Is routine extubation overnight safe in cardiac surgery patients?

Objectives

Expedient extubation after cardiac surgery has been associated with improved outcomes, leading to postoperative extubation frequently during overnight hours. However, recent evidence in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit population demonstrated worse outcomes with overnight extubation. This study investigated the impact of overnight extubation in a statewide, multicenter Society of Thoracic Surgeons database.

A rare massive presentation of catamenial hemothorax

Catamenial hemothorax is a rare manifestation of thoracic endometriosis syndrome. It is commonly seen associated with pelvic endometriosis in nulliparous reproductive-age women. Most cases are minor and self-limiting. We present a case of a 32-year-old woman who presented with prolonged worsening dyspnea and was found to have a massive hemothorax on evaluation.     

漏斗胸Nuss矫形术对胸廓的影响及相关因素分析

目的通过CT影像测量了解漏斗胸Nuss矫形术前后胸廓径线的改变情况,探讨并分析Nuss矫形术对胸廓的影响及相关因素。方法对2014年1月至2018年12月郑州大学第一附属医院收治的50例行漏斗胸Nuss矫形术患儿的临床资料进行回顾性分析。50例患儿中男43例,女7例。所有患儿中存在脊柱侧弯6例,胸廓不对称12例,胸骨旋转11例。通过CT影像测量其放置矫形器前及取出矫形器后胸廓各椎体平面最大横内径及该平面胸脊间的距离,通过配对样本t检验比较矫形前后各径线的改变情况,以及通过独立样本t检验分析在不同年龄、性别、矫形时间、漏斗胸对称与否、是否合并脊柱侧弯等情况间的差异性。结果50例患儿均顺利完成矫形器置入术及矫形器拔除术,无明显术中及术后并发症,Nuss矫形后较矫形前相比,胸廓前后径在第8~12胸椎水平均较前增加,第3~5胸椎平面较前减小,胸廓横径在第8~10胸椎平面较前减小;年龄≤10岁、矫形时长≥2年及女性患儿胸廓前后径改变量在多个胸椎平面分别较年龄>10岁、矫形时长<2年及男性患儿大,P<0.05,差异具有统计学意义。结论漏斗胸Nuss矫形后前胸壁凹陷较前明显改善,并且在不同年龄和不同矫形时长间存在差异性,年龄较小及适当增加矫形时间可获得较好的矫形效果,而胸廓横径生长在一定程度上受限。     

不同手术方案对脊髓型颈椎病合并椎管狭窄症患者术后疗效及颈椎矢状位参数的影响

目的探讨前路椎体次全切除术和后路椎管扩大椎板成形术对脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)合并椎管狭窄症患者术后疗效及颈椎矢状位参数的影响。方法回顾性分析2010年3月—2015年8月收治的147例CSM合并椎管狭窄症患者的临床资料,其中80例行前路椎体次全切除术治疗(A组),67例行后路椎管扩大椎板成形术治疗(B组)。比较2种手术方法治疗前后日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、Cobb角及矢状位垂直距离(SVA)。将2组患者根据T_1倾斜角分别分为高T_1倾斜角(≥25°)亚组和低T_1倾斜角( 25°)亚组,对不同亚组之间的疗效及手术安全性进行比较。结果 2组术后JOA评分和Cobb角均高于术前,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。A组术后SVA低于术前,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05),B组术后SVA与术前相比差异无统计学意义(P 0.05)。A组术后JOA评分和Cobb角均高于B组,SVA低于B组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。A组中,高T_1倾斜角亚组和低T_1倾斜角亚组JOA评分改善效果和后凸畸形发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P 0.05);B组中,低T_1倾斜角亚组JOA评分改善效果和后凸畸形发生率优于高T_1倾斜角亚组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论相较于后路椎管扩大椎板成形术,前路椎体次全切除术治疗CSM合并椎管狭窄症临床疗效更佳,且有助于改善颈椎矢状位平衡;在高T_1倾斜角水平下,应尽可能选择前路椎体次全切除术。     

