A middle lobe sparing sleeve resection versus bilobectomy for right lower central non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective propensity score matched cohort study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wang J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11020639 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite superior short-term outcomes, there is considerable debate about the oncological efficacy of the left approach esophagectomy for middle and lower squamous esophageal carcinoma (ESCC). A propensity score-matched retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the left approach's short- and long-term effects.MethodsWe recorded data from patients with ESCC who underwent curative resection via the left or right approach between January 2010 and December 2015. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, and maximally selected rank statistics (MSRS) were utilized to determine the appropriate number of lymph nodes to resect during esophagectomy.ResultsOne hundred and forty-eight ESCC patients underwent esophagectomy via the right approach, and 108 underwent the left approach esophagectomy. After PSM, the left approach esophagectomy showed statistically significant superiority in operative time and time to oral intake, and there was a trend toward a shorter length of hospital stay. Fewer cervical, upper thoracic, and recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes were harvested via the left approach than the right approach; the total number of lymph nodes harvested via the left and right approaches was similar. Similar long-term survival outcomes were achieved. MSRS suggested that at least 25 lymph nodes are needed to be resected during esophagectomy to improve survival in N0 patients.ConclusionsThe left approach esophagectomy might facilitate postoperative recovery in patients with middle and lower ESCC. With adequate lymphadenectomy, the left approach esophagectomy might achieve similar long-term outcomes for middle and lower ESCC patients.
| S-EPMC9792602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLaparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH).ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.Design, setting, and participantsIn this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included.InterventionsRobotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.Main outcomes and measuresData on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed.ResultsOf 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46).Conclusion and relevanceRobotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.
| S-EPMC8908223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients experience anorectal dysfunction after rectal surgery, which is known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Robotic systems have many technical advantages that may be suitable for functional preservation after low rectal resection. Thus, the study aimed to explore whether robotic surgery can reduce the incidence and severity of LARS.MethodsPatients undergoing minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for low rectal cancer were enrolled between January 2015 and December 2020. The patients were divided into robotic or laparoscopic groups. The LARS survey was conducted at 6, 12 and 18 months postoperatively. Major LARS scores were analysed as the primary endpoint. In order to reduce confounding factors, one-to-two propensity score matches were used.ResultsIn total, 342 patients were enrolled in the study. At 18 months postoperatively, the incidence of LARS was 68.7% (235/342); minor LARS was identified in 112/342 patients (32.7%), and major LARS in 123/342 (36.0%). After matching, the robotic group included 74 patients, and the laparoscopic group included 148 patients. The incidence of major LARS in the robotic group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopic group at 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, tumour location, laparoscopic surgery, intersphincteric resection, neoadjuvant therapy, and anastomotic leakage were independent risk factors for major LARS after minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for low rectal cancer. Furthermore, a major LARS prediction model was constructed. Results of model evaluation showed that the nomogram had good prediction accuracy and efficiency.ConclusionsPatients with low rectal cancer may benefit from robotic surgery to reduce the incidence and severity of LARS. Our nomogram could aid surgeons in setting an individualized treatment program for low rectal cancer patients.
| S-EPMC10978601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).MethodsAn international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS.ResultsOverall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy.ConclusionThis international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.
| S-EPMC8523385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).MethodsAn international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.ResultsThree-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).ConclusionR-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.
| S-EPMC8743054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report the thoracoscopic RS5 segmentectomy with VVBA (V, vein; V, ventilation; B, bronchus; A, artery) method and confirmed that the segmental plane visualized by vein-first resection is slightly narrower than the traditional artery-first resection.
| S-EPMC8782223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) between patients who received neoadjuvant radiation followed by resection (NRR) and those who received upfront resection (UR) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).A total of 772 LAPC patients who underwent curative-intent surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant radiation from 2004 to 2013 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to eliminate possible bias. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze long-term outcome. Independent risk factors of CSS were predicted by Cox proportional hazards model. Subgroup analyses were done according to 5 variables.The propensity score model matched 196 patients from the whole cohort. Neoadjuvant radiation was an independent predictor of CSS no matter before or after PSM. After PSM, the 1-, 3-, 5-year CSS rates of NRR group were 82.7%, 39.2% and 17.1%, while 64.3%, 19.9% and 12.4% for UR group. The median CSS for NRR group was 25 months, while 17 months for UR group. In subgroup analyses, CSS rates or median CSS of NRR group were still superior to those of UR group in married, unmarried, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, G1+G2, G3+G4, N0 stage, N1 stage and M0 stage subgroups, but no differences were found in other histological types and M1 stage subgroups. Other predictors of CSS included histological type, tumor grade and marital status.Neoadjuvant radiation followed by resection has a significant survival benefit compared with upfront resection in LAPC patients. Therapeutic strategy for LAPC patients should be further explored.
| S-EPMC5564608 | biostudies-other
Project description:The bronchial carcinoid (BC) tumor is a neuroendocrine lung tumor that accounts for 1-2% of all lung neoplasia occurrences. However, BC tumors remain rare in the literature. Nowadays, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery VATS can be safely performed with an excellent clinical outcome. The typical procedure involves three incisions. We assume that performing the same procedures with a single utility incision is possible. This report describes our experience performing sleeve bilobectomy for a neglected carcinoid tumor using a uniportal VATS without spreading of ribs.
| S-EPMC8851288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.ResultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.
| S-EPMC7938843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) based on the incidence of severe postoperative complications (SPC).BackgroundRobotic pancreatoduodenectomy has been gaining momentum in recent years. Vein resection is frequently required in this operation, but no study has compared robotic and open PD-VR using a matched analysis.MethodsThis was an intention-to-treat study designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic to open PD-VR (2011-2021) based on SPC. To achieve a power of 80% (noninferiority margin:10%; α error: 0.05; ß error: 0.20), a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis required 35 pairs.ResultsOf the 151 patients with PD-VR (open = 115, robotic = 36), 35 procedures per group were compared. Elective conversion to open surgery was required in 1 patient with robotic PD-VR (2.9%). One patient in both groups experienced partial vein thrombosis. SPC occurred in 7 (20.0%) and 6 patients (17.1%) in the robotic and open PD-VR groups, respectively (P = 0.759; OR: 1.21 [0.36-4.04]). Three patients died after robotic PD-VR (8.6%) and none died after open PD-VR (P = 0.239). Robotic PD-VR was associated with longer operative time (611.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 529.0 ± 13.0 minutes; P < 0.0001), more type 2 vein resection (28.6% vs 5.7%; P = 0.0234) and less type 3 vein resection (31.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.0008), longer vein occlusion time (30 [25.3-78.3] minutes vs 15 [8-19.5] minutes; P = 0.0098), less blood loss (450 [200-750] mL vs 733 [500-1070.3] mL; P = 0.0075), and fewer blood transfusions (intraoperative: 14.3% vs 48.6%; P = 0.0041) (perioperative: 14.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0001).ConclusionsIn this study, robotic PD-VR was noninferior to open PD-VR for SPC. Robotic and open PD-VR need to be compared in randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC11191888 | biostudies-literature