Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?
It has been said that “thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy”, but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited instit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society 2021-10, Vol.18 (4), p.724-733 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 733 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 724 |
container_title | Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society |
container_volume | 18 |
creator | Murakami, Kentaro Yoshida, Masahiro Uesato, Masaya Toyozumi, Takeshi Isozaki, Tetsuro Urahama, Ryuma Kano, Masayuki Matsumoto, Yasunori Matsubara, Hisahiro |
description | It has been said that “thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy”, but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (
p
= 0.005) and CLIs (
p
= 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (
p
= 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10388-021-00855-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550629436</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2564322351</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-8b475a78c5d9be0e1c76b1af43e5930156f04ab69d1f4eb2a2c0ff4cc4a475483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kDtPwzAYRS0EouXxBxhQJBaWgN9JJoTKU6rEQmfLcb60qZI42AlS_z0uKUViYPps-dxr-yB0QfANwTi59QSzNI0xJTHGqRBxdoCmRBIaZ1gmh_u1yCboxPs1xozylB2jCeOUJzRNpmjxYMFH_co6baw3tqtMBN52K70E09tmEznQdb0dxWAg6qzvY9uB0331GbYtDI1tKx1VbRS4yGgP_u4MHZW69nC-m6do8fT4PnuJ52_Pr7P7eWw4lX2c5jwROkmNKLIcMBCTyJzokjMQGcNEyBJzncusICWHnGpqcFlyY7gOwfCVU3Q99nbOfgzge9VU3kBd6xbs4BUVAkuacSYDevUHXdvBteF1gZKcUcoECRQdKeOs9w5K1bmq0W6jCFZb6WqUroJ09S1dZSF0uase8gaKfeTHcgDYCPhw1C7B_d79T-0Xt_SNHw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2564322351</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Murakami, Kentaro ; Yoshida, Masahiro ; Uesato, Masaya ; Toyozumi, Takeshi ; Isozaki, Tetsuro ; Urahama, Ryuma ; Kano, Masayuki ; Matsumoto, Yasunori ; Matsubara, Hisahiro</creator><creatorcontrib>Murakami, Kentaro ; Yoshida, Masahiro ; Uesato, Masaya ; Toyozumi, Takeshi ; Isozaki, Tetsuro ; Urahama, Ryuma ; Kano, Masayuki ; Matsumoto, Yasunori ; Matsubara, Hisahiro</creatorcontrib><description>It has been said that “thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy”, but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (
p
= 0.005) and CLIs (
p
= 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (
p
= 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1612-9059</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1612-9067</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10388-021-00855-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34247287</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Singapore: Springer Singapore</publisher><subject>Cancer surgery ; Clinical medicine ; Esophageal cancer ; Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery ; Esophagectomy - adverse effects ; Esophagectomy - methods ; Esophagus ; Gastroenterology ; Humans ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Ostomy ; Pneumonia ; Pneumonia - epidemiology ; Pneumonia - etiology ; Pneumonia - prevention & control ; Postoperative period ; Review Article ; Surgical Oncology ; Surgical outcomes ; Thoracic Surgery ; Thoracoscopy - adverse effects ; Thoracoscopy - methods ; Thoracotomy</subject><ispartof>Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2021-10, Vol.18 (4), p.724-733</ispartof><rights>The Japan Esophageal Society 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Japan Esophageal Society.</rights><rights>The Japan Esophageal Society 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-8b475a78c5d9be0e1c76b1af43e5930156f04ab69d1f4eb2a2c0ff4cc4a475483</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-8b475a78c5d9be0e1c76b1af43e5930156f04ab69d1f4eb2a2c0ff4cc4a475483</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0115-7726</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10388-021-00855-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10388-021-00855-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34247287$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Murakami, Kentaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshida, Masahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uesato, Masaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toyozumi, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isozaki, Tetsuro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Urahama, Ryuma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kano, Masayuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsumoto, Yasunori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsubara, Hisahiro</creatorcontrib><title>Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?</title><title>Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society</title><addtitle>Esophagus</addtitle><addtitle>Esophagus</addtitle><description>It has been said that “thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy”, but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (
p
= 0.005) and CLIs (
p
= 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (
p
