Abstract： Objective To investigate the clinical application of tubular stomach in cervical esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods A total of 850 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy through cervico-thoraco-abdominal（3-field）approach between January 2007 and January 2009 in North Jiangsu Hospital were allocated into the tubular stomach group（group A, n=425） and the whole stomach group （group B, n=425）by operation order. Group A included 287 male and 138 female patients with their average age of 58.2±11.5 years. Among them, 27 patients had upper esophageal cancer, 346 patients had middle esophageal cancer and 52 patients had lower esophageal cancer. Group B included 298 male and 127 female patients with their average age of 58.5±12.8 years. Among them, 33 patients had upper esophageal cancer, 338 patients had middle esophageal cancer, and 54 patients had lower esophageal cancer. Operation time, postoperative length of hospital stay and the incidence of anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, intra-thoracic stomach syndrome and reflux esophagitis of the two groups were compared. Results All the patients recovered uneventfully with no in-hospital death. There was no statistical difference in operation time （175.0±12.8 min vs.171.0±10.5 min，t=1.702，P＞ 0.05）and postoperative length of hospital stay （16.0±8.5 d vs.16.3±8.8 d，t=1.773，P＞ 0.05） between the two groups. During follow-up of six months, the rates of anastomotic leakage（χ2=5.550，P＜ 0.05）, intra-thoracic stomach syndrome （χ2=10.500，P＜ 0.05）and reflux esophagitis（χ2=9.150，P＜ 0.05） of group A were significantly lower than those of group B. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic stricture （χ2=0.120，P＞ 0.05） between the two groups. Conclusion Tubular stomach is better than whole stomach for cervical esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer since it is more physiologically and anatomically complied. It can decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage, intra-thoracic stomach syndrome, reflux esophagitis and improve the postoperative quality of life.
目的探讨胸腹腔镜在食管癌手术中应用的可行性及近期疗效。 方法2012年6月至2013年10月四川省人民医院胸外科90例食管癌患者行胸腹腔镜联合食管癌切除术，其中男54例、女36例，年龄47～83岁，平均（63.15±11.10）岁。手术先行胸腔镜游离胸段食管并清扫淋巴结，再腹腔镜游离胃行食管胃左颈部吻合术。记录手术时间、术后胸腔引流管放置时间、平均住院时间、淋巴结清扫枚数、术后并发症等。 结果全部无围术期死亡。手术时间260～450 min。术后4～11 d（平均5 d）拔除胸腔闭式引流管，胸腔总引流量为530～4 260 ml。全组共清扫纵隔淋巴结（气管旁、右下肺韧带、食管旁、隆凸下及左右喉返神经链旁）、腹腔淋巴结（贲门旁、胃左动脉旁）及颈部淋巴结1 395枚，平均每例15.5枚，15例（16.7%）发现淋巴结转移。术后发生吻合口瘘7例（7.8%），声音嘶哑5例（5.6%），肺部感染5例（5.6%），乳糜胸2例（2.2%），均经保守治疗后痊愈。术后10～14 d出院。门诊及电话随访82例，随访率91.1%，随访时间1～16个月，患者全部生存，无复发。 结论胸腹腔镜联合行食管癌根治术在技术上是安全可行的，近期疗效可靠。
ObjectivesTo compare the clinical efficacy of different surgical thoracic duct management on prevention of postoperative chylothorax and its impact on the outcome of the patients. MethodsWe searched the electronic databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2016), Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies related to the comparison of different surgical thoracic duct management during esophagectomy on prevention of postoperative chylothorax from inception to May 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then RevMan 5.2 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsTwenty-three trials were included, involving four RCTs, four cohort studies and 15 case-control studies. The results of meta-analysis indicated:(1) Prophylactic thoracic duct ligation group had lower incidence of postoperative chylothorax compared with non thoracoic duct ligation group (RCT:OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.47, P=0.000 02; Co/CC:OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.28, P<0.000 01); (2) There were no significant differences between the two groups in the respect of mortality, morbidity and the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year survival rates (all P values >0.05); (3) Prophylactic thoracic duct ligation could reduce the reoperation rate of chylothorax complicating esophageal cancer patients (RCT:OR=0.17, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.28, P<0.000 01; Co/CC:OR=0.18, 95%CI to 0.11 to 0.32, P<0.000 01), and increase the cure rate of expectant treatment on them (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.56, P=0.000 8); (4) En bloc thoracic duct ligation group had a lower incidence of postoperative chylothorax compared with single thoracic duct ligation group (OR=3.67, 95%CI 1.43 to 9.43, P=0.007). ConclusionProphylactic thoracic duct ligation during esophagectomy could effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative chylothorax and is good for reducing the reoperation rate of chylothorax complicating esophageal cancer patients. En bloc thoracic duct ligation has a better efficacy on prevention of postoperative chylothorax compared with single thoracic duct ligation.
Objective To introduce a simple preoperative risk score for esophageal cancer (PRSEC) and its relationship with the prognosis of patients who underwent resection of esophageal carcinoma. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 498 patients receiving resection of esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2015 in our hospital. They were divided into three groups (PRSEC1, PRSEC2 and PRSEC3 groups) according to the results of PRSEC (revised cardiac risk index, model for end-stage liver disease score and pulmonary function test). Their overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured to find the relationship between the PRSEC and prognosis of patients. Results The mortality, morbidity, DFS and OS were correlative with the PRSEC. Therefore the PRSEC can be used to predict the short-term outcome. The patients with score 2 or 3 had higher risk of mortality and morbidity than those with score 1. In addition, the DFS and OS of patients with higher score were shorter (P<0.001). Conclusion The PRSEC is easy and efficient and can predict the morbidity, mortality, and long-term outcomes for the patients with resection of esophageal carcinoma.
