电视胸腔镜手术与开胸手术治疗术后出血的效果比较

V. Erdoğu, M. Onay, A. Çiftçi, Ece Yasemin Emetli, Semih Erduhan, A. Pekçolaklar, M. Doğru, Y. Aksoy, A. Kutluk, M. Metin
{"title":"电视胸腔镜手术与开胸手术治疗术后出血的效果比较","authors":"V. Erdoğu, M. Onay, A. Çiftçi, Ece Yasemin Emetli, Semih Erduhan, A. Pekçolaklar, M. Doğru, Y. Aksoy, A. Kutluk, M. Metin","doi":"10.26663/cts.2021.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although postoperative hemorrhage after thoracic surgery is uncommon, it is the most common indication for revision surgery after these procedures. Most postoperative hemorrhages are due to surgical technique, although some comorbidities can predispose the patient to bleeding. We investigated whether video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and re-thoracotomy had the same outcomes in the management of postoperative hemorrhage in patients who underwent open thoracotomy or VATS. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with postoperative hemorrhage after thoracotomy (n = 659) or VATS (n = 883) between 2018 and 2020. Revision surgery was performed after thoracotomy in 22 patients (3.3%) and after VATS in 4 patients (0.4%). Of these, 11 patients (42.3%) were re-operated by re-thoracotomy (Re-thoracotomy Group) and 15 patients (57.7%) by revision VATS (VATS Group). Results: Revision due to postoperative hemorrhage was required significantly more frequently after thoracotomy than VATS (3.3% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001). In patients with hemorrhage after pneumonectomy (n = 14), revision by VATS was preferred to re-thoracotomy (n = 10, 71.4% vs. n = 4, 28.6%). The mean time to discharge after revision surgery was 5.1 ± 2.2 days (range, 2-12 days) overall and was significantly shorter in the revision VATS Group than in the Re-thoracotomy Group (4.4 ± 1.5 days vs. 6.2 ± 2.5 days, p = 0.004). Conclusions: VATS has similar results to re-thoracotomy and is advantageous in terms of earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Therefore, VATS should be the preferred method for postoperative hemorrhage management.","PeriodicalId":72729,"journal":{"name":"Current challenges in thoracic surgery","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and rethoracotomy in the management of postoperative hemorrhage\",\"authors\":\"V. Erdoğu, M. Onay, A. Çiftçi, Ece Yasemin Emetli, Semih Erduhan, A. Pekçolaklar, M. Doğru, Y. Aksoy, A. Kutluk, M. Metin\",\"doi\":\"10.26663/cts.2021.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Although postoperative hemorrhage after thoracic surgery is uncommon, it is the most common indication for revision surgery after these procedures. Most postoperative hemorrhages are due to surgical technique, although some comorbidities can predispose the patient to bleeding. We investigated whether video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and re-thoracotomy had the same outcomes in the management of postoperative hemorrhage in patients who underwent open thoracotomy or VATS. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with postoperative hemorrhage after thoracotomy (n = 659) or VATS (n = 883) between 2018 and 2020. Revision surgery was performed after thoracotomy in 22 patients (3.3%) and after VATS in 4 patients (0.4%). Of these, 11 patients (42.3%) were re-operated by re-thoracotomy (Re-thoracotomy Group) and 15 patients (57.7%) by revision VATS (VATS Group). Results: Revision due to postoperative hemorrhage was required significantly more frequently after thoracotomy than VATS (3.3% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001). In patients with hemorrhage after pneumonectomy (n = 14), revision by VATS was preferred to re-thoracotomy (n = 10, 71.4% vs. n = 4, 28.6%). The mean time to discharge after revision surgery was 5.1 ± 2.2 days (range, 2-12 days) overall and was significantly shorter in the revision VATS Group than in the Re-thoracotomy Group (4.4 ± 1.5 days vs. 6.2 ± 2.5 days, p = 0.004). Conclusions: VATS has similar results to re-thoracotomy and is advantageous in terms of earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Therefore, VATS should be the preferred method for postoperative hemorrhage management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current challenges in thoracic surgery\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current challenges in thoracic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26663/cts.2021.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current challenges in thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26663/cts.2021.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:尽管胸外科手术后出血并不常见,但它是胸外科手术后翻修手术最常见的指征。大多数术后出血是由于手术技术,尽管一些合并症可使患者易出血。我们调查了视频辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)和再次开胸手术在处理开胸或VATS患者术后出血方面是否具有相同的结果。材料和方法:回顾性分析2018年至2020年期间开胸术后出血患者(n = 659)或VATS术后出血患者(n = 883)。22例(3.3%)患者在开胸后进行翻修手术,4例(0.4%)患者在VATS后进行翻修手术。其中11例(42.3%)再次行开胸手术(再次开胸组),15例(57.7%)再次行VATS翻修手术(VATS组)。结果:开胸术后因术后出血需要翻修的频率明显高于VATS (3.3% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001)。在肺切除术后出血的患者(n = 14)中,VATS翻修优于再次开胸(n = 10, 71.4% vs. n = 4, 28.6%)。翻修手术后平均出院时间为5.1±2.2天(范围,2-12天),翻修VATS组明显短于再次开胸组(4.4±1.5天vs. 6.2±2.5天,p = 0.004)。结论:VATS与再次开胸效果相似,且在恢复较早、住院时间较短方面具有优势。因此,VATS应作为术后出血处理的首选方法。
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 outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and rethoracotomy in the management of postoperative hemorrhage
Background: Although postoperative hemorrhage after thoracic surgery is uncommon, it is the most common indication for revision surgery after these procedures. Most postoperative hemorrhages are due to surgical technique, although some comorbidities can predispose the patient to bleeding. We investigated whether video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and re-thoracotomy had the same outcomes in the management of postoperative hemorrhage in patients who underwent open thoracotomy or VATS. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with postoperative hemorrhage after thoracotomy (n = 659) or VATS (n = 883) between 2018 and 2020. Revision surgery was performed after thoracotomy in 22 patients (3.3%) and after VATS in 4 patients (0.4%). Of these, 11 patients (42.3%) were re-operated by re-thoracotomy (Re-thoracotomy Group) and 15 patients (57.7%) by revision VATS (VATS Group). Results: Revision due to postoperative hemorrhage was required significantly more frequently after thoracotomy than VATS (3.3% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001). In patients with hemorrhage after pneumonectomy (n = 14), revision by VATS was preferred to re-thoracotomy (n = 10, 71.4% vs. n = 4, 28.6%). The mean time to discharge after revision surgery was 5.1 ± 2.2 days (range, 2-12 days) overall and was significantly shorter in the revision VATS Group than in the Re-thoracotomy Group (4.4 ± 1.5 days vs. 6.2 ± 2.5 days, p = 0.004). Conclusions: VATS has similar results to re-thoracotomy and is advantageous in terms of earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay. Therefore, VATS should be the preferred method for postoperative hemorrhage management.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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