The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 199, Issue 5 , Pages 589-593, May 2010

Comparison of open and minimally invasive thymectomies at a single institution

Swedish Cancer Institute and Medical Center, 1101 Madison St., Suite 850, Seattle, WA, USA

Received 10 November 2009; received in revised form 21 January 2010

Abstract 

Background

Most thymectomies are performed via sternotomy. Minimally invasive thymectomy (MIT) has been described but its potential benefits and drawbacks remain unclear.

Methods

A retrospective chart review comparing thymectomies performed via sternotomy to MIT at a single institution between 2005 and 2009.

Results

Eight patients underwent MIT and 8 patients underwent sternotomy in the management of myasthenia gravis, thymic hyperplasia, or small thymic tumors. There was 1 perioperative death unrelated to the surgical procedure and no morbidity. The surgical time, estimated blood loss, and chest tube output was similar in both groups. The average hospital stay for MIT was 2.4 days compared with 4.3 days for sternotomy. One MIT patient remained on narcotic pain medication 2 weeks after surgery compared with 6 in the open group.

Conclusions

MIT can be performed with similar morbidity and efficacy as transsternal thymectomy. Patients require fewer narcotics and can be discharged earlier.

Keywords: Thymectomy, Thymoma, Myasthenia gravis, Robotic, Minimally invasive, VATS

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9610(10)00035-8

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.01.001

The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 199, Issue 5 , Pages 589-593, May 2010