可切除肺癌预后预测模型的构建及生存分析

目的 探讨构建的可切除肺癌预后预测模型在患者生存及预后预测中的价值。方法 选择山西省肿瘤医院2007年1月至2018年9月原发性肺癌患者2 267例,患者均行一次肺癌手术治疗,无第二原发肿瘤。选取性别、年龄、职业、肿瘤部位、病理类型、手术路径、手术方式、肿瘤分期、治疗方案为预后影响因素。采用Cox比例风险模型构建预后指数(PI)方程,计算每例患者的PI值。根据PI值的不同范围,划分低、中、高危预后组,对各组生存情况进行评估。结果 性别(RR=0.684,P=0.001)、年龄(RR=0.591,P<0.01)、职业(RR=1.439,P=0.001)、病理类型(RR=3.694,P<0.01)、手术路径(RR=0.734,P=0.001)、肿瘤分期(RR=0.352,P=0.007)为可切除肺癌患者预后独立影响因素。其中,女性、≤65岁、胸腔镜手术、肿瘤分期Ⅰ期为预后保护因素,其预后不良风险分别降低31.6%、40.9%、26.6%、64.8%;农民、腺鳞癌为预后危险因素,其预后不良风险分别增加43.9%、269.4%。PI方程为:∑βixi=-0.380 X1-0.526 X2+0.364 X31+1.307 X55-0.309 X6-1.045 X81(X1代表性别,X2代表年龄,X31代表职业为农民,X55代表病理类型为腺鳞癌,X6代表手术路径,X81代表肿瘤分期Ⅰ期)。PI<-1为低危组,PI≥-1且≤-0.5为中危组,PI>-0.5为高危组。1、3、5年生存率低危组分别为96.8%、87.0%、77.9%,中危组分别为91.8%、82.2%、61.7%,高危组分别为86.5%、61.7%、50.3%,各组间生存率差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 可切除肺癌预后预测模型能够预测可切除肺癌患者的预后风险及相应生存率,帮助临床医师评估预后及制订后续治疗方案。     

Pulmonary Carcinosarcoma: A Surveillance,Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Analysis

IntroductionPulmonary carcinosarcoma (PC) is a rare malignant neoplasm composed of epithelial and mesenchymal components. It accounts for < 1% of thoracic cancers and is not fully understood. This study examined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data to describe demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with PC and assessed survival outcomes by treatment modality and stage.Patients and MethodsSEER data were reviewed to identify patients diagnosed with primary PC (1973-2012). Overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were analyzed by univariate/multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier methods.ResultsA total of 411 patients were included. Median age was 67 (range, 24-96) years. Disease stage at the time of initial diagnosis was known for 74.7% of the identified patients (307/411). Of these patients, 23.1% had localized disease. Survival was significantly better for patients with localized disease (OS: 31 vs. 6 months, P < .001; DSS: 54 vs. 8 months, P < .001). Additionally, patients who received surgery alone had significantly improved OS (20 months; P < .001) and DSS (32 months; P < .001) compared to patients who received combined surgery and radiotherapy (OS: 7 months; DSS: 8 months) or radiotherapy alone (OS: 4 months; DSS: 4 months).ConclusionTreatment with surgery alone resulted in superior survival outcomes compared to other treatment modality combinations, regardless of patient age and disease stage. Within the limitations of this study, providers may wish to consider these findings when devising patient treatment plans.     

Elective Nodal Irradiation for Limited-stage Small-cell Lung Cancer: Survey of US Radiation Oncologists on Practice Patterns

BackgroundTraditionally, elective nodal irradiation (ENI) has been used in clinical trials that have established thoracic radiotherapy as instrumental in improving survival for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). However, several reports have suggested that the omission of ENI might be appropriate. Current US practice patterns are unknown regarding ENI for patients with LS-SCLC.Materials and MethodsWe surveyed US radiation oncologists via an institutional review board-approved questionnaire. The questions covered demographics, treatment recommendations, and self-assessed knowledge of key clinical trials. χ² and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate for statistically significant correlations between responses.ResultsWe received 309 responses. Of the respondents, 21% recommended ENI for N0 LS-SCLC, 29% for N1, and 30% for N2; 64% did not recommend ENI for any of these clinical scenarios. The respondents who recommended ENI were more likely to have been practicing for > 10 years (P < .001), more likely to be in private practice (P = .04), and less likely to be familiar with the ongoing Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30610 trial (P = .04). Almost all respondents (93%) prescribed the same radiation dose to the primary disease and involved lymph nodes. When delivering ENI, 36% prescribed the same dose to the involved and elective nodes, and 64% prescribed a lower dose to the elective nodes.ConclusionNearly two thirds of respondents did not recommend ENI, which represents a shift in practice. A recent large clinical trial that omitted ENI reported greater overall survival than previously reported and lower-than-expected radiation toxicities, lending further evidence that omitting ENI should be considered a standard treatment strategy.