食管系膜切除在胸、腹腔镜食管癌手术质量控制中的应用

目的探讨食管系膜切除在胸、腹腔镜食管癌手术操作流程优化及手术质量控制中的应用价值。方法回顾性比较2013年3月~2014年10月262例食管癌手术的临床资料,根据病人和家属的意愿选择术式,分为胸、腹腔镜食管癌食管系膜切除组(EME组,n=132)和开放食管癌切除组(开放组,n=130),比较2组术中出血量、术后胸腔引流量、术后住院时间、清扫淋巴结数、淋巴结转移率、食管系膜转移率、术后并发症发生率。结果 EME组术中出血量(105.6±34.5)ml,明显少于开放组(168.4±40.7)ml(t=-13.480,P=0.000);术后引流量(975±267)ml,明显少于开放组(1289±287)ml(t=-9.171,P=0.000);术后住院时间(9.6±2.8)d,明显短于开放组(14.7±3.5)d(t=-13.034,P=0.000);清扫淋巴结数(24.3±12.1)枚,明显多于开放组(18.9±12.1)枚(t=3.612,P=0.000);淋巴结转移率65.1%(86/132),明显高于开放组46.2%(60/130)(χ~2=9.581,P=0.002);淋巴结外转移率43.2%(57/132),明显高于开放组13.8%(18/130)(χ~2=27.587,P=0.000);食管系膜转移率71.9%(95/132),明显高于开放组45.3%(59/130)(χ~2=19.105,P=0.000)。2组术后并发症发生率(25.6%vs.27.7%)差异无显著性(P0.05)。EME组局部复发率9.8%(13/132),明显低于开放组26.9%(35/130)(χ~2=12.760,P=0.000)。EME组与开放组生存率比较无统计学差异(χ~2=3.129,P=0.077)。结论 EME创伤小、术后恢复快、淋巴结清扫更彻底,可降低肿瘤的局部复发;以食管周围间隙及食管系膜的界标为平面进行整块切除,优化了手术流程,有利于食管癌手术质量控制。     

腹腔镜在微创三切口食管癌根治手术中的应用

目的探讨腹腔镜胃游离术在食管癌根治术中的可行性、安全性和根治性。方法回顾性分析2006年5月-2010年12月151例微创三切口食管癌根治术的临床资料。均在胸腔镜下完成食管的游离,腹部手术早期采用开腹（57例）,后期采用腹腔镜手术（94例）。制作管状胃后在颈部行食管胃吻合术。结果 2组在年龄、性别、术前辅助治疗、术后病理分期的差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。2组术后ICU时间、术后住院时间、腹部淋巴结切除数量、腹部淋巴结阳性率、围手术期死亡、吻合口漏、管状胃坏死、胃排空延迟、腹部切口感染率以及肺部感染发生率方面差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组腹部手术时间更短[（54.3±21.0）min vs.（72.8±18.6）min,t=-5.489,P=0.000],腹部手术中出血量更少[（50.5±33.0）ml vs.（81.8±40.8）ml,t=-5.155,P=0.000]。结论腹腔镜技术已在当前食管癌手术的应用中初步显示出一定的优点和价值,不过仍然需要大样本的前瞻性的临床研究来验证。     