= 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.</description><subject>Cancer surgery</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Esophageal cancer</subject><subject>Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Esophagectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Esophagectomy - methods</subject><subject>Esophagus</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Pneumonia</subject><subject>Pneumonia - epidemiology</subject><subject>Pneumonia - etiology</subject><subject>Pneumonia - prevention & control</subject><subject>Postoperative period</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Thoracic Surgery</subject><subject>Thoracoscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Thoracoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Thoracotomy</subject><issn>1612-9059</issn><issn>1612-9067</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kDtPwzAYRS0EouXxBxhQJBaWgN9JJoTKU6rEQmfLcb60qZI42AlS_z0uKUViYPps-dxr-yB0QfANwTi59QSzNI0xJTHGqRBxdoCmRBIaZ1gmh_u1yCboxPs1xozylB2jCeOUJzRNpmjxYMFH_co6baw3tqtMBN52K70E09tmEznQdb0dxWAg6qzvY9uB0331GbYtDI1tKx1VbRS4yGgP_u4MHZW69nC-m6do8fT4PnuJ52_Pr7P7eWw4lX2c5jwROkmNKLIcMBCTyJzokjMQGcNEyBJzncusICWHnGpqcFlyY7gOwfCVU3Q99nbOfgzge9VU3kBd6xbs4BUVAkuacSYDevUHXdvBteF1gZKcUcoECRQdKeOs9w5K1bmq0W6jCFZb6WqUroJ09S1dZSF0uase8gaKfeTHcgDYCPhw1C7B_d79T-0Xt_SNHw</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Murakami, Kentaro</creator><creator>Yoshida, Masahiro</creator><creator>Uesato, Masaya</creator><creator>Toyozumi, Takeshi</creator><creator>Isozaki, Tetsuro</creator><creator>Urahama, Ryuma</creator><creator>Kano, Masayuki</creator><creator>Matsumoto, Yasunori</creator><creator>Matsubara, Hisahiro</creator><general>Springer Singapore</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0115-7726</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?</title><author>Murakami, Kentaro ; Yoshida, Masahiro ; Uesato, Masaya ; Toyozumi, Takeshi ; Isozaki, Tetsuro ; Urahama, Ryuma ; Kano, Masayuki ; Matsumoto, Yasunori ; Matsubara, Hisahiro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-8b475a78c5d9be0e1c76b1af43e5930156f04ab69d1f4eb2a2c0ff4cc4a475483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Cancer surgery</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Esophageal cancer</topic><topic>Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Esophagectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Esophagectomy - methods</topic><topic>Esophagus</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Pneumonia</topic><topic>Pneumonia - epidemiology</topic><topic>Pneumonia - etiology</topic><topic>Pneumonia - prevention & control</topic><topic>Postoperative period</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Thoracic Surgery</topic><topic>Thoracoscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Thoracoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Thoracotomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Murakami, Kentaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshida, Masahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uesato, Masaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toyozumi, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isozaki, Tetsuro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Urahama, Ryuma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kano, Masayuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsumoto, Yasunori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsubara, Hisahiro</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Murakami, Kentaro</au><au>Yoshida, Masahiro</au><au>Uesato, Masaya</au><au>Toyozumi, Takeshi</au><au>Isozaki, Tetsuro</au><au>Urahama, Ryuma</au><au>Kano, Masayuki</au><au>Matsumoto, Yasunori</au><au>Matsubara, Hisahiro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?</atitle><jtitle>Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society</jtitle><stitle>Esophagus</stitle><addtitle>Esophagus</addtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>724</spage><epage>733</epage><pages>724-733</pages><issn>1612-9059</issn><eissn>1612-9067</eissn><abstract>It has been said that “thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy”, but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (
p
= 0.005) and CLIs (
p
= 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (
p
= 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.</abstract><cop>Singapore</cop><pub>Springer Singapore</pub><pmid>34247287</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10388-021-00855-9</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0115-7726</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1612-9059 |
ispartof | Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2021-10, Vol.18 (4), p.724-733 |
issn | 1612-9059 1612-9067 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550629436 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Cancer surgery Clinical medicine Esophageal cancer Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery Esophagectomy - adverse effects Esophagectomy - methods Esophagus Gastroenterology Humans Medicine Medicine & Public Health Ostomy Pneumonia Pneumonia - epidemiology Pneumonia - etiology Pneumonia - prevention & control Postoperative period Review Article Surgical Oncology Surgical outcomes Thoracic Surgery Thoracoscopy - adverse effects Thoracoscopy - methods Thoracotomy |
title | Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T23%3A56%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20thoracoscopic%20esophagectomy%20really%20reduce%20post-operative%20pneumonia%20in%20all%20cases?&rft.jtitle=Esophagus%20:%20official%20journal%20of%20the%20Japan%20Esophageal%20Society&rft.au=Murakami,%20Kentaro&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=724&rft.epage=733&rft.pages=724-733&rft.issn=1612-9059&rft.eissn=1612-9067&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10388-021-00855-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2564322351%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2564322351&rft_id=info:pmid/34247287&rfr_iscdi=true |