ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Current treatment modalities for spontaneous esophageal perforation remain controversial because of their rarity. OBJECTIVE: To describe our institution's experience in managing patients with spontaneous esophageal rupture and conduct a meta-analysis of existing studies to determine the best evidence-based treatment options. METHODS: We enrolled patients with spontaneous esophageal rupture who underwent their first treatment at our institution. We also identified studies through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases before April 1, 2024, for inclusion in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: This case series included data from 17 patients with delayed diagnosis who were treated with esophageal stents, with an immediate mortality rate of 5.9%. In addition to the cases from our institution, we obtained 944 patients from 46 studies in the final analysis. The combined immediate mortality rate was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.15). The combined re-intervention rate was 11% (95% CI: 0.05-0.19). The combined immediate mortality was 6% (95% CI: 0.04-0.09) after primary closure, 14% (95% CI: 0.02-0.32) after T-tube drain repair, 2% (95% CI: 0.00-0.15) after esophagectomy, 8% (95% CI: 0.03-0.15) after stent placement, and 22% (95% CI: 0.03-0.47) after conservative treatment. The subgroup analysis based on the timing of the intervention showed that the immediate mortality rate in patients initiating treatment within 24 h of rupture was 3% (95% CI: 0.01-0.08), whereas that in patients initiating treatment > 24 h later was 12% (95% CI: 0.08-0.18). CONCLUSION: Outcomes are best after esophagectomy, and primary closure or esophageal stenting is a good option compared with other treatment modalities. Prognosis is related to the timing of intervention, and accurate diagnosis and treatment within 24 h significantly reduces the risk of death in patients. Patients with delayed diagnosis may have a better prognosis with stent placement.
ABSTRACT
To compare the learning curve of mediastinal mass resection between robot-assisted surgery and thoracoscopic surgery. Retrospective perioperative data were collected from 160 mediastinal mass resection cases. Data included 80 initial consecutive video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) resection cases performed from February 2018 to February 2020 and 80 initial consecutive robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) resection cases performed from March 2020 to March 2023. All cases were operated on by a thoracic surgeon. The clinical characteristics and perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared. The operation time in both the RATS group and VATS group was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. Based on this method, the learning curves of both groups were divided into a learning period and mastery period. The VATS group and the RATS group crossed the inflection point in the 27th and 21st case, respectively. Subsequently, we found that the learning period was longer than the mastery period with statistically significant differences in terms of the operating time, and postoperative hospital stay in the VATS group and the RATS group. A certain amount of VATS experience can shorten the learning curve for RATS.