对于大型胸腺瘤,机器人辅助胸腺切除术等同于经胸腔镜切除术。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Journal of thoracic disease Pub Date : 2024-10-31 Epub Date: 2024-10-09 DOI:10.21037/jtd-24-637
Shaikha Al-Thani, Mohamed Rahouma, Jonathan Villena-Vargas, Oliver Chow, Sebron Harrison, Benjamin Lee, Nasser Altorki, Jeffrey Port
{"title":"对于大型胸腺瘤,机器人辅助胸腺切除术等同于经胸腔镜切除术。","authors":"Shaikha Al-Thani, Mohamed Rahouma, Jonathan Villena-Vargas, Oliver Chow, Sebron Harrison, Benjamin Lee, Nasser Altorki, Jeffrey Port","doi":"10.21037/jtd-24-637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) is widely accepted for small-to-moderate-size thymomas. However, limited data exists comparing the feasibility of RATS for large tumors ≥5 cm. The aim of this study is to compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of open thymectomy (OT) versus RATS for these larger tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Cancer Database (2010-2020) was queried for patients who underwent RATS and OT. Patients were excluded if they had thymic carcinoma, neoadjuvant therapy, tumors <5 cm, and underwent a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and mortality rates. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared using log-rank test. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed (1:1, Caliper 0.2 without replacement), controlling for age, race, facility type, tumor size, comorbidity index, and year of diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,178 patients identified, 1,015 (86.2%) underwent OT, and 163 (13.8%) underwent RATS. RATS cases were more likely to be performed in academic centers and have a smaller median tumor size compared to OT cases. In the matched cohort, there was no difference between the groups' 30-day readmission, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates. RATS patients had a shorter median LOS compared to OT patients. The median follow-up time was 76 months; 5-year OS was 88% after OT and 90% after RATS (P=0.23). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, the surgical approach was not a predictor of worse survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who underwent RATS for tumors ≥5 cm had equivalent survival and perioperative outcomes compared to OT with a shorter LOS.</p>","PeriodicalId":17542,"journal":{"name":"Journal of thoracic disease","volume":"16 10","pages":"6752-6759"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11565367/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A robotic-assisted thymectomy is equivalent to a transsternal resection in large thymomas.\",\"authors\":\"Shaikha Al-Thani, Mohamed Rahouma, Jonathan Villena-Vargas, Oliver Chow, Sebron Harrison, Benjamin Lee, Nasser Altorki, Jeffrey Port\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/jtd-24-637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) is widely accepted for small-to-moderate-size thymomas. However, limited data exists comparing the feasibility of RATS for large tumors ≥5 cm. The aim of this study is to compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of open thymectomy (OT) versus RATS for these larger tumors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Cancer Database (2010-2020) was queried for patients who underwent RATS and OT. Patients were excluded if they had thymic carcinoma, neoadjuvant therapy, tumors <5 cm, and underwent a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and mortality rates. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared using log-rank test. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed (1:1, Caliper 0.2 without replacement), controlling for age, race, facility type, tumor size, comorbidity index, and year of diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,178 patients identified, 1,015 (86.2%) underwent OT, and 163 (13.8%) underwent RATS. RATS cases were more likely to be performed in academic centers and have a smaller median tumor size compared to OT cases. In the matched cohort, there was no difference between the groups' 30-day readmission, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates. RATS patients had a shorter median LOS compared to OT patients. The median follow-up time was 76 months; 5-year OS was 88% after OT and 90% after RATS (P=0.23). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, the surgical approach was not a predictor of worse survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who underwent RATS for tumors ≥5 cm had equivalent survival and perioperative outcomes compared to OT with a shorter LOS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of thoracic disease\",\"volume\":\"16 10\",\"pages\":\"6752-6759\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11565367/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of thoracic disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-24-637\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of thoracic disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-24-637","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机器人辅助胸腔镜手术(RATS)被广泛用于治疗中小型胸腺瘤。然而,比较 RATS 对≥5 厘米的巨大肿瘤的可行性的数据却很有限。本研究旨在比较开放式胸腺切除术(OT)与RATS治疗这些较大肿瘤的肿瘤学和围手术期结果:方法:查询了国家癌症数据库(2010-2020 年)中接受 RATS 和 OT 的患者。如果患者患有胸腺癌、接受过新辅助治疗或肿瘤,则将其排除在外:在已确认的 1,178 名患者中,1,015 人(86.2%)接受了 OT,163 人(13.8%)接受了 RATS。与OT病例相比,RATS病例更有可能在学术中心进行,肿瘤中位数也更小。在匹配队列中,两组患者的 30 天再入院率、30 天死亡率和 90 天死亡率均无差异。RATS患者的中位住院日短于OT患者。中位随访时间为76个月;OT患者的5年OS为88%,RATS患者的5年OS为90%(P=0.23)。多变量考克斯回归分析显示,手术方式并不是生存率降低的预测因素:结论:肿瘤≥5厘米的患者接受RATS手术的生存率和围手术期结果与OT相当,但LOS更短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A robotic-assisted thymectomy is equivalent to a transsternal resection in large thymomas.

Background: Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) is widely accepted for small-to-moderate-size thymomas. However, limited data exists comparing the feasibility of RATS for large tumors ≥5 cm. The aim of this study is to compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of open thymectomy (OT) versus RATS for these larger tumors.

Methods: The National Cancer Database (2010-2020) was queried for patients who underwent RATS and OT. Patients were excluded if they had thymic carcinoma, neoadjuvant therapy, tumors <5 cm, and underwent a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and mortality rates. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared using log-rank test. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed (1:1, Caliper 0.2 without replacement), controlling for age, race, facility type, tumor size, comorbidity index, and year of diagnosis.

Results: Of the 1,178 patients identified, 1,015 (86.2%) underwent OT, and 163 (13.8%) underwent RATS. RATS cases were more likely to be performed in academic centers and have a smaller median tumor size compared to OT cases. In the matched cohort, there was no difference between the groups' 30-day readmission, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates. RATS patients had a shorter median LOS compared to OT patients. The median follow-up time was 76 months; 5-year OS was 88% after OT and 90% after RATS (P=0.23). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, the surgical approach was not a predictor of worse survival.

Conclusions: Patients who underwent RATS for tumors ≥5 cm had equivalent survival and perioperative outcomes compared to OT with a shorter LOS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of thoracic disease
Journal of thoracic disease RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
254
期刊介绍: The Journal of Thoracic Disease (JTD, J Thorac Dis, pISSN: 2072-1439; eISSN: 2077-6624) was founded in Dec 2009, and indexed in PubMed in Dec 2011 and Science Citation Index SCI in Feb 2013. It is published quarterly (Dec 2009- Dec 2011), bimonthly (Jan 2012 - Dec 2013), monthly (Jan. 2014-) and openly distributed worldwide. JTD received its impact factor of 2.365 for the year 2016. JTD publishes manuscripts that describe new findings and provide current, practical information on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions related to thoracic disease. All the submission and reviewing are conducted electronically so that rapid review is assured.
期刊最新文献
How can osteosynthesis material used for fracture fixation undergo intrathoracic migration?-a systematic literature review. Identification of prognostic factors of chronic pulmonary aspergillosis: a retrospective cohort of 106 patients. Safety and efficacy of percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy in the treatment of acute medium- or high-risk pulmonary embolism: a single-center retrospective cross-sectional study. Impact of high spinal anesthesia in pediatric congenital heart surgery on postoperative recovery: a retrospective propensity score-matched study. Impact of lymph node evaluation standard in patients undergoing lung resection for clinical stage IA pulmonary adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma.
×
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