Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Ann Surg ; 262(5): 831-9; discussion 829-40, 2015 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26583673

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the postoperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs). BACKGROUND: The feasibility of the laparoscopic approach for gGIST resection has been demonstrated; however, its impact on outcomes, particularly its oncologic safety for tumors greater than 5 cm, remains unknown. METHODS: Among 1413 patients treated for a GIST in 61 European centers between 2001 and 2013, patients who underwent primary resection for a gGIST smaller than 20 cm (N = 666), by either laparoscopy (group L, n = 282) or open surgery (group O, n = 384), were compared. Multivariable analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality and morbidity rates in groups L and O were 0.4% versus 2.1% (P = 0.086) and 11.3% vs 19.5% (P = 0.004), respectively. Laparoscopic resection was independently protective against in-hospital morbidity (odds ratio 0.54, P = 0.014). The rate of R0 resection was 95.7% in group L and 92.7% in group O (P = 0.103). After 1:1 propensity score matching (n = 224), the groups were comparable according to age, sex, tumor location and size, mitotic index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, and the extent of surgical resection. After adjustment for BMI, overall morbidity (10.3% vs 19.6%; P = 0.005), surgical morbidity (4.9% vs 9.8%; P = 0.048), and medical morbidity (6.2% vs 13.4%; P = 0.01) were significantly lower in group L. Five-year recurrence-free survival was significantly better in group L (91.7% vs 85.2%; P = 0.011). In tumors greater than 5 cm, in-hospital morbidity and 5-year recurrence-free survival were similar between the groups (P = 0.255 and P = 0.423, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for gGISTs is associated with favorable short-term outcomes without compromising oncologic results.


Assuntos
Gastrectomia/métodos , Tumores do Estroma Gastrointestinal/cirurgia , Laparoscopia/métodos , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirurgia , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Seguimentos , Mortalidade Hospitalar/tendências , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/mortalidade , Período Pós-Operatório , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Ann Surg ; 260(5): 764-70; discussion 770-1, 2014 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25379847

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) on anastomotic leakage (AL) and other postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer (EC) resection. BACKGROUND: Conflicting data have emerged from randomized studies regarding the impact of NCRT on AL. METHODS: Among 2944 consecutive patients operated on for EC between 2000 and 2010 in 30 European centers, patients treated by NCRT after surgery (n=593) were compared with those treated by primary surgery (n=1487). Multivariable analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for the differences in some baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Patients in the NCRT group were younger, with a higher prevalence of male sex, malnutrition, advanced tumor stage, squamous cell carcinoma, and surgery after 2005 when compared with the primary surgery group. Postoperative AL rates were 8.8% versus 10.6% (P=0.220), and 90-day postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 9.3% versus 7.2% (P=0.110) and 33.4% versus 32.1% (P=0.564), respectively. Pulmonary complication rates did not differ between groups (24.6% vs 22.5%; P=0.291), whereas chylothorax (2.5% vs 1.2%; P=0.020), cardiovascular complications (8.6% vs 0.1%; P=0.037), and thromboembolic events (8.6% vs 6.0%; P=0.037) were higher in the NCRT group. After propensity score matching, AL rates were 8.8% versus 11.3% (P=0.228), with more chylothorax (2.5% vs 0.7%; P=0.030) and trend toward more cardiovascular and thromboembolic events in the NCRT group (P=0.069). Predictors of AL were high American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, supracarinal tumoral location, and cervical anastomosis, but not NCRT. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not have an impact on the AL rate after EC resection (NCT 01927016).


Assuntos
Quimiorradioterapia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Fístula Anastomótica/epidemiologia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patologia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Diagnóstico por Imagem , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patologia , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Metástase Linfática , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia Neoadjuvante , Pontuação de Propensão , Fatores de Risco , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA