H. Tamagawa, M. Numata, T. Aoyama, Ayako Tamagawa, K. Komori, Y. Maezawa, K. Kano, K. Kazama, M. Murakawa, Yosuke Atsumi, K. Hara, S. Kawahara, Takanobu Yamada, T. Ogata, T. Ohshima, N. Yukawa, M. Masuda, Y. Rino
{"title":"The Comparison of Outcomes between Video-assisted Thoracscopic and Open Surgery for Esophageal Cancer","authors":"H. Tamagawa, M. Numata, T. Aoyama, Ayako Tamagawa, K. Komori, Y. Maezawa, K. Kano, K. Kazama, M. Murakawa, Yosuke Atsumi, K. Hara, S. Kawahara, Takanobu Yamada, T. Ogata, T. Ohshima, N. Yukawa, M. Masuda, Y. Rino","doi":"10.4993/acrt.28.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy theoretically has advantages over open esophagectomy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) or conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal carcinoma. Methods: A total of 122 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy via VATE (VATE group, N = 87) and OE (OE group, N = 35) for esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled in this study, and the postop- erative outcomes were compared. Results: The OE group had younger patients and more patients who received neo-adjuvant therapy that the VATE group. The procedure time in the OE group was also shorter than that in the VATE group (8.22 vs. 10.28 h, P < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was similar between the groups (P = 0.775). There were no significant differences in the total number of dissected lymph nodes between the groups (OE: 33, VATE: 37, P = 0.482). The incidence of severe complications was lower in the VATE group than in the OE group (44.8% vs. 65.7%, P = 0.037). With a median follow-up of 26 months, the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: VATE for esophageal carcinoma is associated with more favorable short-term outcomes and equal oncological outcomes compared with OE.","PeriodicalId":35647,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4993/acrt.28.97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy theoretically has advantages over open esophagectomy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) or conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal carcinoma. Methods: A total of 122 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy via VATE (VATE group, N = 87) and OE (OE group, N = 35) for esophageal carcinoma between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively enrolled in this study, and the postop- erative outcomes were compared. Results: The OE group had younger patients and more patients who received neo-adjuvant therapy that the VATE group. The procedure time in the OE group was also shorter than that in the VATE group (8.22 vs. 10.28 h, P < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was similar between the groups (P = 0.775). There were no significant differences in the total number of dissected lymph nodes between the groups (OE: 33, VATE: 37, P = 0.482). The incidence of severe complications was lower in the VATE group than in the OE group (44.8% vs. 65.7%, P = 0.037). With a median follow-up of 26 months, the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: VATE for esophageal carcinoma is associated with more favorable short-term outcomes and equal oncological outcomes compared with OE.
背景:微创食管切除术在理论上比开放式食管切除术有优势。本研究的目的是比较接受电视胸腔镜食管切除术(VATE)或传统开放式食管切除术(OE)治疗食管癌患者的短期和长期预后。方法:回顾性分析2005 - 2018年食管癌经VATE (VATE组,N = 87)和OE (OE组,N = 35)行根治性食管切除术的122例患者,比较其术后预后。结果:OE组患者较VATE组年轻,接受新辅助治疗的患者较多。OE组手术时间也短于VATE组(8.22 h vs. 10.28 h, P < 0.001)。两组术中出血量相近(P = 0.775)。两组间淋巴结清扫总数比较差异无统计学意义(OE: 33, VATE: 37, P = 0.482)。VATE组严重并发症发生率低于OE组(44.8% vs. 65.7%, P = 0.037)。中位随访26个月,两组的3年总生存期和无病生存期相似。结论:与OE相比,VATE治疗食管癌具有更有利的短期预后和相同的肿瘤预后。