Cargando…

电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Complete thoracoscopic segmentectomy gained great attention with the high detection rate of early lung cancer. Electrocautery and stapler are most commonly used in dividing the intersegmental plane in pulmonary segmentectomy. However, few reports comparing the two methods e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 中国肺癌杂志编辑部 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5973291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28103972
http://dx.doi.org/10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2017.01.06
_version_ 1783326585995132928
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Complete thoracoscopic segmentectomy gained great attention with the high detection rate of early lung cancer. Electrocautery and stapler are most commonly used in dividing the intersegmental plane in pulmonary segmentectomy. However, few reports comparing the two methods exist; all of which contrapose an open approach because complete thoracoscopic approach is not mentioned. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of the two methods in intersegmental plane dissection during complete thoracoscopic pulmonary segmentectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was obtained for 58 consecutive patients who were treated by segmentectomy between September 2013 and March 2016 at a single center. The patients were divided into two groups according to the methods in intersegmental plane dissection. Thirty patients underwent intersegmental plane dissection with electrocautery (electrocautery group), and 28 patients underwent the same process using staplers (stapler group). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables for patients were compared between two groups. RESULTS: The operative time of electrocautery group was longer than that of the stapler group [(248.70±54.46) min vs (209.39±67.25) min, P=0.017]. Furthermore, no statistical difference was found between two groups in intraoperative blood loss (60.00 mL vs 65.00 mL), total drainage volume (445.00 mL vs 590.00 mL), drainage volume in first 3 days after surgery [(455.33±318.333) mL vs (422.32±194.95) mL], duration of chest tube drainage [(4.20±2.07) d vs (4.11±1.61) d], postoperative hospital stay [(6.33±2.98) d vs (5.89±1.55) d], and incidence of minor postoperative complication [16.7% (5/30) vs 7.1% (2/28)]. CONCLUSION: Although operative time was longer in electrocautery group than in stapler group, using electrocautery for intersegmental plane dissection in complete thoracoscopic segmentectomy appeared to be a very safe and feasible procedure compared with stapler.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5973291
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher 中国肺癌杂志编辑部
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59732912018-07-06 电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究 Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi 临床研究 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Complete thoracoscopic segmentectomy gained great attention with the high detection rate of early lung cancer. Electrocautery and stapler are most commonly used in dividing the intersegmental plane in pulmonary segmentectomy. However, few reports comparing the two methods exist; all of which contrapose an open approach because complete thoracoscopic approach is not mentioned. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of the two methods in intersegmental plane dissection during complete thoracoscopic pulmonary segmentectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was obtained for 58 consecutive patients who were treated by segmentectomy between September 2013 and March 2016 at a single center. The patients were divided into two groups according to the methods in intersegmental plane dissection. Thirty patients underwent intersegmental plane dissection with electrocautery (electrocautery group), and 28 patients underwent the same process using staplers (stapler group). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables for patients were compared between two groups. RESULTS: The operative time of electrocautery group was longer than that of the stapler group [(248.70±54.46) min vs (209.39±67.25) min, P=0.017]. Furthermore, no statistical difference was found between two groups in intraoperative blood loss (60.00 mL vs 65.00 mL), total drainage volume (445.00 mL vs 590.00 mL), drainage volume in first 3 days after surgery [(455.33±318.333) mL vs (422.32±194.95) mL], duration of chest tube drainage [(4.20±2.07) d vs (4.11±1.61) d], postoperative hospital stay [(6.33±2.98) d vs (5.89±1.55) d], and incidence of minor postoperative complication [16.7% (5/30) vs 7.1% (2/28)]. CONCLUSION: Although operative time was longer in electrocautery group than in stapler group, using electrocautery for intersegmental plane dissection in complete thoracoscopic segmentectomy appeared to be a very safe and feasible procedure compared with stapler. 中国肺癌杂志编辑部 2017-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5973291/ /pubmed/28103972 http://dx.doi.org/10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2017.01.06 Text en 版权所有©《中国肺癌杂志》编辑部2017 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) License. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
spellingShingle 临床研究
电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究
title 电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究
title_full 电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究
title_fullStr 电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究
title_full_unstemmed 电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究
title_short 电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究
title_sort 电刀切割和机械切割在全胸腔镜肺段切除术段间平面分离中应用的对照研究
topic 临床研究
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5973291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28103972
http://dx.doi.org/10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2017.01.06
work_keys_str_mv AT diàndāoqiègēhéjīxièqiègēzàiquánxiōngqiāngjìngfèiduànqièchúshùduànjiānpíngmiànfēnlízhōngyīngyòngdeduìzhàoyánjiū
AT diàndāoqiègēhéjīxièqiègēzàiquánxiōngqiāngjìngfèiduànqièchúshùduànjiānpíngmiànfēnlízhōngyīngyòngdeduìzhàoyánjiū
AT diàndāoqiègēhéjīxièqiègēzàiquánxiōngqiāngjìngfèiduànqièchúshùduànjiānpíngmiànfēnlízhōngyīngyòngdeduìzhàoyánjiū
AT diàndāoqiègēhéjīxièqiègēzàiquánxiōngqiāngjìngfèiduànqièchúshùduànjiānpíngmiànfēnlízhōngyīngyòngdeduìzhàoyánjiū
AT diàndāoqiègēhéjīxièqiègēzàiquánxiōngqiāngjìngfèiduànqièchúshùduànjiānpíngmiànfēnlízhōngyīngyòngdeduìzhàoyánjiū
AT diàndāoqiègēhéjīxièqiègēzàiquánxiōngqiāngjìngfèiduànqièchúshùduànjiānpíngmiànfēnlízhōngyīngyòngdeduìzhàoyánjiū