改良腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术17例报告

目的：探讨改良腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术的手术方法及可行性，方法：回顾分析17例患者行改良腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术的临床资料。结果：17例均顺利完成腹腔镜手术，无中转开腹。平均手术时间205min（180—250min），平均出血120ml（80—170ml），平均下床活动时间51h（41—60h），平均排气时间74h（58～90h），平均住院时间9d（7-16d）。术后发生并发症2例，均经保守治疗治愈。结论：改良辅助下胃癌根治术在保留腹腔镜手术微创优点的同时减少了腹腔镜下的操作步骤，降低了腹腔镜胃癌根治术的手术难度，具有较好的，临床应用价值。     

腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术28例临床分析

目的：探讨腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术的安全性和可行性。方法：对28例胃癌患者进行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术,其中根治性全胃切除术3例,近端胃大部切除术3例,远端胃大部切除术22例;淋巴结清除D1式7例,D2式21例。结果：28例均成功完成腹腔镜手术。平均手术时间：全胃切除（182.4±32.2）min,近端胃切除（162.7±27.5）min,远端胃切除（152.3±29.2）min。平均术中出血量：全胃切除（137.5±72.1）mL,近端胃切除（129.6±86.3）mL,远端胃切除（157.2±74.7）mL。清除淋巴结数平均（17.1±5.3）枚/例。术后平均胃肠功能恢复时间（3.2±0.5）d。术后无吻合口出血、吻合口瘘、吻合口梗阻、十二指肠残端瘘等并发症。术后住院时间平均（7.2±1.5）d。结论：腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术安全、可行;严格遵守肿瘤的手术原则,腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术能够保持肿瘤的根治性,同时能体现手术的微创性。     

手辅助腹腔镜在远端胃癌D2根治术中应用的临床对照研究

目的分析手辅助腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术的短期临床效果,总结手辅助腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术的技术特点。方法回顾性分析成都军区总医院全军普外中心胃肠外科2010年12月至2013年12月期间完成的手辅助腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术(手辅助腹腔镜组)92例和传统开腹远端胃癌D2根治术(开腹组)107例患者的临床资料,比较2组的手术时间、手术切口长度、术中出血量、检获淋巴结枚数、术后住院时间及术后并发症。结果手辅助腹腔镜组和开腹组均无手术切缘癌残留。与开腹组比较,手辅助腹腔镜组的手术切口长度明显缩短(P0.01),术中出血量明显减少(P0.05);但2组手术时间、检获淋巴结枚数和术后住院时间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。手辅助腹腔镜组和开腹组各有1例死亡,均死于不明原因的消化道出血。手辅助腹腔镜组术后共发生并发症9例(9.78%),开腹组术后共发生并发症12例(11.21%),2组术后总并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(χ~2=9.04,P0.05)。结论手辅助腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术并未明显延长手术时间,且安全、高效,具有一定的微创优势。     

腹腔镜辅助下早期远端胃癌根治术七例

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助下行早期远端胃癌根治的手术方法和手术适应证。方法 对7例早期胃癌患者行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 7例患者均顺利完成手术，无中转开腹。手术时间平均190min；术中出血量平均150ml；术后排气时间平均51h,均于术后6—9d出院。无手术及术后并发症。术后随访平均10个月，未见肿瘤复发迹象。结论 腹腔镜辅助下早期远端胃癌根治安全、可行，近期效果满意。     

腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术：附54例报告

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术的安全性和可行性.方法 对54例胃癌患者进行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术,其中根治性全胃切除术12例,近端胃大部切除术18例,远端胃大部切除术24例;淋巴结清扫D1式29例,D2式25例.结果 54例均成功完成腹腔镜手术.平均手术时间全胃切除(164.4±38.7)min,近端胃切除(142.4±35.2)min,远端胃切除(149.1±35.4)min.平均术中出血量全胃切除(164.6±80.1)mL,近端胃切除(149.5±94.7)mL,远端胃切除(152.5±87.7)mL.清扫淋巴结数平均(19.1±6.2)枚/例.术后平均胃肠功能恢复时间(3.5±0.7)h.术后发生吻合口出血2例,均经非手术治疗止血;无吻合口瘘、吻合口梗阻、十二指肠残端瘘等并发症.术后住院时间平均(9.2±1.7)d.结论 腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术安全、可行;只要严格遵守肿瘤的手术原则,腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术能够保持肿瘤的根治性,同时能体现手术的微创性.     

