直肠癌TME和ELAPE手术质量控制

解剖层面明确、手术质量可控制是手术进步的重要体现。在直肠癌的手术的发展上,全直肠系膜切除术（TME）和肛提肌外腹会阴联合切除术（ELAPE）属于手术质量控制的里程碑式手术。TME手术目前是中低位直肠癌的标准术式,要求直肠和直肠系膜作为一个解剖单位整体切除;ELAPE手术在减少传统腹会阴联合切除时存在"外科腰"方面（可能导致环周切缘阳性）可能具有一定价值。外科医师要做到手术质量控制,需要做好包括术前多学科专家组（MDT）评估、术中手术技术质控、术后标本质量病理学评估在内的一整套直肠癌手术质量控制体系。本文从上述三个方面对两种术式的手术质量控制进行论述。     

改良的腹腔镜辅助下ELAPE手术临床效果观察

目的比较一种改良的腹腔镜辅助下的肛提肌外肌腹会阴联合切除术（ELAPE）和常规腹腔镜辅助的腹会阴联合切除术（APR）两种手术方法治疗需切除肛门的低位直肠癌的临床效果差异。 方法选取2015年12月至2021年6月68位低位直肠癌患者的病例资料，随机分为APR组和改良ELAPE组，每组34例。APR组患者给予常规APR术，改良ELAPE组患者给予改良的ELAPE术，比较分析两组患者治疗效果。临床参数包括手术时间、术中出血量、淋巴结阳性率、术中穿孔、环周切缘阳性率、排气时间、排便时间、进食时间、腹腔引流量、会阴切口拆线时间、盆腔引流管拔除时间、住院时间；术后并发症包括术后盆腔出血、肠梗阻、会阴切口感染、会阴切口周围血肿以及其他少见并发症，随访结果项目包括局部复发率、远处转移率和死亡率。 结果改良ELAPE组手术时间长于APR组，差异具有统计学意义（t=5.490，P=0.000）；术中出血量（t=-0.775，P=0.441）、淋巴结阳性率（χ²=0.553，P=0.457）、环周切缘阳性率（χ²=0.863，P=0.353）、穿孔率差异无统计学意义；改良ELAPE组排气时间（t=-4.403，P=0.000）、排便时间（t=-2.934，P=0.005）、会阴切口拆线时间（t=-2.490，P=0.015）均早于APR组，腹腔引流量少于APR组（t=3.524，P=0.001），差异具有统计学意义；两组进食流质食物时间（t=0.593，P=0.555）、盆腔引流管拔除时间（t=1.581，P=0.122）、住院时间（t=-1.465，P=0.148）无明显差别，差异均无统计学意义；两组患者术后盆腔出血（t=4.24，P=0.94）、肠梗阻（t=5.55，P=0.58）、会阴切口感染（t=7.74，P=0.54）、会阴切口周围血肿（t=8.55，P=0.14）以及其他少见并发症（t=3.11，P=0.41）比较差异均无统计学意义；术后随访6~60个月，改良ELAPE组局部复发率（χ²=5.639，P=0.018）、远处转移率（χ²=4.178，P=0.041）均低于APR组，差异具有统计学意义，两组死亡率差异无统计学意义（χ²=2.601，P=0.107）。 结论改良的腹腔镜辅助的ELAPE手术较传统腹腔镜辅助的APR手术来说是一个安全有效的手术方式，能有效减少局部复发和远处转移，加快患者术后康复，值得临床推广。     

ELAPE降低直肠癌术后环周切缘阳性率

近期,首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院普通外科王振军就"不能保肛的直肠癌手术治疗进展及评价"发表了自己的观点和看法。该论文发表在2012年第9期《中国实用外科杂志》。大规模的临床研究显示,传统直肠癌腹会阴联合切除术[APE,或称APR]环周切缘(CRM)阳性率较高和手术中穿孔率较高是其术后局部复发率高和病人存活率低的重要原因。因此,其作为不能保留肛门的低位直肠癌的手术治疗金标准逐渐受到挑战。王教授认为,直肠癌柱状腹会阴联合切除(CAPE)即直肠癌肛提肌外腹会阴联合切除(ELAPE)手术能够显著降低直肠癌手术后环周切缘阳性率及局部复发率,     

