首页> 外文期刊>General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery >Comparison of extended esophagectomy through mini-thoracotomy/laparotomy with conventional thoracotomy/laparotomy for esophageal cancer
【24h】

Comparison of extended esophagectomy through mini-thoracotomy/laparotomy with conventional thoracotomy/laparotomy for esophageal cancer

机译:微型开胸/开腹术与常规开腹/开腹术治疗食管癌的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: In order to assess the usefulness of esophagectomy through mini-thoracotomy/laparotomy as a minimally invasive surgical procedure for esophageal cancer, we compared the results to those of conventional right thoracotomy/laparotomy. Methods: From 1998 to 2002, 40 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer were prospectively assigned to two groups. Twenty patients underwent esophagectomy through mini-thoracotomy/laparotomy (M-group), while the other 20 had conventional thoracotomy/laparotomy (C-group). Surgical complications, the duration of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), postoperative pain, cytokine responses, and respiratory function were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no difference of morbidity between the M- and C-groups after surgery. There were also no differences between the two groups with respect to the operating time, bleeding, and number of dissected lymph nodes. The duration of SIRS was shorter in the M-group than in the C-group (p=0.055). Use of morphine was lower in the M-group than in the C-group with patient-controlled anesthesia (p=0.002) .The interleukin-6 level of the M-group was lower than that of the C-group at 3, 6 hours, and 3 days after the operation. Recovery of vital capacity by the M-group was better than by the C-group after the operation. Postoperative hospital stay of the M-group was significantly shorter than that of the C-group (p=0.014). Long-term survival was not different in the two groups. Conclusion: Mini-thoracotomy/laparotomy reduces invasiveness and pain compared with conventional thoracotomy/laparotomy for esophagectomy without causing any differences of morbidity or long-term survival.
机译:目的:为了评估通过微型开胸/开腹术作为微创手术治疗食道癌的食管切除术的有用性,我们将结果与传统的右开胸/开腹术相比较。方法:从1998年至2002年,将40例胸段食管癌患者分为两组。 20例患者行小切口开腹/开腹手术(M组),而其他20例行常规开胸/开腹手术(C组)。比较两组的手术并发症,全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)的持续时间,术后疼痛,细胞因子反应和呼吸功能。结果:术后M组和C组的发病率无差异。两组在手术时间,出血和淋巴结清扫数量方面也没有差异。 M组的SIRS持续时间短于C组(p = 0.055)。在患者控制麻醉下,M组的吗啡使用率低于C组(p = 0.002)。M组的白细胞介素6水平在3、6时低于C组。小时和手术后3天。术后,M组的肺活量恢复优于C组。 M组的术后住院时间明显短于C组(p = 0.014)。两组的长期存活率无差异。结论:与传统的开腹/开腹术相比,小切口开腹/开腹术减少了浸润性和疼痛,而没有造成任何发病率或长期生存的差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号