Thoracoscopic three-port single versus multiple intercostal for radical resection of esophageal cancer: a retrospective analysis.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY BMC Cancer Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1186/s12885-024-12754-0
Jinghao Huang, Yifan Yu, Zixiang Wu, Chuanqiang Wu, Jinsheng Li, Zhiling Lou, Ming Wu
{"title":"Thoracoscopic three-port single versus multiple intercostal for radical resection of esophageal cancer: a retrospective analysis.","authors":"Jinghao Huang, Yifan Yu, Zixiang Wu, Chuanqiang Wu, Jinsheng Li, Zhiling Lou, Ming Wu","doi":"10.1186/s12885-024-12754-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the safety and feasibility of single-intercostal totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIIE) with those of multiple-intercostal MIIE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2016 and December 2022, clinical data were collected for 528 patients who successfully underwent totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. Among these patients, 294 underwent MIIE, with 200 undergoing the single-intercostal approach and 94 undergoing the multiple-intercostal approach. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to the cohort of 294 patients. Subsequently, perioperative outcomes and other pertinent clinical data were analyzed retrospectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 294 patients were subjected to PSM, and 89 groups of patient data (178 persons in total) were well balanced and included in the follow-up statistics. Compared to the multiple intercostal group, the single intercostal group had a shorter operative time (280 min vs. 310 min; p < 0.05). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the incidence of major perioperative complications (p > 0.05). The total number of lymph nodes sampled (25.30 vs. 27.55, p > 0.05) and recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes sampled on the both sides (p > 0.05) did not significantly differ. The single intercostal group had lower postoperative long-term usage of morphine (0,0-60 vs. 20,20-130; p < 0.01), total temporary addition (10,0-30 vs. 20,20-40; p < 0.01) and temporary usage in the first 3 days after surgery (0,0-15 vs. 10,10-20; p < 0.01) than did the multicostal group.There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumor location or extent of lymphadenectomy or in the clinical factors between the single-intercostal group (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both techniques can be used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Compared to multiple intercostal MIIE, the feasibility of which has been proven internationally, the single intercostal technique can also be applied to patients of different age groups and sexes and with different tumor locations. It can provide surgeons with an additional surgical option.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was retrospectively registered by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, and written informed consent was exempted from ethical review. The registration number was 20,230,326. The date of registration was 2023.03.26.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11376046/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12754-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the safety and feasibility of single-intercostal totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIIE) with those of multiple-intercostal MIIE.

Methods: Between January 2016 and December 2022, clinical data were collected for 528 patients who successfully underwent totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. Among these patients, 294 underwent MIIE, with 200 undergoing the single-intercostal approach and 94 undergoing the multiple-intercostal approach. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to the cohort of 294 patients. Subsequently, perioperative outcomes and other pertinent clinical data were analyzed retrospectively.

Results: A total of 294 patients were subjected to PSM, and 89 groups of patient data (178 persons in total) were well balanced and included in the follow-up statistics. Compared to the multiple intercostal group, the single intercostal group had a shorter operative time (280 min vs. 310 min; p < 0.05). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the incidence of major perioperative complications (p > 0.05). The total number of lymph nodes sampled (25.30 vs. 27.55, p > 0.05) and recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes sampled on the both sides (p > 0.05) did not significantly differ. The single intercostal group had lower postoperative long-term usage of morphine (0,0-60 vs. 20,20-130; p < 0.01), total temporary addition (10,0-30 vs. 20,20-40; p < 0.01) and temporary usage in the first 3 days after surgery (0,0-15 vs. 10,10-20; p < 0.01) than did the multicostal group.There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumor location or extent of lymphadenectomy or in the clinical factors between the single-intercostal group (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Both techniques can be used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Compared to multiple intercostal MIIE, the feasibility of which has been proven internationally, the single intercostal technique can also be applied to patients of different age groups and sexes and with different tumor locations. It can provide surgeons with an additional surgical option.

Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, and written informed consent was exempted from ethical review. The registration number was 20,230,326. The date of registration was 2023.03.26.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胸腔镜三孔单肋间与多肋间食管癌根治性切除术:回顾性分析。
背景:这项回顾性研究旨在比较单肋间全微创艾弗-刘易斯食管切除术(MIIE)与多肋间全微创食管切除术的安全性和可行性:在2016年1月至2022年12月期间,收集了528名成功接受全微创食管切除术患者的临床数据。在这些患者中,294人接受了MIIE,其中200人接受了单肋间入路,94人接受了多肋间入路。对这294名患者进行了倾向评分匹配(PSM)。随后,对围手术期结果和其他相关临床数据进行了回顾性分析:共有 294 名患者接受了 PSM,其中 89 组患者(共 178 人)的数据非常均衡,并纳入了随访统计。与多肋间组相比,单肋间组的手术时间更短(280 分钟对 310 分钟;P 0.05)。取样的淋巴结总数(25.30 对 27.55,P > 0.05)和两侧喉返神经淋巴结取样数(P > 0.05)无显著差异。单肋间组术后长期使用吗啡的比例较低(0,0-60 vs. 20,20-130; p 0.05):结论:两种技术都可用于食管癌的治疗。结论:两种技术都可用于食管癌的治疗。与国际上已证明其可行性的多肋间MIIE相比,单肋间技术也可用于不同年龄段、性别和不同肿瘤位置的患者。它可以为外科医生提供多一种手术选择:本研究由浙江大学医学院附属第二医院伦理委员会进行回顾性注册,免于伦理审查的书面知情同意。注册号为 20230326。注册日期为 2023.03.26。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
期刊最新文献
Exosomal transcript cargo and functional correlation with HNSCC patients’ survival A randomized, multicenter phase III Study of once-per-cycle administration of efbemalenograstim alfa (F-627), a novel long-acting rhG-CSF, for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer Development and validation of a TRIM27-based nomogram for predicting metachronous liver metastasis and prognosis in postoperative colorectal cancer patients Comparison of a new MR rapid wash-out map with MR perfusion in brain tumors Salvage chemotherapy regimens with arsenic trioxide for relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: a promising approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1