Objective To explore the causes of conversion to thoracotomy in patients with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a surgical team, and to obtain a deeper understanding of the timing of conversion in MIE. Methods The clinical data of patients who underwent MIE between September 9, 2011 and February 12, 2022 by a single surgical team in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University were retrospectively analyzed. The main influencing factors and perioperative mortality of patients who converted to thoracotomy in this group were analyzed. Results In the cohort of 791 consecutive patients with MIE, there were 520 males and 271 females, including 29 patients of multiple esophageal cancer, 156 patients of upper thoracic cancer, 524 patients of middle thoracic cancer, and 82 patients of lower thoracic cancer. And 46 patients were converted to thoracotomy for different causes. The main causes for thoracotomy were advanced stage tumor (26 patients), anesthesia-related factors (5 patients), extensive thoracic adhesions (6 patients), and accidental injury of important structures (8 patients). There was a statistical difference in the distribution of tumor locations between patients who converted to thoracotomy and the MIE patients (P<0.05). The proportion of multiple and upper thoracic cancer in patients who converted to thoracotomy was higher than that in the MIE patients, while the proportion of lower thoracic cancer was lower than that in the MIE patients. The perioperative mortality of the thoracotomy patients was not significantly different from that of the MIE patients (P=1.000). Conclusion In MIE, advanced-stage tumor, anesthesia-related factors, extensive thoracic adhesions, and accidental injury of important structures are the main causes of conversion to thoracotomy. The rate varies at different tumor locations. Intraoperative conversion to thoracotomy does not affect the perioperative mortality of MIE.
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.
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.
目的探討胸腹腔鏡在食管癌手術中應用的可行性及近期療效。 方法2012年6月至2013年10月四川省人民醫院胸外科90例食管癌患者行胸腹腔鏡聯合食管癌切除術，其中男54例、女36例，年齡47～83歲，平均（63.15±11.10）歲。手術先行胸腔鏡游離胸段食管并清掃淋巴結，再腹腔鏡游離胃行食管胃左頸部吻合術。記錄手術時間、術后胸腔引流管放置時間、平均住院時間、淋巴結清掃枚數、術后并發癥等。 結果全部無圍術期死亡。手術時間260～450 min。術后4～11 d（平均5 d）拔除胸腔閉式引流管，胸腔總引流量為530～4 260 ml。全組共清掃縱隔淋巴結（氣管旁、右下肺韌帶、食管旁、隆凸下及左右喉返神經鏈旁）、腹腔淋巴結（賁門旁、胃左動脈旁）及頸部淋巴結1 395枚，平均每例15.5枚，15例（16.7%）發現淋巴結轉移。術后發生吻合口瘺7例（7.8%），聲音嘶啞5例（5.6%），肺部感染5例（5.6%），乳糜胸2例（2.2%），均經保守治療后痊愈。術后10～14 d出院。門診及電話隨訪82例，隨訪率91.1%，隨訪時間1～16個月，患者全部生存，無復發。 結論胸腹腔鏡聯合行食管癌根治術在技術上是安全可行的，近期療效可靠。
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.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube and both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube for the patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection of esophageal carcinoma.MethodsWe enrolled 96 esophageal carcinoma patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection from June 2016 to October 2018. Of them, 49 patients were indwelt with both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube (a chest & mediastinal drainage group, a CMD group) while the other 47 patients were indwelt with single mediastinal drainage tube (a single mediastinal drainage group, a SMD group). The total drainage volume, intubation time and incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) between the two groups were compared. The pain score and comfort score were also compared between the two groups.ResultsThe total drainage volume and intubation time in the SMD group were not significantly different from those in the CMD group (1 321±421 mL vs. 1 204±545 mL, P=0.541; 6.1±3.7 d vs. 6.4 ±5.1 d, P=0.321). The incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) in the SMD group was not significantly different from that in the CMD group (10.6% vs. 6.1%, P=0.712; 4.3% vs. 10.2%, P=0.656; 6.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.121; 2.1% vs. 4.1%, P=0.526). The numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores on the first to the fifth day after surgery and during extubation in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.2±2.1 vs. 5.1±2.4, P=0.041; 2.8±0.6 vs. 4.8±1.4, P=0.015; 2.1±0.4 vs. 4.5±0.4, P=0.019; 1.7±0.7 vs. 4.0±0.8, P=0.004; 1.8±0.7 vs. 3.2±1.2, P=0.006; 1.4±0.2 vs. 2.5±3.4, P=0.012). The VAS comfort scores in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.6±1.7 vs. 6.6±3.7, P=0.018; 2.9±2.0 vs. 5.1±3.4, P=0.007; 2.1±1.4 vs. 5.5±2.4, P=0.004; 3.0±0.9 vs. 4.6±3.8, P=0.012; 1.8±1.1 vs. 4.2±2.7, P=0.003; 2.4±3.2 vs. 5.3±1.7, P=0.020).ConclusionThe clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube in thoracoscopic resection of esophageal carcinoma is similar to that of both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube, but it can significantly improve the comfort of the patients.
Abstract： Objective To investigate the clinical application of tubular stomach in cervical esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods A total of 850 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy through cervico-thoraco-abdominal（3-field）approach between January 2007 and January 2009 in North Jiangsu Hospital were allocated into the tubular stomach group（group A, n=425） and the whole stomach group （group B, n=425）by operation order. Group A included 287 male and 138 female patients with their average age of 58.2±11.5 years. Among them, 27 patients had upper esophageal cancer, 346 patients had middle esophageal cancer and 52 patients had lower esophageal cancer. Group B included 298 male and 127 female patients with their average age of 58.5±12.8 years. Among them, 33 patients had upper esophageal cancer, 338 patients had middle esophageal cancer, and 54 patients had lower esophageal cancer. Operation time, postoperative length of hospital stay and the incidence of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, intra-thoracic stomach syndrome and reflux esophagitis of the two groups were compared. Results All the patients recovered uneventfully with no in-hospital death. There was no statistical difference in operation time （175.0±12.8 min vs.171.0±10.5 min，t=1.702，P＞ 0.05）and postoperative length of hospital stay （16.0±8.5 d vs.16.3±8.8 d，t=1.773，P＞ 0.05） between the two groups. During follow-up of six months, the rates of anastomotic leakage（χ2=5.550，P＜ 0.05）, intra-thoracic stomach syndrome （χ2=10.500，P＜ 0.05）and reflux esophagitis（χ2=9.150，P＜ 0.05） of group A were significantly lower than those of group B. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic stricture （χ2=0.120，P＞ 0.05） between the two groups. Conclusion Tubular stomach is better than whole stomach for cervical esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer since it is more physiologically and anatomically complied. It can decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage, intra-thoracic stomach syndrome, reflux esophagitis and improve the postoperative quality of life.