006; 19.62±9.61 vs. 14.61±8.07, P=0.038; 3.70±0.99 vs. 3.11±1.13, P=0.024). The rate of postoperative complications was 32.7% in the TLE group and 38.9% in the OA group (P=0.608). There was a statistical difference (P=0.011) in incidence of pulmonary infection (2.8% in the TLE group and 16.7% in the OA group). Incidences of complications, such as anastomotic leakage, cardiac complications, left-side hydrothorax, right-side pneumothorax, voice hoarse and incision infection, showed no statistical difference between two groups. Conclusion For patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, TLE possesses advantages of more harvested lymph nodes, less blood loss and less pulmonary infection comparing with open approach, and is complied with the principles of security and oncological radicality of surgery.
ObjectivesTo compare the clinical efficacy of different surgical thoracic duct management on prevention of postoperative chylothorax and its impact on the outcome of the patients. MethodsWe searched the electronic databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2016), Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies related to the comparison of different surgical thoracic duct management during esophagectomy on prevention of postoperative chylothorax from inception to May 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then RevMan 5.2 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsTwenty-three trials were included, involving four RCTs, four cohort studies and 15 case-control studies. The results of meta-analysis indicated:(1) Prophylactic thoracic duct ligation group had lower incidence of postoperative chylothorax compared with non thoracoic duct ligation group (RCT:OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.47, P=0.000 02; Co/CC:OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.28, P<0.000 01); (2) There were no significant differences between the two groups in the respect of mortality, morbidity and the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year survival rates (all P values >0.05); (3) Prophylactic thoracic duct ligation could reduce the reoperation rate of chylothorax complicating esophageal cancer patients (RCT:OR=0.17, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.28, P<0.000 01; Co/CC:OR=0.18, 95%CI to 0.11 to 0.32, P<0.000 01), and increase the cure rate of expectant treatment on them (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.56, P=0.000 8); (4) En bloc thoracic duct ligation group had a lower incidence of postoperative chylothorax compared with single thoracic duct ligation group (OR=3.67, 95%CI 1.43 to 9.43, P=0.007). ConclusionProphylactic thoracic duct ligation during esophagectomy could effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative chylothorax and is good for reducing the reoperation rate of chylothorax complicating esophageal cancer patients. En bloc thoracic duct ligation has a better efficacy on prevention of postoperative chylothorax compared with single thoracic duct ligation.
目的探讨胸腹腔镜在食管癌手术中应用的可行性及近期疗效。 方法2012年6月至2013年10月四川省人民医院胸外科90例食管癌患者行胸腹腔镜联合食管癌切除术，其中男54例、女36例，年龄47～83岁，平均（63.15±11.10）岁。手术先行胸腔镜游离胸段食管并清扫淋巴结，再腹腔镜游离胃行食管胃左颈部吻合术。记录手术时间、术后胸腔引流管放置时间、平均住院时间、淋巴结清扫枚数、术后并发症等。 结果全部无围术期死亡。手术时间260～450 min。术后4～11 d（平均5 d）拔除胸腔闭式引流管，胸腔总引流量为530～4 260 ml。全组共清扫纵隔淋巴结（气管旁、右下肺韧带、食管旁、隆凸下及左右喉返神经链旁）、腹腔淋巴结（贲门旁、胃左动脉旁）及颈部淋巴结1 395枚，平均每例15.5枚，15例（16.7%）发现淋巴结转移。术后发生吻合口瘘7例（7.8%），声音嘶哑5例（5.6%），肺部感染5例（5.6%），乳糜胸2例（2.2%），均经保守治疗后痊愈。术后10～14 d出院。门诊及电话随访82例，随访率91.1%，随访时间1～16个月，患者全部生存，无复发。 结论胸腹腔镜联合行食管癌根治术在技术上是安全可行的，近期疗效可靠。
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of cone-shaped gastric tube combined with cervical end-to-end stratified manual anastomosis and conventional tubular stomach combined with neck end-to-end mechanical side-to-side anastomosis in thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. MethodsThe clinical data of consecutive patients treated by thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery of the First People's Hospital of Neijiang from January 1, 2018 to March 25, 2021 were analyzed. The patients were divided into a cone-shaped gastric tube manual group (treated with cone-shaped gastric tube combined with cervical end-to-end stratified manual anastomosis) and a conventional tubular stomach mechanical group (treated with conventional tubular stomach+end-to-end mechanical side-to-side anastomosis). The anastomotic time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection, anastomotic fistula, anastomotic stenosis, anastomotic cost, sternogastric dilatation, gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, and postoperative complications were compared and analyzed between the two groups. ResultsA total of 161 patients were enrolled, including 112 males and 49 females aged 40-82 years. There were 80 patients