4.6 Article

Treatments for complications of tracheal sleeve resection for papillary thyroid carcinoma with tracheal invasion

期刊

EJSO
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 176-181

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.12.008

关键词

Thyroid carcinoma; Sleeve resection; Complication; Tracheal invasion; CO2 laser

资金

  1. Science and Technology Program Fund of Guangdong Province [2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the treatment, prognosis, and complications of differentiated thyroid carcinoma with tracheal invasion. We report our outcomes from a single center using a tracheal sleeve resection. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis of clinicopathological data on tracheal sleeve resection in patients with thyroid cancer and accompanying tracheal invasion from January 2009 to July 2012. The postoperative complications were analyzed and the literature was reviewed. Results: Nineteen patients with thyroid carcinoma and accompanying tracheal invasion underwent tracheal sleeve resection followed by end-to-end anastomosis. The median survival time was 22 months. Five patients (5/19) developed postoperative complications. The major complications included bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (2 cases), tracheal anastomotic stenosis (1 case), esophageal fistula (2 cases), and anastomotic dehiscence (2 cases). The treatment for these complications included partial posterior cordectomy by CO2 laser for bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis; CO2 laser treatment followed by postoperative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (20 Gy/10 times) for tracheal anastomotic stenosis, femoral anterior dissociative flap to repair esophageal fistula, and a T-tube positioned in the wound in cases of anastomotic dehiscence. Conclusions: Tracheal sleeve resection remain a safe option with less morbidity and perioperative complications for the management of patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma accompanied by intratracheal invasion. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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