4.6 Article

Low invasiveness of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches between thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5888-z

Keywords

Esophageal cancer; Minimally invasive surgery; Cytokines; Surgical stress; Prone position

Categories

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [24791379]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24791379] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, cytokine levels, outcome, and survival rates after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were retrospectively investigated in a propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches between the thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in the prone position and open esophagectomy (OE). Between 2005 and 2014, TE was performed on a group of 85 patients, which was compared with a group of 104 OE cases. Eventually, 65 paired cases were matched using propensity score matching. Although the TE group underwent a significantly longer operation time than the OE group (P < 0.001), the TE group exhibited less blood loss (P < 0.001) and had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.038) than the OE group. The serum interleukin-6 levels on ICU admission (P < 0.001) and on POD 1 (P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the TE group. The interleukin-10 levels on ICU admission (P < 0.001), POD 1 (P = 0.016), and POD 3 (P < 0.001) were also significantly lower in the TE group. Pulmonary complication was significantly lower in the TE group (P = 0.043). The 5-year PFS rates in the TE and OE groups were 70.6 and 58.7% (P = 0.328), respectively, and OS rates were 64.9 and 50.2% (P = 0.101), respectively. TE compared to OE is a less invasive procedure with lower surgical stress and less pulmonary complication for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available