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.
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.
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.
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.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of thoraco-laparoscopy combined with Ivor Lewis surgery versus thoraco-laparoscopy combined with McKeown surgery in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang database, VIP database and CNKI were searched by computer for the relevant literature comparing the efficacy and safety of Ivor Lewis surgery and McKeown surgery in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma from inception to January 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of cohort studies, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled studies. Review Manager 5.4 software was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of the literature. ResultsA total of 33 articles were included, which consisted of 26 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies and 4 randomized controlled trials. There were 11 518 patients in total, including 5 454 patients receiving Ivor Lewis surgery and 6064 patients receiving McKeown surgery. NOS score was≥7 points. Meta-analysis showed that, in comparison to the McKeown surgery, the Ivor Lewis surgery had shorter operative time (MD=–19.61, 95%CI –30.20 to –9.02, P<0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=–1.15, 95%CI –1.43 to –0.87, P<0.001), lower mortality rate during hospitalization or 30 days postoperatively (OR=0.37, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.71, P=0.003), and lower incidence of total postoperative complications (OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.49, P<0.001). The McKeown surgery had an advantage in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected (MD=–1.25, 95%CI –2.03 to –0.47, P=0.002), postoperative extubation time (MD=0.78, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.19, P<0.001) and 6-month postoperative recurrence rate (OR=1.83, 95%CI 1.41 to 2.39, P<0.001). The differences between the two surgeries were not statistically significant in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative 1 year-, 3 year- and 5 year-overall survival (OS), and impaired gastric emptying (P>0.05). ConclusionCompared with McKeown surgery, Ivor Lewis surgery has shorter operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, lower mortality rate during hospitalization or 30 days postoperatively and lower incidence of total postoperative complications. However, in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative extubation time and 6-month postoperative recurrence rate, McKeown surgery has advantages. Both surgeries have comparable results in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative 1 year-, 3 year- and 5 year-OS, and impaired gastric emptying.
Objective To introduce a simple preoperative risk score for esophageal cancer (PRSEC) and its relationship with the prognosis of patients who underwent resection of esophageal carcinoma. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 498 patients receiving resection of esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2015 in our hospital. They were divided into three groups (PRSEC1, PRSEC2 and PRSEC3 groups) according to the results of PRSEC (revised cardiac risk index, model for end-stage liver disease score and pulmonary function test). Their overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured to find the relationship between the PRSEC and prognosis of patients. Results The mortality, morbidity, DFS and OS were correlative with the PRSEC. Therefore the PRSEC can be used to predict the short-term outcome. The patients with score 2 or 3 had higher risk of mortality and morbidity than those with score 1. In addition, the DFS and OS of patients with higher score were shorter (P<0.001). Conclusion The PRSEC is easy and efficient and can predict the morbidity, mortality, and long-term outcomes for the patients with resection of esophageal carcinoma.