开放手术与腔镜下根治切除术治疗胸段食管鳞癌的病例对照研究

目的对比胸段食管鳞癌行胸、腹腔镜根治切除术与开放手术的安全性及手术效果。方法回顾性分析2014年6月到2015年6月我科125例胸段食管鳞癌患者的临床资料,其中经左颈、右胸、上腹行食管癌切除+食管胃颈部吻合术(Mc Keown术)18例(开放组,男13例、女5例),行腔镜下Mc Keown术107例(腔镜组,男77例、女30例),比较两组患者手术资料及术后并发症情况。结果腔镜组手术时间、住ICU时间、喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫个数与开放组[(333.58±72.84)min vs.(369.17±91.24)min,P=0.067;(2.84±1.44)d vs.(6.44±13.46)d,P=0.272;(4.71±3.87)个vs.(3.89±3.97)个,P=0.408]差异均无统计学意义。腔镜组术中出血量少于开放组[(222.62±139.77)ml vs.(427.78±276.65)ml,P=0.006]。腔镜组淋巴结清扫总数、淋巴结组数多于开放组[(19.62±9.61)个vs.(14.61±8.07)个,P=0.038;(3.70±0.99)组vs.(3.11±1.13)组,P=0.024],差异具有统计学意义。腔镜组总并发症发生率为32.7%,开放组38.9%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.608)。腔镜组肺部感染率明显低于开放组(2.8%vs.16.7%),差异具有统计学意义(P=0.011)。两组吻合口瘘、心脏并发症、左侧胸腔积液、右侧气胸、声音嘶哑、切开感染发生率差异均无统计学意义。结论与开放手术相比,针对胸段食管鳞癌行腔镜下Mc Keown术清扫淋巴结彻底、出血量少,肺部感染发生率优于开放手术,符合食管癌切除安全性和肿瘤根治性原则。     

食管癌纵隔上、下气管旁淋巴结清扫必要性的研究

目的探讨食管癌纵隔上、下气管旁淋巴结(第2、4组淋巴结)清扫的必要性。方法 2010年1月~2013年11月行胸腔镜或胸腔镜联合腹腔镜下食管癌根治术164例,颈部淋巴结选择性清扫,胸部及腹部淋巴结常规清扫。在游离食管后,用电钩及超声刀逐一清扫第1~8组纵隔淋巴结、双侧喉返神经旁淋巴结,将淋巴结与其周边脂肪组织整块切除。分析第2、4组淋巴结转移情况、清扫时间及并发症发生率;各组淋巴结总体转移率;性别、肿瘤位置、浸润深度、分化程度对第2、4组淋巴结转移率的影响。结果第2、4组淋巴结清扫时间6~16 min,并发症发生率1.8%(3/164),转移率5.5%(9/164),与第1组(4.9%)、第7组(10.4%)和左喉返神经旁淋巴结(7.3%)转移率差异无统计学意义(P0.05),与第8组(14.0%)和右喉返神经旁淋巴结(12.8%)转移率差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。性别、肿瘤位置、浸润深度、分化程度与第2、4组淋巴结是否转移差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论常规行第2、4组淋巴结清扫有必要,相应增加的手术创伤可接受。     

胸、腹腔镜食管全系膜切除在食管癌根治术中的临床应用

目的探讨食管系膜的微创解剖特点以及在胸、腹腔镜食管癌切除术中食管全系膜切除（total mesoesophagealexcision,TME）的必要性和手术方法。方法回顾性分析2009年7月～2012年5月106例资料完整胸、腹腔镜下食管癌切除患者临床病理资料。分为胸、腹腔镜食管TME组（45例,2011年7月～2012年5月）和胸、腹腔镜非食管TME组（61例,2009年7月～2011年7月）。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、清扫淋巴结组数、清扫淋巴结个数、阳性淋巴结个数及阴性淋巴结个数、术后并发症。结果与非TME组相比,TME组手术时间长[（251.3±27.9）min vs.（235.4±33.6）min,t=2.574,P=0.011],但术中出血少[（136.4±32.6）ml vs.（197.1±66.2）ml,t’=-6.202,P=0.000],2组术后引流量差异无显著性。TME组清扫淋巴结组数明显高于非TME组（10.5±1.5 vs.7.1±1.2,t=12.959,P=0.000）,清扫颈段、胸段、腹段食管系膜淋巴结总数明显高于非TME组（P均=0.000）,清扫食管系膜阳性淋巴结数两组间差异无显著性（P=0.809）。术后30天内出现近期并发症29例（27%）,2组差异无显著性[27%（12/45）vs.28%（17/61）,χ2=0.019,P=0.891]。结论食管癌胸腔镜下食管全系膜切除是安全的,且淋巴结清扫可能更彻底。     

