Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) induces toxicities from inflammation and immunological suppression. Omega-3 fatty acids, glutamine, and arginine are therapeutic factors that can attenuate such inflammation and promote cellular immunity. The question is whether immunonutrition (IN) during CCRT reduces inflammation and improves the immune function in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Seventy-one locally advanced ESCC patients being treated with CCRT (5-FU and cisplatin) were randomized into 2 groups. The IN group received a combination of omega-3 fatty acids, glutamine, and arginine, whereas the control group received standard formula. The levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interferon-gamma (IFN), interleukin (IL-6, IL-10), CD3, CD4, CD8, white blood cells, neutrophils, and total lymphocytes were measured before and during treatment. The levels of CRP (P = 0.001) and TNF (P = 0.014) increased more during treatment in the control group than the treatment group, whereas IFN, IL-6, and IL-10 were similar but not significantly. CD3, CD4, CD8, white blood cells, neutrophils, and total lymphocytes decreased more in the control group than in the treatment group, but not significantly. Enteral IN during CCRT reduced the increase of inflammatory cytokine levels.
Patient body mass index, dysphagia, spirometry, type of surgical technique, and operative time can help predict the likelihood of pulmonary or leak complications after esophagectomy. TNM (Tumor, Node, Metastasis) staging can help predict the overall survival after resection in locally advanced cases.
A single dose of preoperative prophylactic cefazolin has no significant benefit in reducing the incidence of SSI in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Whether or not to use a prophylactic depends on the individual patient, and the consideration of the attending surgeon.
Background A minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy is being used increasingly, but concerns remain regarding the feasibility, safety, cost, and outcomes. We performed an analysis of the costs and benefits of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open esophagectomy approaches for esophageal cancer surgery. Methods The data of 83 consecutive patients who underwent a McKeown's esophagectomy at Prince of Songkla University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2014 were analyzed. Open esophagectomy was performed in 54 patients, minimally invasive esophagectomy in 13, and hybrid esophagectomy in 16. There were no differences in patient characteristics among the 3 groups Minimally invasive esophagectomy was undertaken via a thoracoscopic-laparoscopic approach, hybrid esophagectomy via a thoracoscopic-laparotomy approach, and open esophagectomy by a thoracotomy-laparotomy approach. Results Minimally invasive esophagectomy required a longer operative time than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.02), but these patients reported less postoperative pain ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Minimally invasive esophagectomy incurred higher operative and surgical material costs than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.01), but there were no significant differences in inpatient care and total hospital costs. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in the least postoperative pain but the greatest operative cost and longest operative time. Open esophagectomy was associated with the lowest operative cost and shortest operative time but the most postoperative pain. Hybrid esophagectomy had a shorter learning curve while sharing the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.