4.1 Article

Two-step three-field lymph node dissection is beneficial for thoracic esophageal carcinoma

期刊

DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 27-31

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2004.00353.x

关键词

esophageal carcinoma; less invasive surgery; lymph node dissection; three-field dissection; two-step three-field dissection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aggressive surgery including extensive lymph node dissection is considered necessary to improve the long-term survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma. While three-field lymph node dissection is widely performed for patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma, cervical lymph node metastasis is uncommon. In order to reduce surgical stress, we have developed a two-step three-field lymph node dissection procedure for thoracic esophageal carcinoma. In the first-step operation, total thoracic esophagectomy through a right thoracotomy is performed. Mediastinal and abdominal lymph node dissection is performed synchronously. When recurrent nerve lymph node metastasis is pathologically positive, cervical lymph node dissection is performed about 3 weeks after the first operation (second step). Of 343 patients with carcinoma of the esophagus surgically treated in our department between 1990 and 2001, 146 underwent the operation described above. Three-field dissection was performed in 68 patients (group A), while two-field dissection was performed in 78 patients (group B). In the 68 group A patients, cervical lymph node metastasis was positive in 15 patients (22%). There was no marked difference in the onset of major complications between the two groups. The 5-year survival rate was 58% for group A and 61% for group B, not a statistically significant difference. In 78 of the 146 patients, it was possible to avoid cervical lymph node dissection without negatively affecting therapeutic outcomes. Two-step three-field lymph node dissection can reduce surgical stress of patients with good clinical outcome.

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

4.1
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