4.6 Article

Reduction of Blood Loss by Means of the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator for Thoracoscopic Salvage Anatomic Lung Resections

期刊

CANCERS
卷 15, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15164069

关键词

blood loss; cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA); lung cancer; salvage surgery; surgical outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the surgical outcomes associated with Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) usage in thoracoscopic salvage pulmonary resections. The results showed that using CUSA can significantly reduce blood loss during the procedure, although it may result in a longer surgical time. Overall, the use of CUSA in salvage anatomic resections of centrally located lung cancer is crucial in minimizing blood loss.
In centrally located lung tumors, salvage pulmonary resections pose challenges due to adhesions between the pulmonary parenchyma, chest wall, and hilum. This study aimed to investigate the surgical outcomes associated with Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) usage in thoracoscopic salvage pulmonary resections. Patients with centrally located advancedstage lung tumors who underwent salvage anatomic resections following systemic or radiotherapy were included. They were categorized into CUSA and non-CUSA groups, and perioperative parameters and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Results: The study included 7 patients in the CUSA group and 15 in the non-CUSA group. Despite a longer median surgical time in the CUSA group (3.8 h vs. 6.0 h, p = 0.021), there was a significant reduction in blood loss (100 mL vs. 250 mL, p = 0.014). Multivariate analyses revealed that the use of CUSA and radiotherapy had opposing effects on blood loss (beta: 296.7, 95% CI: 24.8 to 568.6, p = 0.034 and beta: 282.9, 95% CI: 19.7 to 546.3, p = 0.037, respectively). In conclusion, while using CUSA in the salvage anatomic resection of centrally located lung cancer may result in a longer surgical time, it is crucial in minimizing blood loss during the procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据