腹腔镜辅助与开腹远端胃癌D2根治术近期康复的对比研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术患者术后早期的康复情况.方法 回顾性分析2010年1月至2012年12月56例腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术(腹腔镜组)与同期62例开腹远端胃癌根治术(开腹组)患者的临床资料.结果 两组手术时间、淋巴结清扫数目、pTNM分期、切除长度及术后并发症发生率等比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).腹腔镜组术中出血量明显少于开腹组(120±25 ml VS 165±42 ml,P＜ 0.05),腹腔镜组术后胃肠功能恢复时间、平均住院时间均短于开腹组,分别为(75±9hVS 101±12h,P＜ 0.05)和(8.2±2.5 d VS 10.5±2.9 d,P＜ 0.05).结论 腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术技术可行,同时具备手术视野清晰、创伤小、出血少等优点,患者近期康复效果优于开腹手术.     

腹腔镜辅助与开腹远端胃癌根治术的临床对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的可行性.方法:对39例行腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌粮治术(腹腔镜组)及40例开腹远端胃癌根治术(开腹组)患者的术后情况进行对比分析.结果:腹腔镜组与开腹组平均手术时间分别为(204.6±38.4)min和(166.1±36.8)min(P<0.05);但腹腔镜组术中出血量、术后恢复情况、术后外周血T淋巴细胞及NK细胞活性显著优于开腹组(P<0.05).腹腔镜组肿瘤根治程度、术后生存率、肿瘤复发情况与开腹组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论:腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术是安全可行的,其微创优势明显,能够达到与开腹手术相当的根治效果.     

腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术的临床研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术的手术方法、可行性及临床效果.方法回顾性分析我院2004年6月-2007年6月行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术42例患者的临床资料.结果 本组42例均行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术,其中远端胃大部切除术20例,近端胃大部切除术15例,全胃切除术7例,无中转开腹,无手术死亡.平均手术时间:远端胃大部切除术(285±60)min,近端胃大部切除术(178±62)min,全胃切除术(323±86)min;术中平均出血量:远端胃大部切除术(140±52)ml,近端胃大部切除术(196±85)ml,全胃切除术(234±76)ml;淋巴结清扫12～40枚,平均(25±10)枚;术后患者平均胃肠道功能恢复时间75 h.术后随访1～36个月,平均9.7个月,2例十二指肠残端瘘行保守治疗痊愈.结论对早期及部分进展期胃癌行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治术技术可行,同时具备创伤小、恢复快、出血少等优点.     

腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的临床应用

目的探讨腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术的可行性及手术方法。方法行腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术15例,D1清扫3例,D2/D2 12例。全部病例均行毕Ⅱ式胃空肠吻合。结果15例成功进行腹腔镜手术。手术时间平均(218.6±31.6)min,术中出血量平均(132.4±21.3)ml,清扫淋巴结平均(33.4±13.6)个。肿瘤近端切缘(6.6±0.9)cm,远端切缘(5.4±0.6)cm,术后肛门排气时间平均(3.5±0.6)d,无手术死亡,无吻合口漏,术后并发肺部感染1例,经治疗后痊愈。术后随访1~10个月,无肿瘤复发或转移。结论腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术能达到与开腹胃癌标准根治术(D2)的淋巴结清扫范围及肿瘤切缘,且具有创伤小、出血少、术后恢复快等优点。     

腹腔镜辅助下进展期胃癌Dν2根治术的临床分析

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助进展期胃癌D2根治术的可行性和近期疗效。方法分析行腹腔镜辅助进展期胃癌D2根治术的30例患者,包括全胃切除术14例,远端胃大部份切除术16例。结果 30例顺利完成腹腔镜手术,无一例中转。手术平均时间：全胃切除（261.2±22.1）min,远端胃切除（239.8±19.7）min。术中平均出血量：全胃切除（133.3±30.2）ml,远端胃切除（110.4±27.5）ml。清扫淋巴结平均为（21.6±2.3）枚。术后患者胃肠功能恢复时间（3.7±1.1）d,下床活动时间平均（2.6±0.5）d。术后效果良好,无近期并发症。所有患者均获随访,随访时间3～36个月。2例发生肝转移,1例肿瘤复发,未发生Trocar种植及腹膜转移。结论腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术在胃癌患者治疗中,创伤小,恢复快,安全有效,近期疗效好。     

