The conventional total arch replacement (cTAR) with frozen elephant trunk implantation is commonly regarded as the gold standard for aortic pathologies involving ascending aorta and proximal aortic arch. By combining open supra-aortic vessels debranching and emerging endovascular technologies, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has been increasingly performed as a promising alternative in risky patients with comorbidities and frailties. Nevertheless, the advantages or disadvantages of hybrid arch procedures and cTAR in terms of survival and related outcomes remain controversial. This study is aimed to briefly review the role and results of HAR in the management of aortic arch pathology in comparison of contemporary cTAR.
ObjectiveTo compare and analyze the treatment effect of thoracoscopic surgery and traditional open surgery on infants with congenital diaphragmatic eventration, and summarize the experience of thoracoscopic surgery in infants with congenital diaphragmatic eventration.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 105 children with congenital diaphragmatic eventration who received operation in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from January 2010 to January 2019. The patients were divided into an open group and a thoracoscopic group according to the operation methods. There were 41 patients in the thoracoscopic group, including 30 males and 11 females, with an average of 13.42±11.08 months (range: 1 d to 3 years). There were 64 patients in the open group, including 44 males and 20 females, with an average age of 8.21±9.33 months (range: 15.0 d to 1.6 years). The operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative mechanical ventilation time, hospital stay and other operation indexes as well as the mortality, recurrence rate and complication rate of the two groups were observed.ResultsThe operation indexes such as operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative mechanical ventilation time, thoracic drainage time, CCU stay and hospital stay of the thoracoscopic group were better than those in the open group (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between two groups in postoperative diaphgram muscles descent, postoperative feeding time or patients needing thoracic drainage (P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the thoracoscopic group (19.51%) was lower than that in the open group (23.44%, P>0.05), and the difference in mortality and recurrence rate between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05).ConclusionBoth thoracoscopic diaphragmatic plication and traditional open surgery can effectively treat congenital diaphragmatic eventration, but compared with traditional open surgery, thoracoscopic diaphragmatic plication has the advantages of shorter operation time, less trauma, more rapid recovery and fewer complications, so it should be the first choice for children with congenital diaphragmatic eventration.
ObjectiveTo compare the differences of clinical effects between the bilateral endoscopic breast reconstruction and the open breast reconstruction. MethodsThe clinical data of 28 female patients who underwent bilateral breast graft reconstruction in the Department of Breast Surgery of West China Hospital from January 2017 to January 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: an endoscopic group (n=12, aged 41.3±8.9 years) and an open group (n=16, aged 41.6±8.8 years). The clinical data of the two groups of patients were compared. Results There was no significant difference in demographic and oncological data between the two groups (P>0.05). There was a significant difference in the implants between the two groups (P=0.008). The operation time (298.2±108.6 min vs. 326.5±95.8 min, P=0.480) and anesthesia time (373.4±91.2 min vs. 400.3±97.1 min, P=0.463) were not significantly different. The total complications (P=0.035) and major complications (P=0.024) in the open group were more than those in the endoscopic group. For the comparison of breast satisfaction, psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being, the scores at six months and one year after surgery were higher in the endoscopic group than those in the open group (P<0.05). ConclusionThe endoscopic reconstruction is safe and effective, with high satisfaction rates regarding breast reconstruction and quality of life, and is superior to conventional open surgery.