[Comparison of clinical outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and Mckeown esophagectomy for middle or lower esophageal cancer].

Q3 Medicine
L G Yuan, Y S Mao
{"title":"[Comparison of clinical outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and Mckeown esophagectomy for middle or lower esophageal cancer].","authors":"L G Yuan, Y S Mao","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20230713-00010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare the short-term and long-term clinical effects of Ivor-Lewis and Mckeown esophagectomy in the treatment of middle or lower thoracic esophageal cancer. <b>Methods:</b> The clinical data of 716 patients with middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent radical resection of Ivor Lewis or McKeown esophageal cancer in the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science from March 2015 to October 2018 were analyzed retrospectively, and the perioperative indicators, postoperative complications and survival of the two surgical methods were compared. <b>Results:</b> Among 716 patients, 135 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and 581 patients underwent McKeown esophagectomy. Mckeown group was significantly superior to Ivor Lewis group in terms of total number of lymph node dissection [median number was 27 (19~37) vs 25(18~33)], total number of lymph node dissection stations [median number was 5(4~7) vs 5(4~5)], and number of lymph nodes dissection along recurrent laryngeal nerve [median number was 3 (1~6) vs 0 (0~3), <i>P</i><0.05]. However, the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in Mckeown group was significantly higher than that in Ivor Lewis group [10.7% (62/581) vs 1.5%(2/135), <i>P</i><0.001]. There was no significant difference in the 1 -, 3 -, 5-year overall survival between the Ivor Lewis group(91.0%, 70.5%, 52.9%) and the Mckeown group (89.7%, 68.4%, 62.4%, <i>P</i>>0.05), and there was also no significant difference in the 1 -, 3 -, 5-year disease free survival between the Ivor Lewis group(77.0%, 54.1%, 44.0%) and the Mckeown group (78.3%, 59.0%, 52.8%, <i>P</i>>0.05). <b>Conclusions:</b> Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and Mckeown esophagectomy are feasible, safe, good short-term efficacy and similar survival rate for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer. Ivor Lewis surgery has lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Mckeown operation has more advantages in lymph node dissection, especially in lymph node dissection beside the recurrent laryngeal nerve.</p>","PeriodicalId":39868,"journal":{"name":"中华肿瘤杂志","volume":"47 3","pages":"262-268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华肿瘤杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20230713-00010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the short-term and long-term clinical effects of Ivor-Lewis and Mckeown esophagectomy in the treatment of middle or lower thoracic esophageal cancer. Methods: The clinical data of 716 patients with middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent radical resection of Ivor Lewis or McKeown esophageal cancer in the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science from March 2015 to October 2018 were analyzed retrospectively, and the perioperative indicators, postoperative complications and survival of the two surgical methods were compared. Results: Among 716 patients, 135 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and 581 patients underwent McKeown esophagectomy. Mckeown group was significantly superior to Ivor Lewis group in terms of total number of lymph node dissection [median number was 27 (19~37) vs 25(18~33)], total number of lymph node dissection stations [median number was 5(4~7) vs 5(4~5)], and number of lymph nodes dissection along recurrent laryngeal nerve [median number was 3 (1~6) vs 0 (0~3), P<0.05]. However, the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in Mckeown group was significantly higher than that in Ivor Lewis group [10.7% (62/581) vs 1.5%(2/135), P<0.001]. There was no significant difference in the 1 -, 3 -, 5-year overall survival between the Ivor Lewis group(91.0%, 70.5%, 52.9%) and the Mckeown group (89.7%, 68.4%, 62.4%, P>0.05), and there was also no significant difference in the 1 -, 3 -, 5-year disease free survival between the Ivor Lewis group(77.0%, 54.1%, 44.0%) and the Mckeown group (78.3%, 59.0%, 52.8%, P>0.05). Conclusions: Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and Mckeown esophagectomy are feasible, safe, good short-term efficacy and similar survival rate for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer. Ivor Lewis surgery has lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Mckeown operation has more advantages in lymph node dissection, especially in lymph node dissection beside the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

[Ivor-Lewis食管切除术与Mckeown食管切除术治疗中下段食管癌的临床疗效比较]。
目的:比较Ivor-Lewis食管切除术与Mckeown食管切除术治疗胸椎中下段食管癌的近期和远期临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2015年3月至2018年10月在中国医学科学院肿瘤医院胸外科行Ivor Lewis或McKeown食管癌根治术的716例胸椎中下段食管癌患者的临床资料,比较两种手术方式的围手术期指标、术后并发症及生存率。结果:716例患者中,Ivor Lewis食管切除术135例,McKeown食管切除术581例。Mckeown组淋巴结清扫总数[中位数为27 (19~37)vs 25(18~33)]、淋巴结清扫总站数[中位数为5(4~7)vs 5(4~5)]、喉返神经淋巴结清扫数[中位数为3 (1~6)vs 0 (0~3), P<0.05]均显著优于Ivor Lewis组。但Mckeown组喉返神经麻痹发生率明显高于Ivor Lewis组[10.7% (62/581)vs 1.5%(2/135), P<0.001]。Ivor Lewis组1、3、5年总生存率(91.0%、70.5%、52.9%)与Mckeown组(89.7%、68.4%、62.4%,P>0.05)比较差异无统计学意义;Ivor Lewis组1、3、5年无病生存率(77.0%、54.1%、44.0%)与Mckeown组(78.3%、59.0%、52.8%,P>0.05)比较差异无统计学意义。结论:Ivor Lewis食管切除术和Mckeown食管切除术治疗中、下段胸段食管癌可行、安全、近期疗效好、生存率相近。Ivor Lewis手术有较低的喉返神经麻痹发生率。Mckeown手术在淋巴结清扫,尤其是喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫方面更有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中华肿瘤杂志
中华肿瘤杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10433
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信