Objective To explore the feasibility of single mediastinal drainage tube in treatment of esophageal carcinoma after thoracoscopic combined with laparoscopic surgery. Methods There were 90 esophagus cancer patients treated by surgery in our hospital between June 2015 and October 2016. The patients were allocated into two groups including a single-drainage tube group and a two-drainage tube group. There were 45 patients with 24 males and 21 females at age of 48-78 years in the two-drainage tube group and 45 patients with 23 males and 22 females at age of 45-84 years in the single-drainage tube group.The clinical effect of the two groups was compared. Results There was no statistical difference in gender and age, bleeding amount and surgical duration in operation, thoracic drainage amount, incidence of atelectasis, pneumothorax, and encapsulated effusion between the two groups(P<0.05). Discussion Single-drainage tube group displays less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and more convenient clinical care without complication.
Objective To evaluate the security and outcomes of thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) versus open approach (OA) for thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Methods From June 2014 to June 2015, 125 patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent esophagectomy through McKeown approach, including TLE (a TLE group, 107 patients, 77 males and 30 females) and OA (an OA group, 18 patients, 13 males and 5 females). The data of operation and postoperative complications of the two groups were analyzed retrospectively. Results There was no statistical difference in the duration of operation and ICU stay and resected lymph nodes around laryngeal recurrent nerve between the TLE group and the OA group (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 vs. 3.89±3.97, P=0.408) . There was a statistical difference in blood loss, total resected lymph nodes and resected lymph nodes groups between TLE group and OA group (222.62±139.77 ml vs. 427.78±276.65, P=0.006; 19.62±9.61 vs. 14.61±8.07, P=0.038; 3.70±0.99 vs. 3.11±1.13, P=0.024). The rate of postoperative complications was 32.7% in the TLE group and 38.9% in the OA group (P=0.608). There was a statistical difference (P=0.011) in incidence of pulmonary infection (2.8% in the TLE group and 16.7% in the OA group). Incidences of complications, such as anastomotic leakage, cardiac complications, left-side hydrothorax, right-side pneumothorax, voice hoarse and incision infection, showed no statistical difference between two groups. Conclusion For patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, TLE possesses advantages of more harvested lymph nodes, less blood loss and less pulmonary infection comparing with open approach, and is complied with the principles of security and oncological radicality of surgery.
ObjectiveTo investigate the learning curve of non-tube and early oral feeding procedure following McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). MethodsWe analyzed the clinical data of 38 patients (26 males, 12 females, aged 42–79 years) with esophageal cancer who received non-tube and early oral feeding procedure after surgery at the Affiliated Tumor Hospital, Zhengzhou University from November 2017 to August 2018. They suffered upper thoracic esophageal cancer (n=4), middle thoracic esophageal cancer (n=22) or lower thoracic esophageal cancer (n=12). ResultsMcKeown MIE was successfully performed on 38 patients. Oral feeding began 1.7 (1-4) days after surgery in the 38 patients with non-tube. Pneumonia/atelectasis occurred in 5 patients (13.1%), respiratory failure in 1 patient (2.6%), arrhythmia in 3 patients (7.9%), hoarseness in 5 patients (13.1%), anastomotic fistula in 1 patient (2.6%), cervical incision infection in 1 patient (2.6%), pneumomediastinum and infection in 1 patient (2.6%) and gastric emptying disorder in 2 patients (5.2%). No death was observed. After 26 patients with McKeown MIE were treated with enhanced recovery after surgery procedure, the operation time and complications could reach a relatively stable state and entered a plateau phase of learning curve. ConclusionNon-tube and early oral feeding procedure following MIE is technically safe and feasible. It can shorten hospital stay, relieve the discomfort of placement of nasogastric and nutrition tube and may reduce the incidence of complications. The learning curve of non-tube and early oral feeding procedure following MIE is about 26 cases.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube and both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube for the patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection of esophageal carcinoma.MethodsWe enrolled 96 esophageal carcinoma patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection from June 2016 to October 2018. Of them, 49 patients were indwelt with both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube (a chest & mediastinal drainage group, a CMD group) while the other 47 patients were indwelt with single mediastinal drainage tube (a single mediastinal drainage group, a SMD group). The total drainage volume, intubation time and incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) between the two groups were compared. The pain score and comfort score were also compared between the two groups.ResultsThe total drainage volume and intubation time in the SMD group were not significantly different from those in the CMD group (1 321±421 mL vs. 1 204±545 mL, P=0.541; 6.1±3.7 d vs. 6.4 ±5.1 d, P=0.321). The incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) in the SMD group was not significantly different from that in the CMD group (10.6% vs. 6.1%, P=0.712; 4.3% vs. 10.2%, P=0.656; 6.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.121; 2.1% vs. 4.1%, P=0.526). The numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores on the first to the fifth day after surgery and during extubation in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.2±2.1 vs. 5.1±2.4, P=0.041; 2.8±0.6 vs. 4.8±1.4, P=0.015; 2.1±0.4 vs. 4.5±0.4, P=0.019; 1.7±0.7 vs. 4.0±0.8, P=0.004; 1.8±0.7 vs. 3.2±1.2, P=0.006; 1.4±0.2 vs. 2.5±3.4, P=0.012). The VAS comfort scores in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.6±1.7 vs. 6.6±3.7, P=0.018; 2.9±2.0 vs. 5.1±3.4, P=0.007; 2.1±1.4 vs. 5.5±2.4, P=0.004; 3.0±0.9 vs. 4.6±3.8, P=0.012; 1.8±1.1 vs. 4.2±2.7, P=0.003; 2.4±3.2 vs. 5.3±1.7, P=0.020).ConclusionThe clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube in thoracoscopic resection of esophageal carcinoma is similar to that of both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube, but it can significantly improve the comfort of the patients.