ObjectiveTo explore the application of Toumai® minimally invasive endoscopic robot in thoracic surgery, and to observe its safety and short-term surgical efficacy. MethodsThree patients were enrolled from October to December 2021, including 1 male (69 years) and 2 females (47 years and 22 years). All 3 patients received surgery with Toumai® endoscopic surgical robot, including radical lung cancer surgery in 2 patients and mediastinal tumor resection in 1 patient. ResultsAll 3 patients were successfully operated without conversion to thoracotomy, complication or death. For the male lobectomy patient, the total operation time was 120 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL, the catheter drainage time was 4 days and the hospital stay time was 5 days. For the female lobectomy patient, the total operation time was 103 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 100 mL, the catheter drainage time was 4 days and the hospital stay time was 5 days. For the female mediastinal tumor patient, the total operation time was 81 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 50 mL, the catheter drainage time was 3 days and the hospital stay time was 3 days. ConclusionThe Toumai® minimally invasive endoscopic surgical robot is safe and effective in thoracic surgery. Compared with Da Vinci surgical robot, Toumai® has the same 3D visual field experience and smooth operation.
The early diagnosis of lung cancer and the corresponding treatment measures are crucial factors to reduce mortality rate. As an emerging technology, artificial intelligence has developed rapidly and it is used in the medical field to provide new ideas for the early diagnosis of lung cancer, which has achieved remarkable results. Artificial intelligence greatly eases the pressure of clinical work, changes the current medical model, and is expected to make doctors as a decision-maker. This article mainly describes the research progress on artificial intelligence in the identification of benign and malignant lung nodules, pathological typing, determination of markers, and detection of plasma circulating tumor DNA.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin versus cisplatin combined with fluorouracil in the treatment of esophageal neoplasms.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and CBM databases were searched by computer to investigate the randomized controlled studies about the clinical effects of nedaplatin combined with fluorouracil versus cisplatin combined with fluorouracil in the treatment of esophageal neoplasms. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to January 2021. And meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.ResultsA total of 12 randomized controlled studies involving 744 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the total effective rate of the nedaplatin group was better than that of the cisplatin group (P<0.05). The incidence of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and renal impairment in the nedaplatin group was lower than that in the cisplatin group (P<0.05), but the incidence of leukopenia and hemoglobin decline was higher than that in the cisplatin group (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of liver injury, or platelet decline between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionNedaplatin combined with fluorouracil has more advantages than cisplatin combined with fluorouracil in the treatment of esophageal cancer, the incidence of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea is lower, and the damage to kidney function is also smaller.
Since the first case of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the end of 2019, the virus has spread rapidly around the world and has become a global public health problem. In the process of this virus epidemic, compared with the general population, cancer patients are considered to be highly susceptible people, especially the lung cancer patients. Some studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) may be the pathway for SARS-CoV-2 to infect the host. At the same time, ACE2 is often abnormally expressed in non-small cell lung cancer. Therefore, understanding the respective mechanisms of ACE2 in COVID-19 and non-small cell lung cancer has extremely important reference value for the study of vaccines and therapeutic drugs, and also provides meaningful guidance for the protection of patients with lung cancer during the epidemic. This article reviews the possible invasive mechanism of ACE2 in SARS-CoV-2 and its abnormal expression in non-small cell lung cancer.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the application effect of CT-guided Hook-wire localization and CT-guided microcoil localization in pulmonary nodules surgery. MethodsThe literatures on the comparison between CT-guided Hook-wire localization and CT-guided microcoil localization for pulmonary nodules were searched in PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, VIP and CNKI databases from the inception to October 2021. Review Manager (version 5.4) software was used for meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of studies.ResultsA total of 10 retrospective cohort studies were included, with 1 117 patients including 473 patients in the CT-guided Hook-wire localization group and 644 patients in the CT-guided microcoil localization group. The quality of the studies was high with NOS scores>6 points. The result of meta-analysis showed that the difference in the localization operation time (MD=0.14, 95%CI −3.43 to 3.71, P=0.940) between the two groups was not statistically significant. However, the localization success rate of the Hook-wire group was superior to the microcoil group (OR=0.35, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.72, P=0.005). In addition, in comparison with Hook-wire localization, the microcoil localization could reduce the dislocation rate (OR=4.33, 95%CI 2.07 to 9.08, P<0.001), the incidence of pneumothorax (OR=1.62, 95%CI 1.12 to 2.33, P=0.010) and pulmonary hemorrhage (OR=1.64, 95%CI 1.07 to 2.51, P=0.020). ConclusionAlthough Hook-wire localization is slightly better than microcoil localization in the aspect of the success rate of pulmonary nodule localization, microcoil localization has an obvious advantage compared with Hook-wire localization in terms of controlling the incidence of dislocation, pneumothorax and pulmonary hemorrhage. Therefore, from a comprehensive perspective, this study believes that CT-guided microcoil localization is a preoperative localization method worthy of further promotion.
Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of the subxiphoid robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (SRATS) and intercostal robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (IRATS) for the treatment of anterior mediastinal tumors. Methods The clinical data of patients who received robot-assisted anterior mediastinal tumor resection in the same medical unit of the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Gansu Provincial Hospital from May 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively collected. The patients were divided into a SRATS group and an IRATS group according to the surgical procedure. The perioperative data of patients were compared between the two groups. Results Finally 87 patients were collected, including 41 in the SRATS group (23 males and 18 females, mean age of 44.51±11.28 years) and 46 in the IRATS group (21 males and 25 females, mean age of 46.67±8.76 years). All 87 patients completed the surgery successfully. Compared with IRATS group, SRATS group had less intraoperative blood loss (24.41±6.67 mL vs. 37.93±9.23 mL, P=0.000), shorter postoperative catheterization time (1.73±0.59 d vs. 2.54±0.50 d, P=0.000), less postoperative drainage (94.46±34.08 mL vs. 116.72±24.90 mL, P=0.001), lower visual analogue score (VAS) on the first postoperative day (3.66±0.76 points vs. 4.15±0.84 points, P=0.005) and third postoperative day (2.41±0.59 points vs. 2.89±0.82 points, P=0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (4.12±0.81 d vs. 4.98±1.02 d, P=0.000) and lower hospitalization costs (45.1±6.5 thousand yuan vs. 48.6±6.8 thousand yuan, P=0.020). There was no significant difference in the operation time or the incidence of postoperative complications. Conclusion Both SRATS and IRATS have high safety and efficacy in the treatment of anterior mediastinal tumors. However, SRATS has less damage, which is more conducive to the rapid recovery of patients after surgery, and has a wide prospect of clinical application.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal tube for enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and CBM databases were searched to collect the clinical effects of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal nutrition tube after radical resection of esophageal cancer from inception to October 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsTwenty-six articles were included, including 17 randomized controlled studies and 9 cohort studies, with a total of 35 808 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that: in the jejunostomy tube group, the postoperative exhaust time (MD=–4.27, 95%CI –5.87 to –2.66, P=0.001), the incidence of pulmonary infection (OR=1.39, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.82, P=0.02), incidence of tube removal (OR=0.11, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.30, P=0.001), incidence of tube blockage (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.97, P=0.04), incidence of nasopharyngeal discomfort (OR=0.04, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.13, P=0.001), the incidence of nasopharyngeal mucosal damage (OR=0.13, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.42, P=0.008), the incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.47, P=0.003) were significantly shorter or lower than those of the nasojejunal tube group. The postoperative serum albumin level (MD=5.75, 95%CI 5.34 to 6.16, P=0.001) was significantly better than that of the nasojejunal tube group. However, the intraoperative operation time of the jejunostomy tube group (MD=13.65, 95%CI 2.32 to 24.98, P=0.02) and the indent time of the postoperative nutrition tube (MD=17.81, 95%CI 12.71 to 22.91, P=0.001) were longer than those of the nasojejunal nutrition tube. At the same time, the incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction (OR=6.08, 95%CI 2.55 to 14.50, P=0.001) was significantly higher than that of the nasojejunal tube group. There were no statistical differences in the length of postoperative hospital stay or the occurrence of anastomotic fistula between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionIn the process of enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer, jejunostomy tube has better clinical treatment effect and is more comfortable during catheterization, but the incidence of intestinal obstruction is higher than that of traditional nasojejunal tube.