4.6 Article

Endobronchial tumor debulking with a flexible cryoprobe for immediate treatment of malignant stenosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 139, Issue 4, Pages 997-1000

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.06.023

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: In addition to use of a laser, argon plasma coagulation, electrocautery, or coring with a rigid bronchoscope, tumor debulking with a flexible cryoprobe is used for therapeutic bronchoscopy with an immediate effect for endobronchial pathologies. We performed this analysis to determine the usefulness, efficacy, and safety of the flexible cryorecanalization in a large population under routine conditions. Methods: We identified 225 bronchoscopic interventions that were done as cryorecanalization with a flexible cryoprobe. All patients had symptomatic airway stenosis. We determined the endoscopic success rate and safety (bleeding and perforation) of the procedure. Results: Successful cryorecanalization was achieved in 205 (91.1%) of 225 patients. The flexible cryoprobe was used with all patients, in most patients in combination with flexible bronchoscopy and only in a minority (n = 31, 13.8%) in combination with a rigid bronchoscope. Additional interventional techniques used were endobronchial stents (n = 11, 4.9%) and argon plasma coagulation (n = 37, 16.4%). Mild bleeding (if ice-cold NaCl or epinephrine solution was necessary) occurred in 9 (4.0%) patients, moderate bleeding (if argon plasma coagulation or a bronchus blocker was required) occurred in 18 (8.0%) patients, and severe bleeding (events with hemodynamic instability) never occurred. Conclusions: Cryorecanalization with the flexible cryoprobe for treatment of symptomatic endobronchial tumor stenosis is a safe technique with a high success rate and immediate treatment effect. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 997-1000)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available