全胸腔镜联合非气腹腹腔镜辅助食管癌根治术与常规手术的对比研究

目的探讨全胸腔镜联合非气腹腹腔镜辅助食管癌根治术较常规开胸手术的优势。方法 2006年11月～2008年5月施行电视胸腔镜联合非气腹腹腔镜辅助食管癌根治术111例(研究组),同期施行常规开胸手术110例(对照组),比较2组患者临床疗效。结果研究组手术时间(272.3±57.9)min显著长于对照组(218.7±91.0)min(t=5.229,P=0.000);研究组术中出血量(219.7±194.4)ml显著少于对照组(590.0±324.4)ml(t=-10.304,P=0.000);研究组术后住院时间(9.6±1.7)d显著短于对照组(11.4±2.3)d(t=6.620,P=0.000)。研究组术后切口液化发生率为0,显著低于对照组6.3%(7/111)(P=0.007)。对照组清扫淋巴结(39.2±12.5)枚,显著少于研究组(44.3±21.0)枚(t=-2.191,P=0.029)。2组病人术后生存率无统计学差异(log-rank检验,χ2=0.348,P=0.555)。结论 全胸腔镜联合非气腹腹腔镜辅助食管癌根治术出血少、恢复快、并发症少、淋巴结清扫更彻底,尽管手术时间较常规手术长,但远期疗效与常规手术相同。     

腹腔镜辅助贲门癌手术淋巴结清扫效果评价

目的评价腹腔镜辅助贲门癌手术淋巴结清扫的效果。方法回顾性分析2004年1月至2009年9月期间我院分别行腹腔镜辅助及开腹贲门癌手术患者的临床资料,比较术后获取的淋巴结数目。结果 39例患者接受腹腔镜辅助贲门癌手术(腹腔镜组),63例患者接受开腹手术(开腹组)。2组患者术前合并症、病理学类型及病理分期差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。腹腔镜组获取淋巴结(16.44±6.25)枚,其中第一站淋巴结(10.56±3.78)枚,转移率为74.4%;第二站淋巴结(3.82±1.82)枚,转移率为46.2%;第三站淋巴结(2.00±1.36)枚,转移率为5.1%。开腹贲门癌手术获取淋巴结(16.38±5.83)枚,其中第一站淋巴结(10.94±3.91)枚,转移率为71.4%;第二站淋巴结(3.71±1.55)枚,转移率为42.9%;第三站淋巴结(1.75±1.06)枚,转移率为3.2%,2组淋巴结清扫数目及转移率比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜辅助贲门癌手术淋巴结清扫效果满意,其远期疗效尚在继续观察中。     

胸、腹腔镜下食管癌根治术与传统开放手术的疗效比较分析

目的:探讨胸、腹腔镜下食管癌根治术的安全性与可行性。方法:2011年6月至2016年6月为80例患者行完全胸、腹腔镜下联合食管癌根治术,选择同期行传统食管癌开放手术的80例患者作为研究对象。比较两组手术相关指标及术后随访情况。结果:胸、腹腔镜联合组手术时间较开放组长,失血量、术后第1天胸腔引流量少于开放组,术后拔管时间、ICU观察时间、住院时间均短于开放组(P0.05)。两组术中淋巴结清扫数量、阳性淋巴结数量、术后并发症发生率、术后随访例数、随访时间、复发或转移、总生存率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:与传统开放食管癌根治术相比,胸、腹腔镜食管癌根治术能达到相似的疗效,可实现手术的根治性与微创效果。     

胸、腹腔镜联合手术与传统开放手术治疗食管癌的疗效比较研究

目的:对比胸、腹腔镜联合手术与传统手术治疗食管癌的临床效果,评价胸、腹腔镜联合手术的临床可行性。方法:选取2014年3月至2016年3月确诊的120例食管癌患者,随机分为观察组(n=60)与对照组(n=60),对照组患者行传统开放手术,观察组行胸、腹腔镜联合手术,对比分析两组患者术中、术后各项指标及并发症情况。结果:两组淋巴结清扫数量差异无统计学意义(P0.05),观察组手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、住院时间、拔除胸管时间优于对照组(P0.05);术后胸腔引流量少于对照组(P0.05);观察组术后并发症发生率(6.67%)明显低于对照组(20.00%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:与传统开胸开腹手术相比,胸、腹腔镜联合手术出血量少、切口小、术后患者康复快,且并发症少,推荐应用于食管癌的外科治疗。     

