Postoperative complications, pain and quality of life after thoracoscopic or thoracotomic lobectomy for lung cancer.

IF 0.4 Q4 SURGERY
Giornale di Chirurgia Pub Date : 2019-03-01
C Porrello, G Scerrino, A Vaglica, M Palazzolo, C M Gagliardo, F Giangregorio, D Iadicola, G Tomasello, F Lo Faso, K Kawamukai, N Lacava, Fabrizio Carini, G Cocorullo, R Gullo
{"title":"Postoperative complications, pain and quality of life after thoracoscopic or thoracotomic lobectomy for lung cancer.","authors":"C Porrello,&nbsp;G Scerrino,&nbsp;A Vaglica,&nbsp;M Palazzolo,&nbsp;C M Gagliardo,&nbsp;F Giangregorio,&nbsp;D Iadicola,&nbsp;G Tomasello,&nbsp;F Lo Faso,&nbsp;K Kawamukai,&nbsp;N Lacava,&nbsp;Fabrizio Carini,&nbsp;G Cocorullo,&nbsp;R Gullo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Thoracoscopic lobectomy is superior to thoracotomy, but the evidence for this assumption is low. We present a comparison between thoracotomy and thoracoscopy in term of postoperative complications, mortality, postoperative pain, hospital stay and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This is a retrospective analysis of 224 lobectomies in 24-months. 128 patients (57.1%) were operated by thoracotomy; 96 patients (42.9%) by videothoracoscopy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Major complications were observed in 4/128 (3.1%) in thoracotomy group and in 1/96 (1%) in thoracoscopy. Minor complications were observed in 38/128 patients (29.7%) in the thoracotomy, and in 16/96 (16.7%) thoracoscopy. Thoracoscopy patients had a shorter hospital stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study shows an advantage of thoracoscopy over thoracotomy but further studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":46352,"journal":{"name":"Giornale di Chirurgia","volume":"40 2","pages":"115-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Giornale di Chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Thoracoscopic lobectomy is superior to thoracotomy, but the evidence for this assumption is low. We present a comparison between thoracotomy and thoracoscopy in term of postoperative complications, mortality, postoperative pain, hospital stay and quality of life.

Patients and methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 224 lobectomies in 24-months. 128 patients (57.1%) were operated by thoracotomy; 96 patients (42.9%) by videothoracoscopy.

Results: Major complications were observed in 4/128 (3.1%) in thoracotomy group and in 1/96 (1%) in thoracoscopy. Minor complications were observed in 38/128 patients (29.7%) in the thoracotomy, and in 16/96 (16.7%) thoracoscopy. Thoracoscopy patients had a shorter hospital stay.

Conclusion: Our study shows an advantage of thoracoscopy over thoracotomy but further studies are needed.

肺癌胸腔镜或开胸肺叶切除术术后并发症、疼痛及生活质量。
目的:胸腔镜肺叶切除术优于开胸手术,但这一假设的证据不足。我们在术后并发症、死亡率、术后疼痛、住院时间和生活质量方面比较开胸手术和胸腔镜手术。患者和方法:回顾性分析24个月内224例肺叶切除术。128例(57.1%)行开胸手术;96例(42.9%)经胸腔镜检查。结果:开胸组有4/128(3.1%)出现严重并发症,胸腔镜组有1/96(1%)出现严重并发症。开胸手术中38/128例(29.7%)出现轻微并发症,胸腔镜手术中16/96例(16.7%)出现轻微并发症。胸腔镜患者的住院时间较短。结论:本研究显示胸腔镜优于开胸手术,但仍需进一步研究。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Il Giornale di Chirurgia pubblica contributi che propongono le diverse tecniche su patologia chirurgiche di attualità. Pubblica articoli originali, casistica clinica, metodi, tecniche, terapia farmacologica pre-operatoria e post-chirurgica, ed articoli inerenti la descrizione di tecniche chirurgiche.
×
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