4.6 Article

A Strategy for Supraclavicular Lymph Node Dissection Using Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Lymph Node Status in Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 95, 期 6, 页码 1930-1937

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.03.069

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The desirability of supraclavicular lymph node (LN) dissection, which is the cervical part of three-field LN dissection, has been discussed for a long time. In this study, we examine the pattern of supraclavicular LN metastasis in esophageal cancer, with a particular focus on the correlation between recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) LN and supraclavicular LN metastasis. Methods. In all, 220 cases of R0 resected T1 to T3 squamous cell carcinomas were retrospectively examined. All of these patients underwent bilateral RLN LNs dissection; none received cancer treatment before surgery. Results. Of 21 upper esophageal cancer cases, 33.3% of the patients had metastasis in the supraclavicular LN. Every patient in whom supraclavicular LN metastasis developed had metastasis in the RLN LN. Of 141 cases of middle esophageal cancer, 19.1% had metastasis in the supraclavicular LN. Among the patients whose RLN LN metastasized, 38.3% had metastasis in the supraclavicular LN. A similar correlation between RLN LN and supraclavicular LN metastasis was observed in lower esophageal cancer cases, especially in T3 cases. When considering cancers of the esophagus and patients who had metastasis in the supraclavicular LN, our data demonstrated that RLN LN metastasis did not always lead to metastasis on the same side of the supraclavicular LN. Conclusions. The status of the RLN LN can be an indicator of supraclavicular LN dissection in upper esophageal cancer patients and advanced cases of middle and lower esophageal cancer patients. Bilateral supraclavicular LN dissection should be recommended even when only unilateral RLN LN metastasis occurs. (C) 2013 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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