微创食管癌根治术与传统开胸手术治疗老年食管癌疗效分析

目的探讨微创食管癌根治术与传统开胸手术治疗老年食管癌的效果。方法随机将78例老年食管癌患者分为观察组和对照组,各39例。分别行微创食管癌根治术和传统开胸食管癌根治术,比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、淋巴清扫数、阳性转移率和术后常见并发症。结果 2组术中出血量、术后住院时间、阳性转移率、肺部感染和乳糜胸比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05),而2组手术时间、吻合口漏比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论微创食管癌根治术优于传统开胸食管癌根治术,但应掌握好手术适应证。     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: an updated review

Purpose

The surgical, postoperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer were reviewed to clarify the benefits of this surgical modality.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using synonyms for minimally invasive or thoracoscopic esophagectomy. There were 18 retrospective cohort studies and 3 meta-analyses retrieved in this review.

Results

There are several minimally invasive approaches for esophageal cancer. Total MIE using both the thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach is increasingly performed. A longer operative time and less blood loss are observed with MIE in comparison to open esophagectomy (OE). Although the benefit of MIE for reducing morbidity and mortality rates is still under debate, a shorter hospital stay was common among the studies. The oncologic outcomes of MIE were not inferior to OE, while the number of retrieved lymph nodes was greater in MIE than OE in several studies.

Conclusion

Total MIE using a combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach can be performed safely, although the benefits for short-term outcomes are still controversial. Oncologic outcomes are favorable and MIE may have an advantage in lymph node dissection over OE. The benefits of MIE should therefore be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.     

Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer

Technical advancements and development of endoscopic equipment in thoracoscopic surgery have resulted in increase in the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, advantages with regard to short-term outcome and oncological feasibility of MIE have not been adequately established. To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and the outcomes are comparable to those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE). A study group recently reported the results of the first multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared MIE and OE. The incidence of pulmonary infection after surgery was markedly lower in the MIE group than in the OE group. Additional benefits of MIE included less operative blood loss, better postoperative patients’ quality of life, and shorter hospital stay. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE has not been scientifically proven because there have been no RCTs to verify the equivalency in long-term survival of patients undergoing MIE compared with that of patients undergoing OE. If future prospective studies indicate oncological benefits, MIE could truly become the standard care for patients with esophageal cancer.     

pT1b期食管鳞状细胞癌开放手术与微创食管切除术后预后分析

目的 比较微创食管切除术与传统开放食管切除术对pT1b期食管鳞状细胞癌(ESCC)患者近远期疗效之间的差异.方法 回顾性分析2015 ～ 2018年于苏北人民医院胸外科行手术治疗并且术后病理确诊为pT1b期ESCC 162例患者的临床病理资料.根据手术方式分为微创手术(MIE)组和开放手术(OE)组.其中OE组共76例...     

颈部三角吻合术在微创食管切除术中的应用

目的：评价三角吻合术在微创食管切除、食管胃颈部吻合术中应用的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2013年1月至2014年3月在复旦大学附属中山医院胸外科接受胸腹腔镜食管癌根治切除加食管胃颈部吻合术的137例患者的临床资料,其中三角吻合77例（三角吻合组）,管状吻合60例（管状吻合组）。结果三角吻合组和管状吻合组术中吻合时间分别为（18．0±3．9） min 和（17．0±2．9） min,差异无统计学意义（P＝0．099）;术后吻合口瘘发生率分别为3．9％（3/77）和10．0％（6/60）,差异无统计学差异（P＝0．152）;吻合口狭窄发生率分别为1．3％（1/77）和15．0％（9/60）,差异有统计学意义（P＝0．002）。两组患者在围手术期死亡率、心血管并发症、肺部并发症等方面的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0．05）。结论颈部三角吻合术是一种安全、有效的吻合方法,可以降低术后吻合口狭窄的发生。     