神经导航辅助显微手术切除颅内肿瘤154例

采用BrainSCAN神经导航系统，对154例颅内肿瘤在神经导航系统辅助下实施显微手术。肿瘤全切除107例，次全切除36例，大部切除11例；无手术死亡者及严重并发症，术后神经功能良好。神经导航系统的实际误差为1．9—4．1mm，平均2．7mm。认为借助神经导航系统可以设计最佳手术入路，准确定位并切除颅内肿瘤，有效保护神经功能。     

Dixon手术治疗低位直肠癌20例围术期护理

直肠癌是消化道常见的恶性肿瘤,占消化道肿瘤的第2位,手术切除是其主要治疗方法.经典的术式有经腹会阴联合直肠癌根治术(Miles手术)和经腹直肠癌切除术(Dixon 手术).低位直肠癌Dixon手术由于手术难度大,适应证范围小,临床中较少应用.2002年10月～2007年10月,我们对20例低位直肠癌患者行Dixon手术,现将围术期护理体会报告如下.     

枕下后正中入路治疗枕骨大孔区肿瘤的临床疗效分析

目的探讨枕下后正中入路治疗枕骨大孔区肿瘤的临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析广东三九脑科医院神经外一科自2012年1月至2019年1月收治的16例采用后正中入路显微外科结合超声吸引切除的枕骨大孔区肿瘤患者的临床资料,其中神经鞘瘤5例,脑膜瘤7例,血管母细胞瘤4例,观察16例患者的术后疗效。 结果16例患者中肿瘤全切除14例,次全切除2例。术后出现后组颅神经损伤加重者2例,无手术死亡。随访3个月~7年,除1例术后仍有肢体乏力、行走不稳外,其余患者症状消失。1例次全切除患者术后3年复发。 结论枕骨大孔区肿瘤显微手术技巧要求高,脑干、后组颅神经和血管保护十分重要,枕下后正中入路可以广泛地应用于枕骨大孔区肿瘤的手术治疗。     

中下段直肠癌放疗后低位短距离吻合保肛术临床分析

目前 ,治疗中下段直肠癌仍以经腹会阴联合切除 ( Miles术 )手术为主 ,其疗效虽好 ,但患者的生存质量受到严重影响。因此 ,彻底手术根治肿瘤 ,保留患者的肛门括约肌功能 ,尽量改善其生存质量 ,是近年来肿瘤工作者的任务及发展方向。 1 993年 4月至1 999年 1 2月 ,我们对中下段直肠癌 Dukes B期与 C期患者采取术前治疗加经腹直肠前切除低位短距离吻合保肛术 ( Dixon术 )治疗 ,取得较好疗效 ,现报告如下。1　临床资料本文 31例中下段直肠癌患者 ,男 1 6例 ,女 1 5例 ;年龄 2 7.0～ 75 .0岁 ,平均 5 0 .6岁。病程 2～ 1 3个月 ;均经直肠镜取活…     

经纵裂胼胝体前入路显微全切除鞍膈脑膜瘤(附13例报告)

目的 提高鞍膈脑膜瘤手术全切除率，减少术后复发，有效治疗和预防术后并发症，降低病死率。方法 对13例患者采用改良手术入路，扩大病变部位的暴露范围，减少术中因牵拉所造成的脑损害，利用显微外科技术在分块切除肿瘤的同时．有效保护与病变关系密切的血管、神经、丘脑下部、垂体、垂体柄等重要结构。结果 13例均一次全切除肿瘤，随访1～8年，无肿瘤复发，除1例术前视力已完全丧失外．3例生活自理。9例均恢复正常。结论 经纵裂胼胝体前切除鞍膈脑膜瘤是较理想的手术入路，可一次全切除肿瘤，并能有效保护肿瘤周围的重要结构。微侵袭显微外科技术是其必备条件。     

