腔镜食管癌根治术在食管癌治疗中的临床应用

目的探讨腔镜食管癌根治术的安全性及可行性。方法回顾性分析2008年6月至2012年4月福建省肿瘤医院298例行腔镜辅助食管癌根治术患者的临床资料。结果297例在腔镜辅助下成功完成手术,1例中转开腹。手术用时（242．3±58．7）min,术后住院时间（17．4±9．8）d。淋巴结清扫总数（27．5±12．2）枚／例,其中纵隔、腹腔及颈部淋巴结清扫数目分别为（10．7±5．7）、（13．3±7．8）及（7．7±8．1）枚／例。89例（29．9％）出现手术相关并发症,其中肺部感染41例,术后声嘶25例,吻合口瘘9例,切口感染7例,其他7例。术后经2～47个月的随访,3例患者出现吻合口狭窄,其余进食及生活质量良好。结论腔镜辅助胸食管癌根治术是安全、微创、有效的手术方法。     

Minimally invasive transhiatal and transthoracic esophagectomy

Background Standard esophagectomy requires either a laparotomy with transhiatal removal of the esophagus or a combination of laparotomy and thoracotomy. Currently, it still is associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. Complications leading to greater morbidity and mortality are rarely seen after minimally invasive surgery. The authors present their experience with 25 minimally invasive esophageal resections. Methods Between August 1st, 2003 and November 30th, 2005, the authors performed 25 minimally invasive esophageal resections for 4 woman and 21 men. Data were acquired prospectively. Results In this series, a laparoscopic transhiatal approach was performed in 9 cases, a combined laparoscopic-thoracoscopic procedure in 12 cases, and laparoscopic creation of a gastric tube combined with thoracotomy in 4 cases. No conversion became necessary. The mean operation time was 165 min (range, 150–180 min) for the laparoscopic transhiatal approach and 300 min (range, 240–360 min) for both combination approaches. Using the combined laparoscopic-thoracoscopic procedure, 23 lymph nodes (range, 19–26 lymph nodes) were removed, and using the laparoscopic transhiatal approach, 14 lymph nodes (range, 12–17 lymph nodes) were removed. The median stay in the intensive care unit was 1.5 days (range, 1–22 days), and the overall postoperative stay was 10 days (range, 7–153 days). Two intraoperative complications and two cervical anastomotic leakages were observed. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Conclusion The findings demonstrate that laparoscopic transhiatal and combined laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy are feasible and can be performed with low rates of morbidity and mortality. Due to an equal extent of lymph node dissection, there should be no difference in long-term survival between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery.     

微创食管切除术治疗食管癌的研究进展

食管癌是全世界8大常见恶性肿瘤之一,外科手术仍为最主要的治疗方案。传统开放食管切除术术后并发症发生率高,患者生活质量较差。为减少手术并发症、提高患者的生活质量,微创食管切除术逐渐被胸外科医师接受并应用于食管癌的治疗当中。目前,多数研究认为微创食管切除术是安全、可行的,同时术后并发症发生率等短期效果优于开放食管切除术,而总生存率等远期效果并不低于开放食管切除术。随着研究的不断细化深入,食管癌的精准微创治疗将得到进一步的发展和推广。     

微创手术治疗食管癌160例临床分析

目的探讨微创手术治疗食管癌的可行性、安全性及临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析2008年2月至2011年12月四川大学华西医院采用微创手术完成的160例食管癌病例的临床资料。结果160例病例中男140例,女20例．平均年龄59．6岁。行胸腔镜腹腔镜联合食管切除术139例．腹腔镜纵隔镜联合食管切除术3例,腹腔镜辅助lvor—Lewis术15例．胸腹腔镜联合Ivor．Lewis3例。手术时间230～780（平均364．0）min,术中出血量20～4000（平均286．2）ml;获得R0切除152例（95．0％）,清扫淋巴结6。39（平均19．4）枚。中转开放手术11例（6．9％）,其中开胸9例。开腹2例：术中并发症发生率为11．3％（18／160）。重症监护室监护时间0。430h（平均22．1）h。术后住院时间7-93（平均13．1）d：术后并发症发生率34．4％（55／160）,术后30d内死亡率1．2％（2／160）。住院死亡率2．5％（4／160）。结论微创手术治疗食管癌在技术上安全可行,可取得相当于甚至优于传统手术的治疗效果。     

Experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is an evolving surgical alternative to traditional open esophagectomy. Despite considerable technical challenges, it was hypothesized that MIE could be performed effectively by surgeons experienced in open esophageal resection and advanced laparoscopic surgery. The authors report their experience with 25 patients who underwent MIE for esophageal disease. Methods A multidisciplinary esophageal cancer team evaluated all the patients enrolled in this institutional review board–approved retrospective review study. Over an 18-month period, 25 consecutive patients (22 men and 3 women; mean age, 62 years; range, 48–77 years) with resectable esophageal cancer underwent MIE. Six patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The preoperative diagnoses were adenocarcinoma (64%, n = 16), high-grade dysplasia (20%, n = 5), and squamous cell cancer (16%, n = 4). The outcomes evaluated included operative course, hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, pathologic stage, morbidity, and mortality. Results Two patients required conversion to open esophagectomy. Operative mortality was 4% (n = 1). The mean operative time was 350 min (range, 300–480), and the average blood loss was 200 ml. The patients remained ventilated for a median of 12 h, and the median intensive care unit utilization was 1 day. The median hospital length of stay was 9 days (range, 6–33 days). Major complications occurred in 32% of the patients. The anastomotic leak rate was 12%. Minor pulmonary complications occurred in 32% and atrial fibrillation in 16% of the patients. An anastomotic stricture developed in 24% of all the patients. One patient showed a positive proximal margin in the final pathology results. Conclusions Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure that can be performed safely at the Virginia Piper Cancer Institute. Optimal results require appropriate patient selection and a multidisciplinary team experienced in the management of esophageal cancer.     

微创食管癌切除术应注意的问题

食管癌居全球常见恶性肿瘤发病率的第8位,是一种严重威胁人类健康的消化系统肿瘤.开放食管切除和区域淋巴结清扫是治疗局限性食管癌的标准手术方式,但手术并发症发生率和病死率较高.与传统开放手术比较,微创食管癌切除术(MIE)具有出血量少,并发症发生率低,住院时间短等优势,而肿瘤切除、淋巴结清扫及术后病死率与开放手术相当.结合第三军医大学大坪医院野战外科研究所全军胸外科研究所的临床经验,展开讨论对MIE手术指征和禁忌证的把握,手术方式和径路的选择,手术体位的选择,术后并发症的预防,以及MIE的学习和掌握,以期有助于MIE的推广和普及.     

腔镜微创食管癌切除术的学习过程分析

目的总结腔镜微创食管癌切除术（MIE）的学习过程。方法选取同一组医生连续完成的MIE手术100例,按手术时间顺序分为3组：第1、2组各25例行胸腔镜并常规开腹手术,第3组50例行胸腹腔镜手术．分别记录手术时间、出血量、正常结构保护及并发症发生情况、术后ICU观察时间、住院时间、术后肿瘤病理及淋巴结清扫情况等临床资料,比较各组之间的差异。结果全组中96例患者顺利完成MIE,4例患者中转开胸,无中转开腹。中位手术时间310min,中位失血量200ml,中位清扫淋巴结22枚,总体并发症发生率50％。第1组与第2组比较,在保留奇静脉弓（P=0．010）、保留支气管动静脉（P=0．038）及左侧喉返神经胸段术中暴露率（P=0．048）方面的差异有统计学意义。前50例与后50例比较,在胸部手术时间（P=0．000）、失血量（P=0．025）、保留奇静脉弓（P=0．001）、保留支气管动静脉（P=0．000）、胸野淋巴结清扫（P=0．022）、左喉返神经链淋巴结清扫（P=0．000）及该神经起始部术中暴露率（P=0．002）方面的差异有统计学意义。结论MIE学习过程较长．应循序渐进。随着经验的积累和手术技巧的提升．MIE将逐渐显示其独特的优势并替代传统开胸食管癌切除术。     

Robotically assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy

Background Esophagectomy is a technically demanding operation with high procedure-related morbidity and mortality rates. Minimally invasive techniques were introduced in the late 1980s in an effort to decrease the invasiveness of the procedure. Data concerning the use of robotic systems for esophageal cancer are scarce in the literature. The goal of this report is to describe the authors’ early experience using robotically assisted technology to perform transhiatal esophagectomy (RATE). Methods Between September 2001 and May 2004, 18 patients underwent RATE at the authors’ institution. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed. Gender, age, postoperative diagnosis, operative time, conversion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, length of the follow-up period, and complications were assessed. Results At the authors’ institution, 18 patients underwent RATE, including 16 men (89%), with a mean age of 54 years (range, 41–73 years). The RATE procedure was completed for all 18 patients (100%). The mean operative time was 267 ± 71 min, and estimated blood loss was 54 ml (range, 10–150 ml). The mean intensive care unit stay was 1.8 days (range, 1–5 days), and the mean hospital stay was 10 days (range, 4–38 days). A total of 12 perioperative complications occurred for 9 patients, including 6 anastomotic leaks, 1 thoracic duct injury, 1 vocal cord paralysis, 1 pleural effusion, and 2 atrial fibrillations. Anastomotic stricture was observed in six patients. There were no perioperative deaths. Pathologic examination of the surgical specimen yielded an average of 14 lymph nodes per patient (range, 7–27). During the mean follow-up period of 22 ± 8 months, 2 patients died, 2 were lost to follow-up evaluation, 3 had recurrence, and 11 were disease free. Conclusion The current study shows that RATE, with its decreased blood loss, minimal cardiopulmonary complications, and no hospital mortality, represents a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma.     

Minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy: lessons learned

Background Minimally invasive esophagectomy has the potential to minimize the morbidity of esophageal resection and is particularly suited to the transhiatal approach. This report details our experience with this technique and the lessons we have learned. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy was performed. Parameters assessed included patient demographics, tumor pathology, operative and postoperative course, and survival. Results Eighteen patients underwent minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy [median age = 69 years (range = 36–79)]. Seventeen were operated on for cancer, including 13 adenocarcinomas and 4 squamous cell carcinomas (median histological stage = 2, range = 1–3), and 1 for high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s. One patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Two patients underwent nonemergency conversion to open surgery. The median duration of operation was 300 min (range = 180–450). All anastomoses were end-to-side hand-sewn. No patients received a red cell transfusion. The 30-day mortality was zero. Complications developed in 15 patients, including 7 respiratory and 10 recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries. There were two anastomotic leaks. Six patients developed stenosis requiring dilatation. The median length of stay was 15 days (range = 10–39). The median number of nodes harvested was 10 (range = 2–26). At a median follow-up of 13 months (range = 4–42), 13 patients were alive. Conclusions Minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy is feasible in our unit, with acceptable mortality. The high rate of anastomotic stenosis has resulted in a change to a semimechanical, side-to-side isoperistaltic technique. The high rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries has resulted in the avoidance of metal retractors at the tracheo-esophageal groove.     

A decade of experience with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality remain significant for transthoracic (TT) and transhiatal (TH) esophagectomy. We report a case-specific approach employing either resection to minimize perioperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: All primary esophageal resections performed for benign and malignant esophageal disease were reviewed over a 10-year period. The operative approach was tailored to the location and extent of disease and the physiologic reserve of the patient. RESULTS: In all, 115 patients underwent esophagectomy for benign (25) and malignant (90) disease. Fifty-six TT and 59 TH resections were performed. Four emergent TT cases did not have reconstruction. There was 1 hospital mortality. Perioperative transfusion was avoided in 65 patients. Respiratory complications occurred in 15. Three patients had a cervical anastomotic leak requiring open wound drainage. No association between resection type and complication was evident. CONCLUSIONS: The judicious use of both TT and TH esophagectomy resulted in an operative mortality of less than 1%, reduced operative blood loss, and a relatively low rate of perioperative complications.     

胸中段食管癌患者胸腹腔镜Ivor-Lewis术后生活质量分析

目的：比较胸中段食管癌微创与开放Ivor-Lewis术后患者的生活质量。方法回顾性分析安徽医科大学附属省立医院胸外科2012年3月至2013年6月121例胸中段食管癌患者的临床和随访资料,其中微创食管癌Ivor-Lewis术60例（腔镜组）,传统开放食管癌Ivor-Lewis术61例（开放组）。采用生活质量核心量表QLQ-C30和食管癌补充量表QLQ-OES18,及自增的2个项目对两组患者术后生活质量进行比较。结果腔镜组术后4周和12周的总体生活质量、躯体功能、角色功能、社会功能、疲倦、疼痛、呼吸困难及咳嗽困难评分明显优于开放组（P＜0．05）,其中,总体生活质量、躯体功能、疲倦及疼痛评分术后24周仍优于开放组（P＜0．05）。另外,腔镜组术后4周、12周和24周的右上肢活动障碍和右侧胸壁麻木评分均明显优于开放组（P＜0．05）。结论微创Ivor-Lewis术治疗胸中段食管癌具有创伤小、恢复快及术后生活质量好的优点,值得临床推广。     