腹腔镜辅助保留幽门胃切除术改善早期胃癌术后胆汁反流性胃炎前瞻性随机对照研究

目的比较腹腔镜辅助保留幽门胃切除术(LAPPG)与腹腔镜辅助远端胃大部切除术(LADG)(BillrothⅠ式吻合)对胃体中部早期胃癌病人术后继发性胆汁反流性胃炎(BRG)的影响。方法自2018年2月至2018年12月,对上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院胃肠外科收治的69例早期胃体中部癌(cT1N0M0)病人进行1∶1前瞻性随机化入组,其中LAPPG组(行LAPPG)34例,LADG组(行LADG,BillrothⅠ式吻合)35例,进行6个月随访,比较两组术前、术中、术后及随访结果。结果两组病人在年龄、性别、BMI、术前合并症及术后病理诊断的基线水平差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组淋巴结清扫数目、手术时间、术中出血量、术后首次排气时间、胃管拔除时间、Ⅱ级以上并发症差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后6个月随访结果显示,BRG临床表现无特异性,在两组中差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);但内镜下诊断BRG比例LAPPG组显著低于LADG组,差异有统计学意义[3例(8.8%)vs.16例(45.7%),χ^2=11.763,P=0.001];LAPPG组中Kellosalofen分级Ⅱ度以上BRG的比例显著低于LADG组,差异有统计学意义[2例(5.7%)vs.9例(25.7%),χ^2=5.062,P=0.024];组织学活检发现LADG组胃小凹增生1例、腺体萎缩伴肠化3例,LAPPG组未观察到上述病理组织学异常,但两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论LAPPG治疗早期胃体中部癌安全可行,该术式较LADG可改善术后BRG的发生率及严重程度。其对病人术后长期疗效及残胃癌发生率的影响仍有待大样本RCT研究的长期随访证实。     

Laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: Five years' experience

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy is being reported increasingly as the treatment of choice for early gastric cancer. However, no reports concerning the prognosis of patients who have undergone laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for early gastric cancer or data comparing the results to those obtained after open gastric surgery are yet available. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed comparing laparoscopic assisted and open distal gastrectomies for early gastric cancer. Eighty-nine patients who underwent LADG were compared to 60 who underwent conventional open distal gastrectomy (DG) in terms of pathologic findings, operative outcome, complications, and survival. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between LADG and DG in operation time (209 vs 200 minutes), complication rate (9% vs 18%), and 5-year survival rate (98% vs 95%). There were differences between LADG and DG with regard to blood loss (237 vs 412 mL), number of lymph nodes (19 vs 25), postoperative stay (17 vs 25 days), and the duration of epidural analgesia (2 vs 4 days) ( P < .05 each). CONCLUSIONS: For properly selected patients, LADG can be a curative and minimally invasive treatment for early gastric cancer.     

Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth-I gastrectomy (LADG) for cancer: our 10 years' experience

To evaluate laparoscopy-assisted Billroth-I gastrectomy (LADG), we examined the outcome of its use over the last 10 years. From December 1991 to December 2001, 116 patients with early gastric cancer underwent LADG in the surgical department of Oita Medical University and Koga hospital by the same surgical staffs. An operation record and clinical sheets were reviewed to obtain the operative findings, clinical course, and pathologic findings of resected specimens to evaluate the usefulness of LADG in the management of early gastric cancer. In all LADG procedures, regional lymph nodes dissection (D1+alpha) was successfully performed using laparoscopy. The mean operative duration and blood loss were 234 minutes and 139 mL, respectively. There were only four major complications, including pneumonia, leakage of anastomosis, pancreatic injury, and anastomotic stenosis, but all these cases were successfully treated conservatively. The mean length of postoperative stay was 16.3 +/- 2.5 days. All patients except one, who died not of cancer but of cerebral bleeding, were alive without recurrence or port-site metastasis during mean follow-up period of 45 months. We successfully performed 116 LADG procedures over 10 years. This procedure is recommended for the treatment of patients with early gastric cancer because of the associated good prognosis and several benefits, including less invasiveness and early recovery.     

腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术与开放手术比较的临床研究

目的比较腹腔镜辅助下远端早、中期胃癌根治手术与传统开腹手术的疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2004年6月～2006年8月行腹腔镜辅助下根治性远端早、中期胃癌根治术19例及常规开腹远端早、中期胃癌根治术51例的临床资料。结果腹腔镜组19例均成功行腹腔镜辅助手术。腹腔镜手术和开放手术的平均时间分别为（194．5±23．21）min和（177．8±19．78）min，出血量分别为（182．4±40．21）ml和（346．8±33．98）ml，清扫淋巴结数量分别为（18．4±2．3）枚和（17．7±2．6）枚，术后肛门排气时间分别为第（4．31±1．28）d和第（4．89±1．62）d，平均住院时间分别为（14．3±2．5）d和（17．6±3．7）d，术后第1d平均白细胞计数分别为（8．79±3．54）×10^9／L和（10．43±2．78）×10^（／L。所有手术均无吻合口漏及术后死亡病例。结论腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术较传统开腹手术耗时长，但能达到胃癌标准根治术的淋巴结清扫范围，且具有出血少、住院时间短等优点。     

开腹与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的临床对比研究

目的:对比开腹与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的手术效果、围手术期恢复情况及预后,探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的可行性及安全性。方法:选取2011年1月至2012年12月行远端胃癌根治术(远端胃切除+D2淋巴结清扫)的216例患者其分为两组,观察组行腹腔镜手术(n=104),対照组行开腹手术(n=112)。対比研究两组间的肿瘤生物学行为、手术时间、术中出血、术中淋巴结切除数量、术后胃肠道功能恢复时间、术后下床活动时间、术后并发症、住院时间、3年无瘤生存率。结果:两组在肿瘤生物学行为方面差异无统计学意义。观察组手术时间明显长于对照组(P0.05),术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数量、术后排气时间、术后下床活动时间及住院时间均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后并发症按Clavien-Dindo法分级并进行対比两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);3年无瘤生存率两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术是安全、可行的,与传统手术相比,在术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数量、术后恢复方面具有明显优势。     

远端进展期胃癌腹腔镜辅助与开腹根治术的远期疗效比较

目的 探讨进展期胃癌腹腔镜根治术的安全性和可行性,并评价其远期临床疗效。方法 对2004年1月至2009年6月远端进展期胃癌行腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术346例患者的临床及随访资料和同期在我院行传统开腹胃癌手术的313例进行回顾性分析,比较两组的手术安全性、术后并发症、生存率以及癌症复发转移情况。结果 腹腔镜组手术平均用时与开腹组相比差异无统计学意义[(211±56) min比（204±41）min,P＞0.05]。腹腔镜组术中出血量、切口长度显著低于开腹手术组。腹腔镜组肿瘤近、远端切缘长度分别为(6.3±2.0) cm、(5.7±1.7)cm,开腹组分别为(6.3±2.1) cm、(5.6±1.6) cm,两组相比差异均无统计学意义。腹腔镜组淋巴结清扫数量为(33±13)枚,开腹组为(33±16)枚,两组相比差异无统计学意义。腹腔镜组术后并发症的发生率显著低于开腹组（6.7％比13.1％,P＜0.01）。随访时间6～72个月,平均37个月,腹腔镜组1、3、5年生存率分别为87.2％、57.2％和50.3％,开腹组分别为87.1％、54.1％和49.2％,两组相比差异均无统计学意义。两组癌症复发转移率相比差异无统计学意义。结论 腹腔镜辅助的进展期胃癌根治术与开腹组在生存率及术后复发方面无显著差异,且具有创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部切除术安全性与有效性的系统评价

