Literature DB >> 31930080

Ergonomic thoracic port design for video-assisted thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy: a preliminary pilot study.

Han-Yu Deng1,2, Xi Zheng2, Guha Alai1, Ze-Guo Zhuo1, Gang Li1, Jun Luo1, Yi-Dan Lin1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been widely applied in clinical practice. However, the optimal port design for thoracoscopic esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy has not been well established. Here we introduced our novel ergonomic thoracic port design as well as our novel procedures of lymphadenectomy via tissue interactive retraction and compared its effects with that of conventional port design in this pilot study.
METHODS: Patients undergoing McKeown MIE from January 2018 to December 2018 in one surgical team were randomly assigned into the ergonomic port design group and conventional port design group. Data of baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and ergonomic assessment were collected and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: A total of 70 patients undergoing curative McKeown MIE were randomly assigned and there were 35 patients in each group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable and well-matched. Moreover, there was no significant difference of number of total dissected lymph nodes, positive lymph nodes and total dissected mediastinal lymph nodes between the two groups. As for perioperative outcomes, there was also no significant difference of in-operating time and blood loss in the thoracic part between the two groups. However, there were significantly less times of forced pause of the surgeon by fatigue during thoracic part in the ergonomic group compared to conventional group (mean time: 1.1 vs. 7.4, respectively; P<0.001) and the symptom score referable to the musculoskeletal system by the surgeon was significantly lower in the ergonomic group than in the conventional group (2.3 vs. 7.6; P<0.001). Postoperatively, there was no significant difference of hospital stay duration and rate of complication and 30-day mortality between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our novel thoracoscopic port design and procedures of lymphadenectomy was proved to be feasible and ergonomic, which could be easily mastered by most of the thoracic surgeons. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE); ergonomic; port design; video-assisted

Year:  2019        PMID: 31930080      PMCID: PMC6944613          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2019.08.19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  14 in total

1.  Modified anastomotic technique for thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: early outcomes and technical details.

Authors:  Hanlu Zhang; Longqi Chen; Yingcai Geng; Yu Zheng; Yun Wang
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.429

2.  Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical esophagectomy with lateral-prone position.

Authors:  Zheng Ma; Huijun Niu; Taiqian Gong
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  A novel method for lymphadenectomy along the left laryngeal recurrent nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Yong Xi; Zhenkai Ma; Yaxing Shen; Hao Wang; Mingxiang Feng; Lijie Tan; Qun Wang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Effect of Esophagus Position on Surgical Difficulty and Postoperative Morbidities After Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Naoya Yoshida; Yoshifumi Baba; Hironobu Shigaki; Shinya Shiraishi; Kazuto Harada; Masayuki Watanabe; Masaaki Iwatsuki; Junji Kurashige; Yasuo Sakamoto; Yuji Miyamoto; Takatsugu Ishimoto; Keisuke Kosumi; Ryuma Tokunaga; Yasuyuki Yamashita; Hideo Baba
Journal:  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-12-18

5.  Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in treating middle thoracic esophageal cancer.

Authors:  H-Y Deng; W-X Huang; G Li; S-X Li; J Luo; G Alai; Y Wang; L-X Liu; Y-D Lin
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 3.429

6.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.

Authors:  Babatunde A Yerokun; Zhifei Sun; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Brian C Gulack; Paul J Speicher; Mohamed A Adam; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark W Onaitis; David H Harpole; Mark F Berry; Matthew G Hartwig
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Thoracoscopic esophagectomy while in a prone position for esophageal cancer: a preceding anterior approach method.

Authors:  Soji Ozawa; Eisuke Ito; Akihito Kazuno; Osamu Chino; Minoru Nakui; Soichiro Yamamoto; Hideo Shimada; Hiroyasu Makuuchi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-30       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Factors influencing difficulty of the thoracic procedure in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Akihiko Okamura; Masayuki Watanabe; Shinji Mine; Koujiro Nishida; Yu Imamura; Takanori Kurogochi; Yuko Kitagawa; Takeshi Sano
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Oesophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Arjun Pennathur; Michael K Gibson; Blair A Jobe; James D Luketich
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-02-02       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.