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.
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 investigate the learning curve of non-tube and early oral feeding procedure following McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). MethodsWe analyzed the clinical data of 38 patients (26 males, 12 females, aged 42–79 years) with esophageal cancer who received non-tube and early oral feeding procedure after surgery at the Affiliated Tumor Hospital, Zhengzhou University from November 2017 to August 2018. They suffered upper thoracic esophageal cancer (n=4), middle thoracic esophageal cancer (n=22) or lower thoracic esophageal cancer (n=12). ResultsMcKeown MIE was successfully performed on 38 patients. Oral feeding began 1.7 (1-4) days after surgery in the 38 patients with non-tube. Pneumonia/atelectasis occurred in 5 patients (13.1%), respiratory failure in 1 patient (2.6%), arrhythmia in 3 patients (7.9%), hoarseness in 5 patients (13.1%), anastomotic fistula in 1 patient (2.6%), cervical incision infection in 1 patient (2.6%), pneumomediastinum and infection in 1 patient (2.6%) and gastric emptying disorder in 2 patients (5.2%). No death was observed. After 26 patients with McKeown MIE were treated with enhanced recovery after surgery procedure, the operation time and complications could reach a relatively stable state and entered a plateau phase of learning curve. ConclusionNon-tube and early oral feeding procedure following MIE is technically safe and feasible. It can shorten hospital stay, relieve the discomfort of placement of nasogastric and nutrition tube and may reduce the incidence of complications. The learning curve of non-tube and early oral feeding procedure following MIE is about 26 cases.
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.
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.
Objective To explore the feasibility of single mediastinal drainage tube in treatment of esophageal carcinoma after thoracoscopic combined with laparoscopic surgery. Methods There were 90 esophagus cancer patients treated by surgery in our hospital between June 2015 and October 2016. The patients were allocated into two groups including a single-drainage tube group and a two-drainage tube group. There were 45 patients with 24 males and 21 females at age of 48-78 years in the two-drainage tube group and 45 patients with 23 males and 22 females at age of 45-84 years in the single-drainage tube group.The clinical effect of the two groups was compared. Results There was no statistical difference in gender and age, bleeding amount and surgical duration in operation, thoracic drainage amount, incidence of atelectasis, pneumothorax, and encapsulated effusion between the two groups(P<0.05). Discussion Single-drainage tube group displays less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and more convenient clinical care without complication.