Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Whether patients can benefit from three-field lymphadenectomy (3-FL) in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) remains unclear. This study retrospectively compared short-term outcomes between 3-FL and two-field lymphadenectomy (2-FL) in MIE for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) and aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of 3-FL. Methods: There were 284 patients enrolled in the study (124 patients with 3-FL and 160 patients with 2-FL). The cases were matched based on their propensity scores using a matching ratio of 1:1, the nearest neighbor matching protocol, and a caliper of 0.02. Patients were propensity-score matched for sex, cancer location, Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI), and neoadjuvant treatment. The short-term outcomes were postoperative complications, operation characteristics, pathology results and postoperative hospital stay. Results: There were no significant differences in intraoperative hemorrhage, postoperative hospital stay, or postoperative complications between the 2-FL and 3-FL groups. The operation time of the two groups was significantly different (227.1±46.2 vs. 248.5±45.9 min, P=0.001); the operation time of the 3-FL group was about 20 minutes longer than that of the 2-FL group. The number of lymphatic nodes (LNs) obtained in the 3-FL group was significantly higher than that in the 2-FL group (31.3±12.9 vs. 54.6±18.0, P<0.001). Pathological N stage was also significantly different (P=0.002); the 3-FL group was more advanced than the 2-FL group. Conclusions: Compared to 2-FL MIE, 3-FL MIE does not increase postoperative complications, can obtain more LNs, and improves the accuracy of tumor LN staging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zengfeng et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: