Literature DB >> 26404684

[Comparative study of 3D thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus 2D thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma].

Yulong Hou1, Wei Guo, Zhijian Yang, Jianqiang Zhao.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and safety of 3D laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy.
METHODS: From October 2013 to March 2014, 154 patients with esophageal cancer of clinical stage T3N1M0 undergoing 3D or 2D minimally invasive esophagectomy in lateral prone position in our department were enrolled prospectively, and randomly divided into 3D group (78 cases) and 2D group (76 cases). The esophagus was dissociated by 3D or 2D laparoscope and thoracoscope to the entry of thorax. Stomach was dissociated by same telescopes and cut linearly. After tube stomach shaping was completed, esophagogastric anastomosis was performed in the left neck. The operative safety and short-term efficacy were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The entire procedure was technically successful in 154 patients. The average total operative time in 3D group was shorter than that in 2D group [(176.0±27.7) min vs. (203.0±31.5) min, P<0.05]. No significant differences were observed in blood loss [(124.0±35.8) ml vs. (127.0±25.7) ml], number of harvested lymph node (17.0±8.6 vs. 18.0±3.3), postoperative hospital stay [(11.8±9.3) d vs. (12.6±8.8) d] (all P>0.05), and morbidity of postoperative complication [12.8% (10/78) vs. 14.5% (11/76)]. The median follow-up time was 5.6 (3-8) months and 5.2 (5-7) months in 3D and 2D groups respectively, and no death or relapse cases were found during the follow-up.
CONCLUSION: 3D laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy under lateral prone position is technically feasible and safe for esophageal carcinoma, as compared to 2D procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26404684

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 1671-0274


  5 in total

1.  The comparison between novel and traditional three-dimensional image system in thoracoscopy: glasses-less vs. glass.

Authors:  Jiaxi He; Keng Long Ang; Zhexue Hao; Jianfei Shen; Hui Pan; Jingpei Li; Jianxing He
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Video-Assisted Endoscopic Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Data.

Authors:  Hengrui Liang; Wenhua Liang; Zhao Lei; Zhichao Liu; Wei Wang; Jiaxi He; Yuan Zeng; Weizhe Huang; Manting Wang; Yuehan Chen; Jianxing He
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ji Cheng; Jinbo Gao; Xiaoming Shuai; Guobin Wang; Kaixiong Tao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-10-25

4.  Short term outcomes of three dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Abdul Razaque Shaikh; Aijaz Ahmed Shaikh; Mujib Abbasi
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2021 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

5.  Three-dimension versus two-dimension video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ning Xin; Xinyu Ding; Kenan Huang; Rongqiang Wei; Zihao Chen; Chengdong Liu; Yunhao Fang; Zhifei Xu; Hua Tang
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 1.241

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.