in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group, and 81 patients in the conventional tubular stomach mechanical group. There was no statistical difference in the intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, hoarseness, pulmonary infection, arrhythmia, respiratory failure or chylothorax between the two groups (P>0.05). The anastomosis time of the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group was longer than that of the conventional tubular stomach mechanical group (28.35±3.20 min vs. 14.30±1.26 min, P<0.001), but the anastomotic cost and incidence of thoracogastric dilatation in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group were significantly lower than those of the conventional tubular stomach mechanical group [948.48±70.55 yuan vs. 4 978.76±650.29 yuan, P<0.001; 3 (3.8%) vs. 14 (17.3%), P=0.005]. The incidences of anastomotic fistula and anastomotic stenosis in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group were lower than those in the conventional tubular gastric mechanical group, but the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The gastroesophageal reflux scores in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group were lower than those in the conventional tubular gastric mechanical group at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after the operation (P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that digestive tract reconstruction method was the influencing factor for postoperative thoracogastric dilation, which was reduced in the cone-shaped gastric tube manual group. ConclusionCone-shaped gastric tube combined with cervical end-to-end stratified manual anastomosis can significantly reduce the incidence of thoracogastric dilatation after thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and save hospitalization costs, with mild gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, and it still has certain advantages in reducing postoperative anastomotic fistula and anastomotic stenosis, which is worthy of clinical promotion.
ObjectiveTo compare the surgical efficacy of Da Vinci robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) on esophageal cancer.MethodsOnline databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Medline, EMbase and CNKI from inception to 31, December 2019 were searched by two researchers independently to collect the literature comparing the clinical efficacy of RAMIE and VAMIE on esophageal cancer. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess quality of the literature. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 14 studies with 1 160 patients were enrolled in the final study, and 12 studies were of high quality. RAMIE did not significantly prolong total operative time (P=0.20). No statistical difference was observed in the thoracic surgical time through the McKeown surgical approach (MD=3.35, 95%CI –3.93 to 10.62, P=0.37) or in surgical blood loss between RAMIE and VAMIE (MD=–9.48, 95%CI –27.91 to 8.95, P=0.31). While the RAMIE could dissect more lymph nodes in total and more lymph nodes along the left recurrent laryngeal recurrent nerve (MD=2.24, 95%CI 1.09 to 3.39, P=0.000 1; MD=0.89, 95%CI 0.13 to 1.65, P=0.02) and had a lower incidence of vocal cord paralysis (RR=0.70, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.92, P=0.009).ConclusionThere is no statistical difference observed between RAMIE and VAMIE in surgical time and blood loss. RAMIE can harvest more lymph nodes than VAMIE, especially left laryngeal nerve lymph nodes. RAMIE shows a better performance in reducing the left laryngeal nerve injury and a lower rate of vocal cord paralysis compared with VAMIE.
Objective To introduce a simple preoperative risk score for esophageal cancer (PRSEC) and its relationship with the prognosis of patients who underwent resection of esophageal carcinoma. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 498 patients receiving resection of esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2015 in our hospital. They were divided into three groups (PRSEC1, PRSEC2 and PRSEC3 groups) according to the results of PRSEC (revised cardiac risk index, model for end-stage liver disease score and pulmonary function test). Their overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured to find the relationship between the PRSEC and prognosis of patients. Results The mortality, morbidity, DFS and OS were correlative with the PRSEC. Therefore the PRSEC can be used to predict the short-term outcome. The patients with score 2 or 3 had higher risk of mortality and morbidity than those with score 1. In addition, the DFS and OS of patients with higher score were shorter (P<0.001). Conclusion The PRSEC is easy and efficient and can predict the morbidity, mortality, and long-term outcomes for the patients with resection of esophageal carcinoma.