Effect of retrosternal versus posterior mediastinum approach for tubular stomach reconstruction on early surgical complications and short-term quality of life in patients with McKeown esophagectomy: A case control study
10.7507/1007-4848.201701020
- VernacularTitle:经胸骨后与后纵隔管状胃上提路径对食管癌术后并发症及近期生活质量影响的病例对照研究
- Author:
ZHANG Xiaobin
1
;
YANG Yu
1
;
SUN Yifeng
1
;
GUO Xufeng
1
;
YE Bo
1
;
HUA Rong
1
;
MAO Teng
1
;
LI Zhigang
1
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200030, P.R.China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma;
tubular stomach;
quality of life
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2018;25(2):143-147
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare short-term quality of life and postoperative complications in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with different routes reconstruction after McKeown esophagectomy. Methods The clinical data of 144 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who received McKeown esophagectomy in Shanghai Chest Hospital from January 2016 to October 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Among them 93 patients accepted retrosternal approach (a RR group, 71 males and 22 females at an average age of 63.5±7.7 years) and 51 patients accepted posterior mediastinal approach (a PR group, 39 males and 12 females at an average age of 62.3±8.0 years). Short-term surgical outcomes were compared and a Quality of Life Questionnaire of Patients Underwent Esophagectomy 1.0 was performed at postoperative 1st and 3rd month. Results There was no difference in two groups in sex, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), and location and clinical stage of tumors (P>0.05). The neoadjuvant therapy was more performed in the RR group (16.1% vs. 5.9%, P=0.075). There were more robot-assisted esophagecctomy operations performed in the PR group (52.9% vs. 45.2%, P=0.020). No significant difference was noted in operation duration, intraoperative blood loss or length of ICU stay between the RR and PR groups (251.3±59.1 min vs. 253.1±27.7 min, P=0.862; 223.7±75.1 ml vs. 240.0±75.1 ml, P=0.276; 3.7±6.6 d vs. 2.3±2.1 d, P=0.139). The patients in the PR group had more lymph nodes dissected and shorter hospital stay (P<0.001). Rate of R1/2 resection was higher in the RR group (12.9% vs. 5.9%, P=0.187). No surgery-related mortality was observed in both groups. The anastomotic leak and the anastomotic stricture was higher in the RR group than that in the PR group (25.8% vs. 5.9%, P=0.003). No significant difference was found between the two groups in the quality of life at postoperative 1st and 3rd month. However, the quality of life at postoperative 3rd month significantly improved in both groups (P<0.001). Compared with the PR group, the dysphagia was more severe in the RR group at postoperative 1st month (3.3±1.5 vs. 2.6±1.1, P=0.007), while the reflux symptom was lighter at postoperative 3rd month (3.0±1.8 vs. 3.6±1.6, P=0.045). Conclusion The two different routes reconstruction after McKeown esophagectomy are both safe and feasible. The anterior mediastinal approach increases the risk of anastomotic leak, but with low incidence of reflux symptom.