目的 评价腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的安全性与有效性.方法 检索Pubmed、Medline、EMBASE和中国生物医学数据库（CBM）2001年1月至2010年2月间发表的D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术治疗胃癌的对照试验研究,用Revman 5.0统计软件进行分析.结果 共纳入7个对照试验,其中1项研究为随机对照试验,6项为非随机对照研究.腹腔镜辅助远端胃大部分切除组（LADG）与开腹远端胃大部切除术（ODG组）相比,术中出血量少[加权均数差（WMD）=-132.04,95% CI：-207.32～-56.77],术后第1次排气时间早（WMD=-0.82,95% CI：-1.20～-0.45）,术后并发症发生率低[相对危险度（OR）=0.45,95%CI：0.26～0.78],术后住院时间短（WMD=-3.63,95%CI：-4.19～-3.07）,清扫的淋巴结数目多（WMD=1.93,95%CI：0.36～3.50） 但术后复发率、转移率和近期（3年内）生存率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的短期效果优于开腹手术.     

Learning curve for laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with regional lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer

An assessment of the learning curve of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) might encourage its worldwide spread among inexperienced surgeons. One hundred sixty-seven patients with early gastric cancer were enrolled in this study: 67 underwent conventional open distal gastrectomy and 100 underwent LADG after classification into 5 groups of 20 according to the surgeon's level of experience. Patient characteristics and operative findings were compared between groups. Operation time was significantly longer, time to first flatus earlier, and blood loss reduced in the LADG groups compared with the open distal gastrectomy group. Surgeons with experience of 60 cases performed operations of similar times in both groups, and blood loss decreased with experience of 20 cases. There was no operative conversion, the frequency of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs administered were significantly less, and length of hospital stay were shorter by surgeons with experience of 60 cases. LADG is a technically feasible surgical procedure, depending on the surgeon's technical proficiency. Experience of at least 60 cases of LADG seems to result in satisfactory patient outcomes.     

A Phase-II Clinical Trial of Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy with D2 Lymph Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer Patients

Objectives This study was conducted to determine whether laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) with complete D2 lymph node dissection for gastric cancer is a safe and effective surgical option. Methods During an 8-month period, 64 patients, who were diagnosed preoperatively as having T1-2, N0-1 or M0 gastric cancer, were prospectively enrolled to undergo LADG with D2 lymph node dissection; two surgeons with experience of over 50 cases of laparoscopic gastrectomy performed the procedures. The compliance rate, defined as cases with no more than one missing lymph node station according to the Japanese Research Society of Gastric Cancer (JRSGC) lymph node grouping, for the open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection was 66.0% in a pilot study and was used for calculations of sample size. Compliance rate and other surgical outcomes, including the number of retrieved lymph nodes from each lymph node station, morbidities, mortalities and conversion rate, were analyzed. Results The compliance rate was 67.2% and was similar to that of open distal gastrectomy reported in the pilot study. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 50.1 (range 20–100). The most frequently missed lymph node station was no. 5 (31.2%) followed by no. 3 (25.0%). There were no missed lymph nodes at stations no. 6 and 9. The complication rate was 3.1% (2/66); there were two conversions (3.0%) and no mortalities. Conclusions The current study suggests that LADG with D2 lymph node dissection is oncologically feasible, and phase-III clinical trials will be needed.     

腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部切除术安全性与有效性的系统评价

目的 评价腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的安全性与有效性.方法 检索Pubmed、Medline、EMBASE和中国生物医学数据库(CBM)2001年1月至2010年2月间发表的D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术治疗胃癌的对照试验研究,用Revman 5.0统计软件进行分析.结果 共纳入7个对照试验,其中1项研究为随机对照试验,6项为非随机对照研究.腹腔镜辅助远端胃大部分切除组(LADG)与开腹远端胃大部切除术(ODG组)相比,术中出血量少[加权均数差(WMD)=-132.04,95% CI:-207.32～-56.77],术后第1次排气时间早(WMD=-0.82,95% CI:-1.20～-0.45),术后并发症发生率低[相对危险度(OR)=0.45,95%CI:0.26～0.78],术后住院时间短(WMD=-3.63,95%CI:-4.19～-3.07),清扫的淋巴结数目多(WMD=1.93,95%CI:0.36～3.50);但术后复发率、转移率和近期(3年内)生存率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜辅助下胃癌D2根治性远端胃大部分切除术的短期效果优于开腹手术.