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。     

三切口食管癌切除术与胸腔镜辅助手术的疗效比较

目的:对比分析三切口食管癌切除术与胸腔镜辅助食管癌切除术的临床疗效。方法:将食管癌患者分为两组,胸腔镜辅助组11例,行胸腔镜游离食管+开腹游离胃+颈部吻合术;常规组23例,行常规三切口食管癌切除术。对比分析两组住院时间、住院费用、手术时间、出血量、淋巴结清扫数量、患者疼痛情况、胸管引流量、术后并发症。结果:两组均无围手术期死亡。住院时间、出血量、淋巴结清扫数量两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),胸腔镜辅助组住院花费高,手术时间长,并发症发生率高,但胸管引流量低,与常规组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),且常规组疼痛评分较高。结论:食管癌的腔镜手术需一定的学习曲线,开展初期微创优势可能不明显,应严格把握手术适应证,尽量选择体形较瘦、手术难度相对较小的患者。     

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。     

3D腹腔镜单向式胃游离在食管癌微创化治疗中的应用

目的 评价3D腹腔镜单向式胃游离法应用于食管癌微创化根治术的安全性、可行性及短期疗效.方法 回顾性分析武汉大学人民医院胸外科2018年2月至2019年12月收治的行胸腹腔镜下McKeown三切口食管癌根治术(二野淋巴结清扫)的118例食管癌患者的临床资料,其中男94例、女24例,年龄53.7(41～77)岁.其中55例...     

Immunological Changes After Minimally Invasive or Conventional Esophageal Resection for Cancer: A Randomized Trial

Background

This study was performed as a substudy analysis of a randomized trial comparing conventional open esophagectomy [open surgical technique (OE)] by thoracotomy and laparotomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy [minimally invasive procedure (MIE)] by thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. This additional analysis focuses on the immunological changes and surgical stress response in these two randomized groups of a single center.

Methods

Patients with a resectable esophageal cancer were randomized to OE (n = 13) or MIE (n = 14). All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The immunological response was measured by means of leukocyte counts, HLA-DR expression on monocytes, the acute-phase response by means of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-8 (IL-8), and the stress response was measured by cortisol, growth hormone, and prolactin. All parameters were determined at baseline (preoperatively) and 24, 72, 96, and 168 h postoperatively.

Results

Significant differences between the two groups were seen in favor of the MIE group with regard to leukocyte counts, IL-8, and prolactin at 168 h (1 week) postoperatively. For HLA-DR expression, IL-6, and CRP levels, there were no significant differences between the two groups, although there was a clear rise in levels upon operation in both groups.

Conclusion

In this substudy of a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and conventional open esophagectomies for cancer, significantly better preserved leukocyte counts and IL-8 levels were observed in the MIE group compared to the open group. Both findings can be related to fewer respiratory infections found postoperatively in the MIE group. Moreover, significant differences in the prolactin levels at 168 h after surgery imply that the stress response is better preserved in the MIE group. These findings indicate that less surgical trauma could lead to better preserved acute-phase and stress responses and fewer clinical manifestations of respiratory infections.     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background We aimed to assess the outcomes including the effect on quality of life (QoL) of a group of patients having a minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Methods Patients with esophageal cancer were offered MIE over a 22-month period. Data on outcomes were collected prospectively, including formal quality-of-assessments. Results There were 25 patients offered MIE. Two patients were converted to a laparotomy to improve the lymphadenectomy. There were no deaths. Respiratory problems (pneumonia, 28%) were the most common in the 64% of patients who had a complication. The median blood loss was 300 ml, time of surgery 330 min, and time to discharge 11 days. There was a decrease in the measured QoL both in general and specifically for the esophageal patients, taking 18–24 months to return to baseline. Conclusions MIE was performed with morbidity similar to other approaches. There were no clear benefits shown in this group of patients with respect to postoperative recovery or short- to medium-term QoL.