论文部分内容阅读
Objective: The aim of this study was to explore clinical value of thoracic small incision in radical operation for lung and esophageal cancer in assuring same treatment effects with conventional incision. Methods: Collected data of patients was given radical operation for lung and esophageal cancer in our department from January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007, and performed retrospective analysis, among them, small incision group (improved group) was 143 cases, and conventional group was 167 cases including 6 cases which was changed from small incision to conventional incision in operation. Compared operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage flow, number of lymph node dissected, recovery time of postoperative upper limb function, postoperative pain, postoperative complications etc. between both groups. Results: Compared with conventional group, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage flow, postoperative pain, recovery time of postoperative upper limb function in improved group was improved significantly, and there was no obvious difference in operation time and number of lymph node dissected between both groups. Conclusion: Small incision in radical operation for lung and esophageal cancer is small trauma, and quick recovery after operation, treatment effects of it is basically similar to that of conventional operation method, however, its application is limited in few cases.
Objective: The aim of this study was to explore clinical value of thoracic small incision in radical operation for lung and esophageal cancer in assuring same treatment effects with conventional incision. Methods: Collected data of patients was given radical operation for lung and esophageal cancer in our department from January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007, and performed retrospective analysis, among them, small incision group (improved group) was 143 cases, and conventional group was 167 cases including 6 cases which changed from small incision to conventional incision in operation. Compared operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage flow, number of lymph node dissected, recovery time of postoperative upper limb function, postoperative pain, postoperative pain etc. between both groups. Results: Compared with conventional group, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage flow, postoperative pain, recovery time of postoperative upper limb function in improved group was improved significantly, and there was no obvious difference in operation time and number of lymph node dissected between both groups. Conclusion: Small incision in radical operation for lung and esophageal cancer is small trauma, and quick recovery after operation , treatment effects of it is similar to that of conventional operation method, however, its application is limited in few cases.