RESUMEN

Ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) encompasses the deleterious effects on cellular function and survival that result from the restoration of organ perfusion. Despite their unique tolerance to ischaemia and hypoxia, afforded by their dual (pulmonary and bronchial) circulation as well as direct oxygen diffusion from the airways, lungs are particularly susceptible to IRI (LIRI). LIRI may be observed in a variety of clinical settings, including lung transplantation, lung resections, cardiopulmonary bypass during cardiac surgery, aortic cross-clamping for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, as well as tourniquet application for orthopaedic operations. It is a diagnosis of exclusion, manifesting clinically as acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Ischaemic conditioning (IC) signifies the original paradigm of treating IRI. It entails the application of short, non-lethal ischemia and reperfusion manoeuvres to an organ, tissue, or arterial territory, which activates mechanisms that reduce IRI. Interestingly, there is accumulating experimental and preliminary clinical evidence that IC may ameliorate LIRI in various pathophysiological contexts. Considering the detrimental effects of LIRI, ranging from ALI following lung resections to primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after lung transplantation, the association of these entities with adverse outcomes, as well as the paucity of protective or therapeutic interventions, IC holds promise as a safe and effective strategy to protect the lung. This article aims to provide a narrative review of the existing experimental and clinical evidence regarding the effects of IC on LIRI and prompt further investigation to refine its clinical application.

Asunto(s)

Lesión Pulmonar , Trasplante de Pulmón , Daño por Reperfusión , Humanos , Daño por Reperfusión/tratamiento farmacológico , Pulmón , Isquemia , Trasplante de Pulmón/efectos adversos

RESUMEN

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive. Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE's significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.