...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of oncology >Can We Increase the Resection Rate by Minimally Invasive Approach? Experience from 100 Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies
【24h】

Can We Increase the Resection Rate by Minimally Invasive Approach? Experience from 100 Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies

机译:我们可以通过微创方法增加切除率吗? 从100微创食管切除术的经验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background. Whether we can increase the resection rate of esophageal cancer by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is unknown. The aim was to report the number and results of MIE in high-risk patients considered unsuitable for open surgery and compare these results to other operated patients and to high-risk patients not undergoing surgery. Methods. At Central Finland Central Hospital, between September 2012 and July 2018, the number of operated MIEs was 100. Of these, 10 patients were prospectively considered unfit for open approach. Nineteen additional high-risk patients with operable disease were ruled out of surgery. The short- and long-term outcomes of these 3 groups were compared. Results. In patients eligible for any approach (n=90), MIE only (n=10), and no surgery (n=19), WHO performance status Grade 0 was observed in 66.7%, 20.0%, and 5.3%, respectively; stair climbing with 4 stairs was successfully completed in 77.8%, 50%, and 36.8%, respectively. Between any approach and MIE only groups, rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo 3a) was 6.7% vs. 50.0% (p<0.001) without a difference in median hospital stay (9 vs. 10 days, p=0.542). Readmission rates were 4.4% vs. 30.0% (p=0.003). Survival rates were 100% vs. 80% (p<0.001) at 90-days, 91.5% vs. 66.7% (p=0.005) at 1-year, and 68.9% vs. 53.3% (p=0.024) at 3-years, respectively. In comparison between MIE only and no surgery groups, these survival rates from day of diagnosis were 80% vs. 100%, 68.6% vs. 67.1%, and 45.7% vs. 32.0% (p=0.290), respectively. Conclusions. By operating patients unsuitable for open approach with MIE, the resection rate increased 11.1%. These high-risk patients had, however, higher early morbidity and reduced long-term survival compared to other operated patients. Though there seems to be long-term benefit of surgery compared to nonsurgical patients, we have to be cautious when offering surgery to those considered unfit for open surgery.
机译:背景。我们是否可以通过微创食管切除术(MIE)来增加食管癌切除率。目的是报告米西的高风险患者的数量和结果,认为不适合公开手术,并将这些结果与其他经营的患者进行比较,以及未接受手术的高危患者。方法。在2012年9月和2018年7月之间的芬兰中央医院,经营的MIES数量为100.其中,10名患者被宣传不适合开放的方法。 19999年额外的可操作疾病患者被统治出外科。比较了这3组的短期和长期结果。结果。在有资格获得任何方法的患者中(n = 90),只有(n = 10),并且没有手术(n = 19),他们分别观察到绩效状态等级0,分别观察到66.7%,20.0%和5.3%; 4楼梯的楼梯分别以77.8%,50%和36.8%成功完成。在任何方法和只有群体之间,主要并发症的速率(Clavien-Dindo 3a)为6.7%,而没有差异的中位医院住宿(9 vs.10天,P = 0.542)。入院率为4.4%vs.30.0%(p = 0.003)。 80天的生存率为100%(p <0.001),在1年,91.5%与66.7%(p = 0.005),38.9%vs.5.9%(p = 0.024)多年。相比之下,只有手术团,这些生存率从诊断的日期为80%,分别为80%,68.6%与32.0%(P = 0.290)分别为80%。结论。通过操作患者不适合与MIE开放的方法,切除率增加11.1%。然而,与其他经营的患者相比,这些高风险患者的早期发病率较高并减少了长期存活。虽然与非诊断患者相比,手术似乎长期好处,但在为那些被认为不适合开放手术的人提供手术时,我们必须谨慎。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of oncology》 |2019年第1期|共10页
  • 作者单位

    Cent Finland Cent Hosp Dept Surg Jyvaskyla 40620 Finland;

    Cent Finland Cent Hosp Dept Surg Jyvaskyla 40620 Finland;

    Cent Finland Cent Hosp Dept Surg Jyvaskyla 40620 Finland;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 肿瘤学;
  • 关键词

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