scholarly journals Prophylactic Thoracic Duct Obstruction During Esophagectomy: What Is the Impact on Perioperative Risks and Long-term Survival? a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 233 (5) ◽  
pp. e185
Author(s):  
Clara Lucato dos Santos ◽  
Laura Lucato dos Santos ◽  
Leticia N. Datrino ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca S. Tristão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Duct Obstruction ◽  
Perioperative Risks ◽  
The Impact

665 PROPHYLACTIC THORACIC DUCT OBSTRUCTION DURING ESOPHAGECTOMY: THE IMPACT ON PERIOPERATIVE RISKS AND LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Santos ◽  
Laura Santos ◽  
Leticia Datrino ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Tristão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Thoracic Duct Ligation ◽  
Duct Ligation

Abstract   During esophagectomy for cancer, there is no consensus if prophylactic thoracic duct ligation (TDL), with or without thoracic duct resection (TDR), could influence the perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared patients who went through esophagectomy associated or not to ligation or resection of the thoracic duct. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare thoracic duct ligation, with or without resection, and non-thoracic duct ligation; (2) involve adult patients with esophageal cancer; (3) articles that analyses the outcomes—perioperative complications, perioperative mortality, chylothorax development and overall survival; (4) only clinical trials and cohort were accepted. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used, and random-effects model was performed. Results Fifteen articles were selected, comprising 6,249 patients. TDL did not reduce the risk for chylothorax (Risk difference [RD]: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). Also, TDL did not influence the risk for complications (RD: -0.02; 95%CI: −0.11, 0.07); mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.00); and reoperation rate (RD: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). TDR was associated with higher risk for postoperative complications (RD: 0.1; 95%CI 0.00, 0.19); chylothorax (RD: 0.02; 95%CI 0.00, 0.03). Both TDL and TDR did not influence the overall survival rate (TDL: HR: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.86, 1.48; and TDR: HR: 1.16; 95%CI: 0.8, 1.51). Conclusion Thoracic duct obliteration with or without its resection during esophagectomy does not change long term survival. Nonetheless, TDR increased the risk for postoperative complications and chylothorax.

The impact of anastomotic leakage on recurrence and long-term survival in patients with colonic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khadra Bashir Mohamed ◽  
Christine Haangard Hansen ◽  
Peter-Martin Krarup ◽  
Tina Fransgård ◽  
Michael Tvilling Madsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anastomotic Leakage ◽  
Colonic Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1141
Author(s):  
Gianpaolo Marte ◽  
Andrea Tufo ◽  
Francesca Steccanella ◽  
Ester Marra ◽  
Piera Federico ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Multidisciplinary Treatment ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
The Impact

Background: In the last 10 years, the management of patients with gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) has changed from chemotherapy alone, towards a multidisciplinary treatment with liver surgery playing a leading role. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of hepatectomy for GCLM and to analyze the impact of related prognostic factors on long-term outcomes. Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from January 2010 to September 2020. We included prospective and retrospective studies that reported the outcomes after hepatectomy for GCLM. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prognostic factors was performed. Results: We included 40 studies, including 1573 participants who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. Post-operative morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 24.7% and 1.6%, respectively. One-year, 3-years, and 5-years overall survival (OS) were 72%, 37%, and 26%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years disease-free survival (DFS) were 44%, 24%, and 22%, respectively. Well-moderately differentiated tumors, pT1–2 and pN0–1 adenocarcinoma, R0 resection, the presence of solitary metastasis, unilobar metastases, metachronous metastasis, and chemotherapy were all strongly positively associated to better OS and DFS. Conclusion: In the present study, we demonstrated that hepatectomy for GCLM is feasible and provides benefits in terms of long-term survival. Identification of patient subgroups that could benefit from surgical treatment is mandatory in a multidisciplinary setting.

723 TWO- VS. THREE-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES.

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Clara Lucato Santos ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Extended Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Short And Long Term

Abstract   Nowadays, there is still no consensus about the benefits of adding neck lymphadenectomy to the traditional two-fields esophagectomy. An extended lymphadenectomy could potentially increase operation time and the risks for postoperative complications. However, extended lymphadenectomy allows resection of cervical nodes at risk for metastases, potentially increasing long-term survival rates. This study aims to estimate whether cervical prophylactic lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences short- and long-term outcomes through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central, and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare two-field vs. three-field esophagectomy; (2) adults (>18 years); (3) articles that analyze short- or long-term outcomes; and (4) clinical trials or cohort studies. The results were summarized by forest plots, with effect size (ES) or risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results Twenty-five articles were selected, comprising 8,954 patients. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated to higher operation time (ES: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18) and higher blood loss (ES: -0.24; 95%CI: −0.37, −0.11). Also, neck lymphadenectomy inputs additional risk for pulmonary complications (RD: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.05). No difference was noted for morbidity (RD: 0.01; 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03); leak (−0.02; 95%CI: −0.07, 0.03); postoperative mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.01), and hospital stay (ES: -0.05; 95%CI -0.20, 0.10). Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18), but did not increase the overall survival (HR: 1.11; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.26). Conclusion Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution once it is associated with poorer short-term outcomes compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival. Future esophageal cancer studies should determine the subgroup of patients who could benefit from prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy in long-term outcomes.

scholarly journals Effect of volatile and intravenous anesthesia on long-term survival of cancer surgery patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Gong ◽  
Chao Dong ◽  
Qian Cai ◽  
Wen Ouyang
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Prognosis ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The impact of volatile anesthesia (INHA) and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on the long-term survival of patients after oncology surgery is a subject of controversy. The purpose of this study was to make overall evaluation of the association between these two anesthetic techniques and long-term prognosis of oncology patients after surgery. Methods Databases were searched according to the PRISMA guidelines up to September 30, 2018. Hazard ratios (HRs) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated after multivariable analyses and propensity score (PS) adjustments. Eight retrospective cohort articles reporting data on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were included. An inverse variance random effects meta-analysis was conducted. The Newcastle Scale was used to assess methodological quality and bias. Results In total, about 18922 cancer patients observed were included in the meta-analysis, of which 10433 cases were available for analysis in INHA and 8489 in TIVA group. Compared to TIVA, INHA showed a shorter OS (HR =1.27, 95% CI 1.069 to 1.516, p=0.007), with a medium heterogeneity (Q-test p=0.003, I-squared=67.6%). However, no significant differences were identified between INHA and TIVA group (HR =1.10, 95% CI 0.729 to 1.659, p=0.651) concerning RFS albeit from a limited data pool. When a subgroup analysis was performed by race, the association was more likely to be observed in the Asian studies (HR=1.46, 95%CI 1.19–1.8, p =0.00), with a much lower heterogeneity (Q-test p=0.148, I-squared=44%). When comparison was done only in breast cancer patients, no significant differences were found for OS (HR=1.625, 95%CI 0.273-9.67, p=0.594) between INHA and TIVA. Conclusion TIVA for cancer surgery might be associated with better OS compared to INHA. The effect of INHA and TIVA on OS and RFS in the perioperative setting remains uncertain, cancer-specific, and has low-level evidence at present. Randomized controlled trials are required in future work. Registry number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (Registration NO.CRD42018109341).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document