腔镜微创与开放食管癌根治术围手术期并发症和淋巴结清扫的比较研究

目的比较早期腔镜微创与开放食管切除术治疗食管癌患者的围手术期并发症和淋巴结清扫情况差异。方法回顾性分析2011年1—12月间上海市胸科医院手术治疗的72例食管癌患者的临床资料。其中34例完成腔镜微创食管癌切除术（腔镜组）,38例接受开放食管癌切除术（开放组）。腔镜组中16例行单纯胸腔镜加开腹手术,11例行单纯腹腔镜加开胸手术11例,7例行胸腹全腔镜联合手术。结果腔镜组早期病例（T1-2期）的比例高于开放组[79．4％（27／34）比55．3％（21／38）,P〈0．05）。两组患者总并发症发生率分别为41．2％（14／34）和42．1％（16／38）,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;但腔镜组功能性并发症（主要为心肺并发症）发生率显著低于开放组[2．9％（1／34）比28．9％（11／38）．P〈0．01],技术性并发症（主要包括吻合口瘘和喉返神经损伤）发生率则显著高于开放组[38．2％（13／34）比10．5％（4／38）。P〈0．05）。两组淋巴结清扫组数分别为（9．1±2．7）组／例和（11．2±2．1）组／例,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;但腔镜组淋巴结清扫枚数[（13．5±5．9）枚／例]却明显少于开放组[（17．8±5．2）枚／例,P〈0．05]。按手术时间,腔镜组前期17例与后期17例患者技术性并发症发生率的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）．但后期患者胸腔淋巴结淋扫组数、枚数及阳性检出率均显著提高（均P〈0．05）。结论腔镜辅助微创食管癌手术可降低功能性并发症发生率．但早期技术不熟练时易增加吻合口瘘和喉返神经损伤等技术性并发症。腔镜下清扫淋巴结可以达到或接近开放手术水平。     

经口置入钉砧头技术用于全腔镜食管癌切除胸腔内胃食管吻合

目的 介绍一种通过经口置入钉砧头进行全腔镜食管切除胸腔内胃食管吻合的新技术.方法 2010年4月至6月,6例食管癌患者经口置入钉砧头进行全腔镜食管切除胸腔内胃食管吻合术.患者男性5例,女性1例;年龄38～69岁,平均55岁.病变位于贲门1例,食管下段4例,食管中段1例.病变平均长度4 cm.6例患者均采用腹腔镜胸腔镜联合食管癌切除胃食管胸腔内吻合术.手术分为两大步骤,首先采用腹腔镜游离胃和腹段食管,而后采用胸腔镜游离胸段食管并切除病变食管,应用经口置入钉砧头的方法进行胸腔内胃食管吻合术.结果 本组6例患者手术顺利,未发生术中并发症、中转开腹或开胸等情况.平均手术时间380 min,平均术中出血量300 ml,平均恢复进食时间为术后9 d.术后病理学检查示:食管鳞状细胞癌5例,食管小细胞癌1例,切缘和吻合口圈均阴性.pTNM分期:T2N0M0期3例,T2N1M0期1例,T3N0M0期2例.术后无吻合口和其他重大并发症.结论 本方法创伤小、恢复快,是一种较为安全可靠、操作简便的腔镜下胸腔内胃食管吻合方法.     

Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy

Background Despite its reduced aggressiveness and excellent results obtained in certain diseases, minimally invasive surgery did not manage to significantly lower the risks of esophageal resections. Further advances in technology led to the creation of robotic systems with their unique maneuverability of the instruments and exceptional view on the operative field, thus setting the prerequisites for performance in complex surgical procedures and offering new possibilities to a disease notorious for its dismal prognosis.Materials and methods The robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy technique was used in a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the lower esophagus that had high medical risk for surgical therapy.Results Esophageal resection and reconstruction were possible through a robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal approach. There were no intraoperative incidents, blood loss was minimal, and lymph node dissection and removal was possible during the procedure. Early ambulation and conservative treatment of the mild complications that occurred offered a favorable postoperative outcome.Conclusion The robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy technique is feasible and safe. Complex procedures become less technically demanding with the help of the robotic system and, thus, the minimally invasive approach can be offered for the benefit of selected patients. Further studies are required to confirm these observations and to establish the role of this procedure in the future.     

Overcoming challenges in implementing a minimally invasive esophagectomy program at a Veterans Administration medical center

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a technically demanding procedure that requires expertise in laparoscopy and esophageal surgery. The authors hypothesized that the safe and effective development of such a program could be performed at a Veterans Administration health care system using existing faculty members.

Methods

Length of stay, operative factors, and morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing MIE from December 2007 to August 2009 were reviewed.

Results

Eighteen consecutive patients underwent planned MIE. They were all men, with a median age of 60 years (range, 43–69 years) and a median American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3. Eighty-three percent were able to undergo MIE resection. Eighty-nine percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy. The median operative duration was 420 minutes (range, 300–480 minutes). There was 1 death within 30 days because of a pulmonary embolus and 1 anastomotic leak. Three patients had postoperative pneumonias. The median and mean length of stay were 10 and 13 days, respectively (range, 6–50 days). Negative margins were achieved in all patients. The mean number of lymph nodes resected was 15 (range, 6–30).

