Search

In this report, we describe a rare case of vagus nerve schwannoma associated with esophageal cancer. A 70-year-old man visited our hospital complaining of worsening dysphagia. His upper gastrointenstinal endoscopy revealed a mass in the esophagus. A contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography also detected a 15 mm nodule attached to the tracheal membrane. This nodule was diagnosed as a metastatic lymph node. Although the primary tumor reduced after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the nodule remained intact; it showed fluorodeoxyglucose accumulation on positron emission tomography. We had a clinical diagnosis of stage III after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent surgery. Intraoperatively, the nodule could not be detached from the right vagus nerve; therefore, we excised the nodule along with the adjacent vagus nerve. The nodule was pathologically diagnosed as a vagus schwannoma. The nodule was not a regional lymph node metastasis of esophageal cancer. His postoperative course was uneventful, and he is currently undergoing outpatient follow-up without recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Central venous catheter (CVC) use is essential for treating esophageal cancer. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are commonly used recently for improved patient comfort and safety. We compared centrally inserted central catheters (CICC) and PICC insertions and examined their safety. Methods: We retrospectively investigated complications at the catheter insertion and post-insertion for 199 patients' esophageal cancer treatment (CICC: 45, PICC: 154) from 2013 to 2018. In addition, we summarized the results of catheter tip culture. Results: No serious complications occurred at the catheter insertion in either group. The rate of complications at catheter insertion was 5.8% for PICC and 6.7% for CICC patients. Post-insertion complications were observed in 6.5% and 11.1% of patients with PICC and CICC, respectively, and this difference was not significant. The incidence of catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) was significantly lower in PICC than CICC patients (0.3 vs. 1.8 / 1,000 catheter-days; p = 0.029). Catheter-related thrombosis was observed in PICC: 0.5 and CICC: 0.6, and occlusion due to blood flow reversal was observed in PICC: 0.5 and CICC: 0.6. Conclusion: PICCs are safer and more effective than CICCs for the treatment of esophageal cancer, and reduce the incidence of CRBSI. We hope to standardize the insertion procedures, conventionalize techniques, and establish training systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]