Literature DB >> 26457028

Three-dimensional vs two-dimensional video assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer.

Zhao Li1, Jing-Pei Li1, Xiong Qin1, Bin-Bin Xu1, Yu-Dong Han1, Si-Da Liu1, Wen-Zhuo Zhu1, Ming-Zheng Peng1, Qiang Lin1.   

Abstract

AIM: To define the benefits of three-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (3D-VATE) over 2D-VATE for esophageal cancer.
METHODS: A total of 93 patients with esophageal cancer including 45 patients receiving 3D-VATE and 48 receiving 2D-VATE were evaluated. Data related to patient and cancer characteristics, operating time, intraoperative bleeding, morbidity and mortality, postoperative inflammatory markers, Numerical Rating Scale for postoperative pain, Constant-Murley rating system for shoulder recovery and oxygenation index (OI) were collected. All medical records were retrieved from a prospectively maintained oncological database at our institution. A retrospective study was performed to compare the short-term surgical outcomes between the two groups.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two groups in either morbidity or mortality (P = 0.328). An enhanced surgical recovery was noted in the 3D group as indicated by shortened thoracoscopic operation time (3D vs 2D: 68 ± 13.79 min vs 83 ± 13 min, P < 0.01), minor intraoperative blood loss (3D vs 2D: 68.2 ± 10.7 mL vs 89.8 ± 10.4 mL, P < 0.01), earlier chest tube removal (3D vs 2D: 2.67 ± 1.01 vs 3.75 ± 1.15 d, P < 0.01), shorter length of hospital stay (3D vs 2D: 9.07 ± 2.00 vs 10.85 ± 3.40 d, P < 0.01), lower in-hospital expenses (3D vs 2D: 74968.4 ± 9637.8 vs 86211.1 ± 8519.7 RMB, P < 0.01), lower pain intensity (P < 0.01) and faster recovery of the left shoulder function (P < 0.01). Better preservation of the pulmonary function was also found in the 3D group as the decline of the OI post operation was significantly lower than that of the 2D group (P < 0.01). Changes of postoperative inflammatory markers, including procalcitonin [postoperative days (PODs) 4 and 7: P < 0.01], peripheral granulocytes (PODs 1, 4 and 7: P < 0.01) and hypersensitive C-reactive protein (POD 4: P < 0.01) in 3D-VATE patients were less than those in the 2D group. Moreover, utilization of the 3D technique extended the dissection of the thoracic lymph nodes (P < 0.01), with better exposure of nodes in the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (P = 0.031).
CONCLUSION: 3D-VATE could be a more viable technique over 2D-VATE in terms of short-term outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Esophageal cancer; Surgical outcomes; Three-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy; Two-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26457028      PMCID: PMC4588090          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i37.10675

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  31 in total

1.  3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks.

Authors:  Pirmin Storz; Gerhard F Buess; Wolfgang Kunert; Andreas Kirschniak
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Learning curve to lymph node resection in minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer.

Authors:  Ankit Dhamija; Joshua E Rosen; Anish Dhamija; Bonnie E Gould Rothberg; Anthony W Kim; Frank C Detterbeck; Daniel J Boffa
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug

3.  Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: feasibility and safety of robotic assistance in the prone position.

Authors:  Dae Joon Kim; Woo Jin Hyung; Chang Young Lee; Jin-Gu Lee; Seok Jin Haam; In-Kyu Park; Kyung Young Chung
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009-07-29       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Pulmonary function, postoperative pain, and serum cytokine level after lobectomy: a comparison of VATS and conventional procedure.

Authors:  I Nagahiro; A Andou; M Aoe; Y Sano; H Date; N Shimizu
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 5.  The role of lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Glyn G Jamieson; Peter J Lamb; Sarah K Thompson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 6.  Randomized clinical trials in esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Stephen A Barnett; Nabil P Rizk
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.495

7.  Lymph node analysis in esophageal resection: American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0060 trial.

Authors:  Nirmal K Veeramachaneni; Jennifer B Zoole; Paul A Decker; Joe B Putnam; Bryan F Meyers
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Predictors of major morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database risk adjustment model.

Authors:  Cameron D Wright; John C Kucharczuk; Sean M O'Brien; Joshua D Grab; Mark S Allen
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 5.209

9.  Optimum lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Nabil P Rizk; Hemant Ishwaran; Thomas W Rice; Long-Qi Chen; Paul H Schipper; Kenneth A Kesler; Simon Law; Toni E M R Lerut; Carolyn E Reed; Jarmo A Salo; Walter J Scott; Wayne L Hofstetter; Thomas J Watson; Mark S Allen; Valerie W Rusch; Eugene H Blackstone
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Robot-assisted thoracolaparoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  J Boone; I H M Borel Rinkes; R van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  7 in total

1.  The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018.

Authors:  Alberto Arezzo; Nereo Vettoretto; Nader K Francis; Marco Augusto Bonino; Nathan J Curtis; Daniele Amparore; Simone Arolfo; Manuel Barberio; Luigi Boni; Ronit Brodie; Nicole Bouvy; Elisa Cassinotti; Thomas Carus; Enrico Checcucci; Petra Custers; Michele Diana; Marilou Jansen; Joris Jaspers; Gadi Marom; Kota Momose; Beat P Müller-Stich; Kyokazu Nakajima; Felix Nickel; Silvana Perretta; Francesco Porpiglia; Francisco Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Marlies Schijven; Gianfranco Silecchia; Roberto Passera; Yoav Mintz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  First intraoperative experience with three-dimensional (3D) high-definition (HD) nasal endoscopy for lacrimal surgeries.

Authors:  Mohammad Javed Ali; Milind N Naik
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  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

4.  The usefulness of three-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients.

Authors:  Kotaro Yamashita; Shinji Mine; Tasuku Toihata; Ian Fukudome; Akihiko Okamura; Masami Yuda; Masaru Hayami; Yu Imamura; Masayuki Watanabe
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 4.230

5.  A comparative study of three-dimensional high-definition and two-dimensional high-definition video systems in totally endoscopic mitral valve replacement.

Authors:  Xin Zang; Huan-Lei Huang; Bin Xie; Jian Liu; Hui-Ming Guo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Clinical comparative study of glasses-free 3D and 2D thoracoscopic surgery in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Rongqiang Wei; Xinyu Ding; Zihao Chen; Ning Xin; Chengdong Liu; Yunhao Fang; Zhifei Xu; Kenan Huang; Hua Tang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 5.738

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.