电视胸腔镜与开放手术治疗食管癌的疗效比较

H. Tamagawa, M. Numata, T. Aoyama, Ayako Tamagawa, K. Komori, Y. Maezawa, K. Kano, K. Kazama, M. Murakawa, Yosuke Atsumi, K. Hara, S. Kawahara, Takanobu Yamada, T. Ogata, T. Ohshima, N. Yukawa, M. Masuda, Y. Rino
{"title":"电视胸腔镜与开放手术治疗食管癌的疗效比较","authors":"H. Tamagawa, M. Numata, T. Aoyama, Ayako Tamagawa, K. Komori, Y. Maezawa, K. Kano, K. Kazama, M. Murakawa, Yosuke Atsumi, K. Hara, S. Kawahara, Takanobu Yamada, T. Ogata, T. Ohshima, N. Yukawa, M. Masuda, Y. Rino","doi":"10.4993/acrt.28.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy theoretically has advantages over open esophagectomy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) or conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal carcinoma. Methods: A total of 122 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy via VATE (VATE group, N = 87) and OE (OE group, N = 35) for esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled in this study, and the postop- erative outcomes were compared. Results: The OE group had younger patients and more patients who received neo-adjuvant therapy that the VATE group. The procedure time in the OE group was also shorter than that in the VATE group (8.22 vs. 10.28 h, P < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was similar between the groups (P = 0.775). There were no significant differences in the total number of dissected lymph nodes between the groups (OE: 33, VATE: 37, P = 0.482). The incidence of severe complications was lower in the VATE group than in the OE group (44.8% vs. 65.7%, P = 0.037). With a median follow-up of 26 months, the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: VATE for esophageal carcinoma is associated with more favorable short-term outcomes and equal oncological outcomes compared with OE.","PeriodicalId":35647,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Comparison of Outcomes between Video-assisted Thoracscopic and Open Surgery for Esophageal Cancer\",\"authors\":\"H. Tamagawa, M. Numata, T. Aoyama, Ayako Tamagawa, K. Komori, Y. Maezawa, K. Kano, K. Kazama, M. Murakawa, Yosuke Atsumi, K. Hara, S. Kawahara, Takanobu Yamada, T. Ogata, T. Ohshima, N. Yukawa, M. Masuda, Y. Rino\",\"doi\":\"10.4993/acrt.28.97\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy theoretically has advantages over open esophagectomy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) or conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal carcinoma. Methods: A total of 122 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy via VATE (VATE group, N = 87) and OE (OE group, N = 35) for esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled in this study, and the postop- erative outcomes were compared. Results: The OE group had younger patients and more patients who received neo-adjuvant therapy that the VATE group. The procedure time in the OE group was also shorter than that in the VATE group (8.22 vs. 10.28 h, P < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was similar between the groups (P = 0.775). There were no significant differences in the total number of dissected lymph nodes between the groups (OE: 33, VATE: 37, P = 0.482). The incidence of severe complications was lower in the VATE group than in the OE group (44.8% vs. 65.7%, P = 0.037). With a median follow-up of 26 months, the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: VATE for esophageal carcinoma is associated with more favorable short-term outcomes and equal oncological outcomes compared with OE.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4993/acrt.28.97\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4993/acrt.28.97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:微创食管切除术在理论上比开放式食管切除术有优势。本研究的目的是比较接受电视胸腔镜食管切除术(VATE)或传统开放式食管切除术(OE)治疗食管癌患者的短期和长期预后。方法:回顾性分析2005 - 2018年食管癌经VATE (VATE组,N = 87)和OE (OE组,N = 35)行根治性食管切除术的122例患者,比较其术后预后。结果:OE组患者较VATE组年轻,接受新辅助治疗的患者较多。OE组手术时间也短于VATE组(8.22 h vs. 10.28 h, P < 0.001)。两组术中出血量相近(P = 0.775)。两组间淋巴结清扫总数比较差异无统计学意义(OE: 33, VATE: 37, P = 0.482)。VATE组严重并发症发生率低于OE组(44.8% vs. 65.7%, P = 0.037)。中位随访26个月,两组的3年总生存期和无病生存期相似。结论:与OE相比,VATE治疗食管癌具有更有利的短期预后和相同的肿瘤预后。
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
The Comparison of Outcomes between Video-assisted Thoracscopic and Open Surgery for Esophageal Cancer
Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy theoretically has advantages over open esophagectomy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) or conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal carcinoma. Methods: A total of 122 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy via VATE (VATE group, N = 87) and OE (OE group, N = 35) for esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled in this study, and the postop- erative outcomes were compared. Results: The OE group had younger patients and more patients who received neo-adjuvant therapy that the VATE group. The procedure time in the OE group was also shorter than that in the VATE group (8.22 vs. 10.28 h, P < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was similar between the groups (P = 0.775). There were no significant differences in the total number of dissected lymph nodes between the groups (OE: 33, VATE: 37, P = 0.482). The incidence of severe complications was lower in the VATE group than in the OE group (44.8% vs. 65.7%, P = 0.037). With a median follow-up of 26 months, the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: VATE for esophageal carcinoma is associated with more favorable short-term outcomes and equal oncological outcomes compared with OE.
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
Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy
Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Association of Various Viral Infections with the Risk of Gastrointestinal Cancers in the Iranian Population Beta Catenin Expression in Colorectal Carcinoma and its relation to survival and prognostic factors Are Breast Cancer Awareness Campaigns Missing the Mark: Pakistan's Perspective Association between perforated peptic ulcers, human leukocyteantigen-restricted human endogenous retrovirus gene-derived peptides, and carcinogenesis after acid-suppressive therapy Comparison of the impact and quality of life of breast and lung cancer survivors in the medium-term
×
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