The efficacy of VATS, subxiphoid and minithoracotomy pericardial window for surgical management of symptomatic pericardial effusions

Abstract

Amaç: Perikardiyal efüzyon potansiyel olarak ciddi morbidite ve mortalite nedenidir. Video-yardımlı torakoskopik cerrahi (VATS), subksifoid ve minitorakotomi perikardiyal pencere sıklıkla kullanılan cerrahi tedavi seçenekleridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, semptomatik perikardiyal efüzyonun tedavisinde bu üç yöntemin sonuçlarını ve etkinliğini araştırmaktır. Yöntemler: Ekim 2007 ile Aralık 2011 tarihleri arasında Dr. Siyami Ersek Hastanesi\'nde perikardiyal efüzyon nedeniyle ameliyat edilen 88 hasta cerrahi tedavi yöntemlerine göre [Grup 1 (VATS,n=24), Grup 2 (Subksifoid, n=28), Grup 3 (Minitorakotomi, n=36)] üç grup olarak çalışmaya alındı. Gruplar demografik bilgiler, etiyoloji, ameliyat sırası ve sonrasına ait veriler ve sonuçlar, nüks, takip bilgileri, morbidite, mortalite ve sağkalım yönünden incelendi ve mukayese edildi. Bulgular: 88 hasta (37 kadın, 51 erkek, ortalama yaşları 54,47±16,81) çalışmaya alındı. Gruplar cinsiyet dağılımı ve etiyoloji hariç benzer perioperatif özelliklere sahipti. Her üç cerrahi yöntem hastalar tarafından genel olarak iyi tolere edildi. Gruplar ameliyat mortalitesi, 30 günlük mortalite, tüm ameliyat sonrası komplikasyonlar, nüks ve sağkalım oranları yönünden benzer sonuçlara sahipti. Grup 3\'teki hastaların ameliyat süreleri belirgin olarak daha kısa idi (p

Keywords

• Perikardiyal efüzyon, VATS, subksifoid, minitorakotomi, perikardiyal pencere.

The efficacy of VATS, subxiphoid and minithoracotomy pericardial window for surgical management of symptomatic pericardial effusions

Abstract

Objective: Pericardial effusion potentially cause significant morbidity and mortality. Pericardial window by video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), subxiphoid and minithoracotomy is available surgical treatment options. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and outcome of the three different methods for surgical management of symptomatic pericardial effusions. Methods: A retrospective study of patients operated for pericardial effusion between October 2007 to December 2011 at Dr. Siyami Ersek Hospital were divided into three groups according to surgical treatment d: Group 1 (VATS, n=24), Group 2 (Subxiphoid, n=28) Group 3 (Minithoracotomy, n=36). The groups were analyzed and compared using demographic information, operative and postoperative details and course, recurrence, follow-up data, morbidity, mortality and survival. Results: A total of 88 patients (37 women, 51 men, with mean age 54.47±16.81) underwent pericardial window were included in the study. The groups had similar perioperative characteristics except sex distribution and etiology. VATS, Subxiphoid and minithoracotomy pericardial window were well tolerated by patients, resulted in similar rates of mortality, 30-day mortality, overall postoperative complications, recurrence rates and survival. Operative time was significantly shorter in group 3 (p

Keywords

• pericardial effusion, VATS, subxiphoid, minithoracotomy, pericardial window.

References

1. Yüksel C, Hüseyin S, Okyay A, et al. Erişkinlerde subksifoi- dal perikardiyostomi yöntemi ile perikardiyal efüzyon teda- visi. Turkish J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;20:492-496.
2. Tsang SM, Seward BJ, Barnes EM, et al. Outcomes of pri- mary and secondary treatment of pericardial effusion in pa- tients with malignancy. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:248-253.
3. Markiewicz W , Borovik R, Ecker S. Cardiac tamponade in medical patients: treatment and prognosis in the echocar- diographic era. Am Heart J 1986;111:1138–1142.
4. Ohtsuka T, Takamoto S, Nakajima J, Miyairi T, Kotsuka Y. Minimally invasive limited pericardiectomy: hybrid ap- proach. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;70:1429-1430.
5. Piehler JM, Pluth JR, Schaff HV, et al .Surgical manage- ment of effusive disease. Influence of extent of pericar- dial resection on clinical course. J Thorac Cardiovac Surg 1985;90:506-516.
6. Campione A, Cacchiarelli M, Ghiribelli C, et al. Which treat- ment in pericardial effusion? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2002;43:735-739.
7. Cullinane AC, Benjamin PI, Smith D, et al. Prognostic factors in the surgical management of pericardial effusion in the patient with concurrent malignancy. Chest 2004;125:1328– 1334.
8. Liberman M, Labos C, Sampalis JS, et al. Ten-year surgi- cal experience with nontraumatic pericardial effusions: a comparison between the subxyphoid and transthoracic ap- proaches to pericardial window. Arch Surg 2005;140:191- 195.

9. Ahmed Muhammed MI. The pericardial window: is a better than a surgical approach? Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2011;12:174-178.
10. Georghiou GP, Stamler A, Sharoni E, et al. Video-assist- ed thoracoscopic pericardial window for diagnosis and management of pericardial effusions. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:607-610.
11. Fibla JJ, Molins L, Mier JM, Vidal G: Pericardial window by videothoracoscope in the treatment of pericardial effu- sion and tamponade. Cir Esp 2008;83:145-148.
12. O’Brien PK, Kucharczuk JC, Marshall MB, et al. Compara- tive study of subxiphoid versus video-thoracoscopic peri- cardial window. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:2013-2019.
13. Youn SW, Kim DK, Kim JW, et al. Video assisted thoracic surgery of pericardial window operation. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;35:812-816.
14. Landreneau RJ, Hazelrigg SR, Mack MJ, et al. Postopera- tive pain-related morbidity: video-assisted thoracic surgery versus thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56:1285-1289.
15. Bitran JD, Evans R, Brown C. The management of cardiac tamponade in patients with breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 1984;27:42-44.
16. Kopecky SL, Callahan JA, Tajik AJ, Seward JB. Percutane- ous pericardial catheter drainage: report of 42 consecutive cases. Am J Cardiol 1986;58:633-635.
17. Mueller XM, Tevaearai HT, Hurni M, et al. von Segesser LK. Long-term results of surgical subxiphoid pericardial drainage. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;45:65-69.
18. Van Trigt P, Douglas J, Smith PK, et al. A prospective trial of subxiphoid pericardiotomy in the diagnosis and treat- ment of large pericardial effusion. A follow-up report. Ann Surg 1993;218:772-778.
19. Becit N, Unlü Y, Ceviz M, et al. Subxiphoid pericardiosto- my in the management of pericardial effusions: case series analysis of 368 patients. Heart 2005;91:785-790.
20. Ertaş F, Polat N, Yıldız A, et al. Anticoagulant-induced he- mopericardium with tamponade: A case report and review of the literature. J Clin Exp Invest 2013;4:229-233.
21. Celik S, Celik M, Aydemir B, et al. Surgical properties and survival of a pericardial window via left minithoracotomy for benign and malignant pericardial tamponade in cancer patients. World J Surg Oncol 2012;10:123.
22. Olsen PS, Sİrensen C, Andersen HO. Surgical treatment of large pericardial effusions. Etiology and long-term sur- vival. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1991;5:430-432.