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.
With the widespread application of minimally invasive esophagectomy, inflatable video-assisted mediastinoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (IVMTE) has gradually become one of the alternative surgical methods for transthoracic esophagectomy due to less trama, fewer perioperative complications and better short-term efficacy. However, there is no uniform standard for surgical methods and lymph node dissection in medical centers that perform IVMTE, which affects the standardization and further promotion of IVMTE. Therefore, on the basis of fully consulting domestic and foreign literature, our team proposed an expert consensus focusing on IVMTE, in order to standardize the clinical practice, guarantee the quality of treatment and promote the development of IMVTE.
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。