Search

Background When a resectable lung cancer that invades across the fissure into an adjacent lobe is encountered, options include a bilobectomy on the right or a pneumonectomy on the left vs a parenchymal-sparing resection combined with a lobectomy. Although parenchymal-sparing combinations are technically possible, the available literature reporting on the related oncologic outcomes is limited. We sought to examine the influence of resection extent on overall survival and recurrence patterns in this scenario. Methods A single-center retrospective medical record review from 2006 to 2018 was performed on all preoperative computed tomography and operative reports of resections greater than a lobectomy. Patients were grouped into maximal resection: bilobectomy or pneumonectomy, and parenchymal-sparing resection: lobectomy with en bloc segment or nonanatomic wedge. Overall survival and cumulative incidence of recurrence were calculated. Results The size of our cohort was 54 patients; 19 maximal and 35 parenchymal-sparing resections. All resections were reported as complete (R0). The parenchymal-sparing group had lower odds of immediate surgical morbidity (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.74; P = .02). Parenchymal-sparing resection was not associated with an increased cumulative incidence of recurrence (P = .98). Postresection estimated overall survival between the 2 cohorts was not significantly different (P = .30). Conclusions When technically feasible, a parenchymal-sparing resection is a good option for the resection of tumors that invade across the fissure. R0 parenchymal-sparing resections do not appear to compromise the oncologic outcomes of overall survival or cumulative incidence of recurrence and also seem to carry less morbidity.

Pain control is challenging during esophagectomy. An epidural is commonly used, but the sympathetic blockade can have unintended consequences such as hypotension or delayed return of bowel function. A transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has the potential to control upper abdominal pain without these adverse consequences. We aimed to compare bilateral TAP blocks with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for immediate management after esophagectomy with a cohort using a thoracic (T5 to T8) epidural.This was a retrospective review of patients undergoing esophagectomy between 2012 and 2016. Primary outcomes were pain scores (0 to 10) assessed at 24, 48, and 72 hours for adequacy of pain control. Secondary outcomes were volume resuscitation at 72 hours, hypotension (systolic blood pressure90 mm Hg), length of stay (LOS), return of bowel function, and complications.Sixty-one patients underwent esophagectomy using bilateral TAP block and PCA (n = 32) or thoracic (T5 to T8) epidural (n = 29). Overall pain scores were not statistically different between the TAP group and the epidural group averaged over 72 hours (4.98 versus 4.39, p = 0.09). During the initial 72 hours after operation, hypotension was less prevalent in the TAP group (25% versus 76%, p0.05) with lower crystalloid resuscitation needs. The LOS in the intensive care unit (3.2 days versus 4.6 days, p0.05) and return of bowel function (5 days versus 6.7 days, p0.05) were considerably shorter in the TAP group. Pulmonary complications were similar.TAP blocks with a PCA is an alternative option for pain control in patients undergoing esophagectomy and may reduce hypotension and need for volume resuscitation with similar pulmonary complications.