比较胸腺切除术各种手术方法的安全性和有效性

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Rebecca Lau HonsBMSc, Katherine Aw HonsBMSc, Sami Aftab Abdul HonsBSc, Caitlin Anstee BA, Sebastien Gilbert MDCM, Daniel Jones MD, Msc, Andrew J. E. Seely MDCM, PhD, R. Sudhir Sundaresan MD, Patrick J. Villeneuve MDCM, PhD, Donna E. Maziak MDCM, MSc
{"title":"比较胸腺切除术各种手术方法的安全性和有效性","authors":"Rebecca Lau HonsBMSc,&nbsp;Katherine Aw HonsBMSc,&nbsp;Sami Aftab Abdul HonsBSc,&nbsp;Caitlin Anstee BA,&nbsp;Sebastien Gilbert MDCM,&nbsp;Daniel Jones MD, Msc,&nbsp;Andrew J. E. Seely MDCM, PhD,&nbsp;R. Sudhir Sundaresan MD,&nbsp;Patrick J. Villeneuve MDCM, PhD,&nbsp;Donna E. Maziak MDCM, MSc","doi":"10.1111/1744-1633.12688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the safety and effectiveness of different surgical approaches in thymectomy: robotics, subxiphoid, lateral video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (LVATS) and open.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methodology</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively reviewed 68 cases of thymectomy with a robot-assisted, subxiphoid, LVATS, open sternotomy or thoracotomy approach for thymic lesions or myasthenia gravis between July 2017 and May 2023 at a single centre. Peri-operative outcomes (operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion rates, R0 resection, adverse events and length of stay [LOS]) were collected.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We observed six conversions to open (from five LVATS and one robot assisted). The median estimated blood loss was lower for LVATS (100.00 [50.0–100.0] mL) compared with open thymectomies (200.0 [150.0–400.0]; <i>P</i> &lt; .001). No intra-operative adverse events were reported in the robotics, subxiphoid or LVATS groups. In patients with thymic tumours (<i>n</i> = 34), R0 resection was achieved in 100% (2/2) of robotics, 83% of subxiphoid (5/6), 93% (13/14) of LVATS and 75% (<i>n</i> = 9/12) of open cases. The median LOS was shortest for robot assisted (1.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.0–3.0]), then subxiphoid (2.0 [IQR 1.0–3.0]), LVATS (2.0 [IQR 1.0–3.0]) then open (5.0 [IQR 4.0–6.0]; <i>P</i> &lt; .001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our results suggest that with a shorter LOS, robotics, subxiphoid and LVATS thymectomies are safe. Larger size studies are required to compare R0 resection rates between these less invasive surgical approaches.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51190,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Practice","volume":"28 3","pages":"152-158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1744-1633.12688","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the safety and effectiveness of surgical approaches in thymectomy\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Lau HonsBMSc,&nbsp;Katherine Aw HonsBMSc,&nbsp;Sami Aftab Abdul HonsBSc,&nbsp;Caitlin Anstee BA,&nbsp;Sebastien Gilbert MDCM,&nbsp;Daniel Jones MD, Msc,&nbsp;Andrew J. E. Seely MDCM, PhD,&nbsp;R. Sudhir Sundaresan MD,&nbsp;Patrick J. Villeneuve MDCM, PhD,&nbsp;Donna E. Maziak MDCM, MSc\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1744-1633.12688\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare the safety and effectiveness of different surgical approaches in thymectomy: robotics, subxiphoid, lateral video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (LVATS) and open.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methodology</h3>\\n \\n <p>We retrospectively reviewed 68 cases of thymectomy with a robot-assisted, subxiphoid, LVATS, open sternotomy or thoracotomy approach for thymic lesions or myasthenia gravis between July 2017 and May 2023 at a single centre. Peri-operative outcomes (operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion rates, R0 resection, adverse events and length of stay [LOS]) were collected.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We observed six conversions to open (from five LVATS and one robot assisted). The median estimated blood loss was lower for LVATS (100.00 [50.0–100.0] mL) compared with open thymectomies (200.0 [150.0–400.0]; <i>P</i> &lt; .001). No intra-operative adverse events were reported in the robotics, subxiphoid or LVATS groups. In patients with thymic tumours (<i>n</i> = 34), R0 resection was achieved in 100% (2/2) of robotics, 83% of subxiphoid (5/6), 93% (13/14) of LVATS and 75% (<i>n</i> = 9/12) of open cases. The median LOS was shortest for robot assisted (1.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.0–3.0]), then subxiphoid (2.0 [IQR 1.0–3.0]), LVATS (2.0 [IQR 1.0–3.0]) then open (5.0 [IQR 4.0–6.0]; <i>P</i> &lt; .001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our results suggest that with a shorter LOS, robotics, subxiphoid and LVATS thymectomies are safe. Larger size studies are required to compare R0 resection rates between these less invasive surgical approaches.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Practice\",\"volume\":\"28 3\",\"pages\":\"152-158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1744-1633.12688\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1744-1633.12688\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1744-1633.12688","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们回顾性地审查了2017年7月至2023年5月期间在一个中心采用机器人辅助、剑突下、LVATS、开放式胸骨切开术或胸廓切开术治疗胸腺病变或重症肌无力的68例胸腺切除术病例。我们收集了围手术期的结果(手术时间、估计失血量、转换率、R0切除率、不良事件和住院时间[LOS])。与开放式胸腺切除术(200.0 [150.0-400.0]; P < .001)相比,LVATS的估计失血量中位数更低(100.00 [50.0-100.0] mL)。机器人、剑突下或LVATS组均未报告术中不良事件。在胸腺肿瘤患者(n = 34)中,机器人手术100%(2/2)、剑突下手术83%(5/6)、LVATS手术93%(13/14)、开腹手术75%(n = 9/12)实现了R0切除。机器人辅助胸腺切除术的中位手术时间最短(1.0 [四分位距(IQR)1.0-3.0]),然后是剑突下胸腺切除术(2.0 [IQR1.0-3.0])、LVATS胸腺切除术(2.0 [IQR1.0-3.0])和开胸术(5.0 [IQR4.0-6.0];P < .001)。我们的结果表明,机器人、剑突下胸腺切除术和LVATS胸腺切除术在较短的手术时间内是安全的,但还需要更大规模的研究来比较这些微创手术方法的R0切除率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the safety and effectiveness of surgical approaches in thymectomy

