Clinical efficacy of anterior mediastinal tumor resection by thoracoscopic subcostal approach versus classic subxiphoid approach: A retrospective cohort study
- VernacularTitle:胸腔镜两侧肋间观察孔肋弓下入路与经典剑突下入路行前纵隔肿瘤切除疗效比较的回顾性队列研究
- Author:
Zefei LIAO
1
;
Fengyu CHEN
1
;
Yonglong LIN
1
;
Ronghua WANG
1
;
Gengjie WANG
1
;
Le ZHANG
1
;
Liangyun MA
1
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, The 910th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force, Quanzhou, 362000, Fujian, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Anterior mediastinal tumor;
classic subxiphoid approach;
modified subxiphoid approach;
thoracoscopic surgery
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2024;31(12):1781-1787
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of two procedures in thoracoscopic anterior mediastinal tumor resection. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent thoracoscopic anterior mediastinal tumor resection at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, the 910th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force from October 2016 to January 2024. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach: a modified approach group (bilateral intercostal ports+two subcostal ports) and a classic subxiphoid approach group (one subxiphoid port+two subcostal ports). Perioperative data and postoperative improvement of myasthenia gravis (MG) subgroup were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 55 patients were included, including 27 males and 28 females with a mean age of (49.4±15.1) years. There were 23 patients in the modified approach group and 32 patients in the classic subxiphoid approach group. The modified approach group had shorter operation time [(129.0±20.5) min vs. (148.9±16.7) min, P<0.001], less intraoperative blood loss [(63.0±16.6) mL vs. (75.0±10.8) mL, P<0.001], shorter postoperative drainage tube removal time [(3.1±0.4) d vs. (3.9±0.6) d, P<0.001] and shorter postoperative hospital stay [(4.2±0.4) d vs. (5.0±0.6) d, P<0.001), and lower proportion of intraoperative cardiac dysfunction [4 (17.4%) vs. 14 (43.8%), P=0.040]. There was no statistical difference in maximum diameter of tumor resected [(4.5±1.7) cm vs. (4.0±0.9) cm, P=0.193] and postoperative drainage volume [(396.4±121.5) mL vs. (399.9±161.3) mL, P=0.932]. There was 1 patient of perioperative collateral injury in the modified approach group (pericardial injury), and 6 patients in the classic subxiphoid approach group (1 patient of diaphragm injury, 1 patient of liver contusion, 4 patients of pericardial injury). There was no statistical difference in pain scores at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after surgery (P>0.05). The postoperative improvement of MG symptoms in the modified approach group was better than that in the classic subxiphoid approach group at 1 year after surgery (complete stable remission rate: 77.8% vs. 50.0%; effective rate: 100.0% vs. 91.6%). No conversion to open chest surgery occurred in either group, and there were no postoperative rehospitalizations or deaths related to surgery within 30 days after surgery in both groups. Conclusion The modified approach is safe and controllable with more open surgical field and more reliable complete resection range than the classic subxiphoid approach group.