Conclusions

The development of an MIE program is feasible at a Veterans Administration hospital when combining the expertise of minimally invasive and esophageal surgeons.     

胸腔镜腹腔镜联合手术与开放手术治疗食管癌的同期临床对照研究

目的 探讨和评价胸腔镜腹腔镜联合手术治疗食管癌的可行性、安全性、根治性以及近期临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2007年7月至2009年10月收治的行电视胸腔镜、腹腔镜联合食管癌根治术(即微创组67例)和常规三切口开放食管癌根治术(即开放组38例)食管癌患者临床资料.比较两组手术指标、肿瘤学指标以及近期临床疗效.结果 两组患者性别组成、年龄结构、肺功能等差异无统计学意义,临床资料具有可比性.两组总手术时间以及胸、腹部手术时间差异无统计学意义,但微创组胸部及腹部术中出血量少于开放组(胸部112.3 ml比175.3 ml,P=0.035;腹部31.4 ml比100.5 ml,P=0.026),组间差异有统计学意义.术后转入ICU例数(P=0.042)和术后第3天疼痛情况(P=0.005)组间差异均有统计学意义.术后微创组呼吸系统并发症发生率低(10.4%比26.3%,P=0.046),开放组出现不完全性肠梗阻概率较大(0比8.6%,P=0.045),差异有统计学意义.微创组平均清扫淋巴结20.9枚,转移率为26.9%,开放组平均清扫淋巴结20.1枚,转移率为47.4%,组间淋巴结清扫数量差异无统计学意义.术后平均随访(14.0±2.2)个月,微创组和开放组患者总复发率分别为7.7%和10.8%,生存率分别为89.2%和86.5%,差异均无统计学意义.结论 电视胸腔镜腹腔镜联合食管癌手术具有明显微创优势,安全可行,近期疗效可靠,符合肿瘤外科根治原则.     

Total laparoscopic gastric mobilization for esophagectomy

Background and aims  The operative mortality and morbidity associated with esophageal surgery has been decreasing with advances in surgical techniques and equipment, however, postoperative complication remains a major cause of a potentially fatal outcome. We herein describe a new technique for esophagectomy by total laparoscopic gastric mobilization technique as a minimally invasive surgery. Patients and methods  Between April 2003 and August 2007, 36 patients who were suffering from esophageal cancer were surgically resected at Kochi Medical School. Operation-related parameters, mortality, postoperative complication, intubation time, and length of surgical intensive care unit in patients with total laparoscopic gastric mobilization for esophagectomy (the TLGM group, n = 16) were evaluated, compared to patients with ordinary thoraco-abdominal esophagectomy (the OPEN group, n = 20). Results  There was no mortality in the TLGM group and one hospital death in the OPEN group. Operation time of the OPEN group (506 ± 64 min) was significant shorter than that of the TLGM group (558 ± 67 min). The estimated intraoperative blood loss volume in patients of the TLGM group (496 ± 259 mL) was much smaller than those of the OPEN group (1,067 ± 566 mL). The intubation time and the intensive care unit stay in the TLGM group were much shorter than that in the OPEN group. Conclusions  Esophagectomy with regional lymphadenectomy combined with total laparoscopic gastric mobilization is a safe and beneficial opportunity for patients who underwent surgical procedure for esophageal cancer.     

三切口食管癌根治术:胸腔镜与开放手术的回顾性研究

目的 比较胸腔镜和开胸三切口食管癌根治术的围手术期并发症及中期疗效.方法 回顾性分析2005年1月至2012年6月间复旦大学附属中山医院胸外科收治827例接受三切口食管癌根治术患者的临床资料,其中胸腔镜482例和常规开胸345例.比较两组的围手术期相关指标及中期生存情况.结果 与开胸组相比,胸腔镜手术组平均淋巴结清扫个数更多[(28.3±5.1)个对(27.4±5.6)个,P=0.017],术后住院时间短[(14.6±5.6)天对(16.9±9.3)天,P=0.000],再入ICU率低(5.6％对10.1％,P=0.014),围手术期病死率低(1.0％对3.2％,P=0.027),围手术期总体并发症少(37.6％对44.9％,P=0.033),呼吸系统并发症少(9.3％对13.9％,P=0.040).胸腔镜组术后1年、2年、3年生存率略优于开胸组,但组间差异均无统计学意义.结论 胸腔镜与开胸手术与三切口食管癌根治术相比,围手术期疗效优势比较明显,中期疗效的优势尚有待于进一步验证.