Objective

To compare the safety and effectiveness of different surgical approaches in thymectomy: robotics, subxiphoid, lateral video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (LVATS) and open.

Methodology

We retrospectively reviewed 68 cases of thymectomy with a robot-assisted, subxiphoid, LVATS, open sternotomy or thoracotomy approach for thymic lesions or myasthenia gravis between July 2017 and May 2023 at a single centre. Peri-operative outcomes (operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion rates, R0 resection, adverse events and length of stay [LOS]) were collected.

Results

We observed six conversions to open (from five LVATS and one robot assisted). The median estimated blood loss was lower for LVATS (100.00 [50.0–100.0] mL) compared with open thymectomies (200.0 [150.0–400.0]; P < .001). No intra-operative adverse events were reported in the robotics, subxiphoid or LVATS groups. In patients with thymic tumours (n = 34), R0 resection was achieved in 100% (2/2) of robotics, 83% of subxiphoid (5/6), 93% (13/14) of LVATS and 75% (n = 9/12) of open cases. The median LOS was shortest for robot assisted (1.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.0–3.0]), then subxiphoid (2.0 [IQR 1.0–3.0]), LVATS (2.0 [IQR 1.0–3.0]) then open (5.0 [IQR 4.0–6.0]; P < .001).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that with a shorter LOS, robotics, subxiphoid and LVATS thymectomies are safe. Larger size studies are required to compare R0 resection rates between these less invasive surgical approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical Practice
Surgical Practice 医学-外科
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Practice is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal, which is dedicated to the art and science of advances in clinical practice and research in surgery. Surgical Practice publishes papers in all fields of surgery and surgery-related disciplines. It consists of sections of history, leading articles, reviews, original papers, discussion papers, education, case reports, short notes on surgical techniques and letters to the Editor.
×
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