Clinical comparative study of naked eye 3D versus 2D thoracoscope in minimally invasive esophagectomy_Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Authors：

HUANG Kenan , DING Xinyu , CHEN Zihao , WEI Rongqiang , CHEN Yu , XU Zhifei ,  TANG Hua

Department of Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery Center, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, P.R. China;

Corresponding author：

TANG Hua, Email: tanghua999@smmu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Naked eye 3D; thoracoscope; esophageal carcinoma

DOI：

10.7507/1007-4848.201905057

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To investigate the safety and efficacy of naked eye 3D thoracoscopic surgery in minimally invasive esophagectomy.Methods Clinical data of 65 patients, including 50 males and 15 females aged 47-72 years, with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy from October 2018 to April 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to different surgical methods including a naked eye 3D thoracoscopic group (group A: 30 patients) and a traditional 2D thoracoscopic group (group B: 35 patients). The effects of the two groups were compared.Results The operation time in the group A was significantly shorter than that in the group B (P<0.05). The number of dissected lymph nodes in the group A was more than that in the group B (P<0.05). The thoracic drainage volumes on the 1th-3th days after operation in the group A were significantly larger than those in the group B (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups on the 4th-5th days after operation (P>0.05). The indwelling time in the group A was longer than that in the group B (P<0.05). Postoperative hospital stay, pulmonary infection, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury were not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Naked eye 3D thoracoscopic surgery for minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe and effective surgical procedure. Compared with traditional 2D minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgery, it is safer in operation and more thorough in clearing lymph nodes. The operation is more efficient and can be promoted.

Citation： HUANG Kenan, DING Xinyu, CHEN Zihao, WEI Rongqiang, CHEN Yu, XU Zhifei, TANG Hua. Clinical comparative study of naked eye 3D versus 2D thoracoscope in minimally invasive esophagectomy. Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2020, 27(4): 441-445. doi: 10.7507/1007-4848.201905057 Copy

1.	Sakata S, Watson MO, Grove PM, et al. The conflicting evidence of three-dimensional displays in laparoscopy: a review of systems old and new. Ann Surg, 2016, 263(2): 234-239.
2.	Özsoy M, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, et al. Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy? Lasers Med Sci, 2015, 30(4): 1325-1333.
3.	Fergo C, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, et al. Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs. 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg, 2017, 213(1): 159-170.
4.	Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, et al. Development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag, 2014, 3(3): 123-128.
5.	Jiao P, Wu QJ, Sun YG, et al. Comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic two-port lobectomy. Thorac Cancer, 2017, 8(1): 3-7.
6.	Yang CL, Wang W, Mo LL, et al. Short-term outcome of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracic surgery for benign pulmonary diseases. Ann Thorac Surg, 2016, 101(4): 1297-1302.
7.	Li Z, Li JP, Qin X, et al. Three-dimensional vs. two-dimensional video assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(37): 10675-10682.
8.	侯予龙, 郭伟, 杨志健, 等. 3D与2D胸腹腔镜治疗食管癌的比较研究. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(9): 889-892.
9.	Padin EM, Santos RS, Fernández SG, et al. Impact of three-dimensional laparoscopy in a bariatric surgery program: influence in the learning curve. Obes Surg, 2017, 27(10): 2552-2556.
10.	Sorensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, et al. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(1): 11-23.
11.	Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, et al. Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg, 2018, 268(2): 254-259.
12.	Lazzarino AI, Nagpal K, Bottle A, et al. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: trends of utilization and associated outcomes in England. Ann Surg, 2010, 252(2): 292-298.
13.	Nguyen NT, Hinojosa MW, Smith BR, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations. Ann Surg, 2008, 248(6): 1081-1091.
14.	Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg, 2012, 256(1): 95-103.
15.	Ai B, Zhang Z, Liao Y. Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for middle or lower esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Dis, 2014, 6(9): 1354-1357.
16.	Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, et al. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus, 2017, 30(1): 1-7.
17.	Irino T, Tsai JA, Ericson J, et al. Thoracoscopic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy by use of linear stapler-a simplified technique facilitating a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis operation. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2016, 401(3): 315-322.
18.	Campos GM, Jablons D, Brown LM, et al. A safe and reproducible anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: the circular-stapled anastomosis with the trans-oral anvil. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2010, 37(6): 1421-1426.
19.	Liu QX, Qiu Y, Deng XF, et al. Comparison of outcomes following end-to-end hand-sewn and mechanical oesophagogastric anastomosis after oesophagectomy for carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2015, 47(3): e118-e123.
20.	Levy RM, Wizorek J, Shende M, et al. Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Adv Surg, 2010, 44: 101-116.
21.	Mungo B, Lidor AO, Stem M, et al. Early experience and lessons learned in a new minimally invasive esophagectomy program. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(4): 1692-1698.
22.	Yerokun BA, Sun Z, Yang CJ, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis. Ann Thorac Surg, 2016, 102(2): 416-423.
23.	Thirunavukarasu P, Gabriel E, Attwood K, et al. Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy. Int J Surg, 2016, 25: 69-75.
24.	Raymond D. Complications of esophagectomy. Surg Clin North Am, 2012, 92(5): 1299-1313.
25.	蒋修全, 陈朝奇, 郑伟, 等. 比较食管-胃吻合口三种不同加固方法的吻合口瘘发生率. 实用肿瘤杂志, 2019, 34(1): 75-78.
26.	汪林宝, 赵坚, 李小飞. 食管癌术后吻合口瘘的发生原因与治疗. 临床外科杂志, 2019, 27(2): 152-154.

1. Sakata S, Watson MO, Grove PM, et al. The conflicting evidence of three-dimensional displays in laparoscopy: a review of systems old and new. Ann Surg, 2016, 263(2): 234-239.
2. Özsoy M, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, et al. Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy? Lasers Med Sci, 2015, 30(4): 1325-1333.
3. Fergo C, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, et al. Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs. 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg, 2017, 213(1): 159-170.
4. Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, et al. Development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag, 2014, 3(3): 123-128.
5. Jiao P, Wu QJ, Sun YG, et al. Comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic two-port lobectomy. Thorac Cancer, 2017, 8(1): 3-7.
6. Yang CL, Wang W, Mo LL, et al. Short-term outcome of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracic surgery for benign pulmonary diseases. Ann Thorac Surg, 2016, 101(4): 1297-1302.
7. Li Z, Li JP, Qin X, et al. Three-dimensional vs. two-dimensional video assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(37): 10675-10682.
8. 侯予龙, 郭伟, 杨志健, 等. 3D与2D胸腹腔镜治疗食管癌的比较研究. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(9): 889-892.
9. Padin EM, Santos RS, Fernández SG, et al. Impact of three-dimensional laparoscopy in a bariatric surgery program: influence in the learning curve. Obes Surg, 2017, 27(10): 2552-2556.
10. Sorensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, et al. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(1): 11-23.
11. Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, et al. Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg, 2018, 268(2): 254-259.
12. Lazzarino AI, Nagpal K, Bottle A, et al. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: trends of utilization and associated outcomes in England. Ann Surg, 2010, 252(2): 292-298.
13. Nguyen NT, Hinojosa MW, Smith BR, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations. Ann Surg, 2008, 248(6): 1081-1091.
14. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg, 2012, 256(1): 95-103.
15. Ai B, Zhang Z, Liao Y. Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for middle or lower esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Dis, 2014, 6(9): 1354-1357.
16. Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, et al. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus, 2017, 30(1): 1-7.
17. Irino T, Tsai JA, Ericson J, et al. Thoracoscopic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy by use of linear stapler-a simplified technique facilitating a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis operation. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2016, 401(3): 315-322.
18. Campos GM, Jablons D, Brown LM, et al. A safe and reproducible anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: the circular-stapled anastomosis with the trans-oral anvil. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2010, 37(6): 1421-1426.
19. Liu QX, Qiu Y, Deng XF, et al. Comparison of outcomes following end-to-end hand-sewn and mechanical oesophagogastric anastomosis after oesophagectomy for carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2015, 47(3): e118-e123.
20. Levy RM, Wizorek J, Shende M, et al. Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Adv Surg, 2010, 44: 101-116.
21. Mungo B, Lidor AO, Stem M, et al. Early experience and lessons learned in a new minimally invasive esophagectomy program. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(4): 1692-1698.
22. Yerokun BA, Sun Z, Yang CJ, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis. Ann Thorac Surg, 2016, 102(2): 416-423.
23. Thirunavukarasu P, Gabriel E, Attwood K, et al. Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy. Int J Surg, 2016, 25: 69-75.
24. Raymond D. Complications of esophagectomy. Surg Clin North Am, 2012, 92(5): 1299-1313.
25. 蒋修全, 陈朝奇, 郑伟, 等. 比较食管-胃吻合口三种不同加固方法的吻合口瘘发生率. 实用肿瘤杂志, 2019, 34(1): 75-78.
26. 汪林宝, 赵坚, 李小飞. 食管癌术后吻合口瘘的发生原因与治疗. 临床外科杂志, 2019, 27(2): 152-154.

Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Clinical comparative study of naked eye 3D versus 2D thoracoscope in minimally invasive esophagectomy

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content