甲状腺再手术中应用维生素B1、B12显露保护喉返神经的效果观察

120例甲状腺再手术患者,术中于气管食管沟处的甲状腺外科被膜下浸润注射维生素B1、B12,以显露喉返神经并加以保护.术后出现喉返神经暂时性损伤3例,永久性损伤2例.认为在甲状腺再手术中,局部注射维生素B1、B12有利于喉返神经的显露和保护,可避免该神经的损伤.     

膀胱全切术的研究进展

在我国,膀胱肿瘤是泌尿生殖系统最常见的肿瘤,对于膀胱全切术的研究也很多.有人发现侵犯肌层的膀胱癌患者,如果没有及时手术治疗,特别是超过90 d,手术延迟时间与术后肿瘤分期和患者生存期呈负相关[1].所以对于已侵犯膀胱肌层或者具有高危因素而位置表浅的膀胱肿瘤来说,膀胱全切术是最佳的治疗选择.本文就膀胱全切术某些方面的进展做一综述.     

The use of a negative pressure wound management system in perineal wound closure after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer

Background

Perineal wound healing is a significant challenge after extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) due to a high rate of wound breakdown. Negative pressure therapy has proven benefits in open wounds, and recently a negative pressure system has been developed for use on closed wounds at high risk of breakdown, such as apronectomy and hysterectomy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether negative pressure therapy applied to closed perineal wounds after ELAPE improved wound healing and compare outcomes to the published literature and outcomes from a historical cohort of patients who had undergone ‘standard’ abdominoperineal resection (APR) and primary closure of the perineal wounds.

Methods

Prospective data on consecutive patients having ELAPE in the period from November 2012 to April 2015 were collected. The pelvic floor defect was reconstructed with biologic mesh. The adipose tissue layer was closed with vicryl sutures, a suction drain was left in the deep layer, the subcuticular layer and skin were closed, and the negative pressure system was applied. Any wound breakdown within the first 30 days postoperatively was recorded.

Results

Of the 32 consecutive ELAPE patients whose perineal wounds were closed within 30 days with the use of the negative pressure system, there was 1 patient with major perineal wound breakdown and 2 patients with a 1 cm superficial wound defect, which needed no further treatment. In the remaining 29 (90 %) patients, the perineal wounds healed fully without complications. Twenty-five patients underwent standard APR in 2010–2011 with primary closure of their perineal wounds. Ten out of 25(40 %) of patients who had undergone standard APR and primary closure of perineal wounds had major wound complications (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that after ELAPE the application of a negative pressure system to the perineal wound closed with biologic mesh may reduce perineal wound complications and may reduce the need for major perineal reconstruction.

     

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: Where to go

Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer. Most studies suggest that because of adequate resection and precise anatomy, ELAPE could decrease the rate of positive circumferential resection margins, intraoperative perforation, and may further decrease local recurrence rate and improve survival. Some studies show that extensive resection of pelvic floor tissue may increase the incidence of wound complications and urogenital dysfunction. Laparoscopic/robotic ELAPE and trans-perineal minimally invasive approach allow patients to be operated in the lithotomy position, which has advantages of excellent operative view, precise dissection and reduced postoperative complications. Pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh could significantly reduce wound complications and the duration of hospitalization. The proposal of individualized ELAPE could further reduce the occurrence of postoperative urogenital dysfunction and chronic perianal pain. The ELAPE procedure emphasizes precise anatomy and conforms to the principle of radical resection of tumors, which is a milestone operation for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.     

Postanal minimally invasive surgery “PAMIS” assisted extra-levator abdominoperineal excision “ELAPE” for cancer: A novel approach in supine position

Local recurrences are more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Extralevator APE was introduced to address this problem. The post anal minimally invasive approach had been used by other authors for transperineal mesh rectopexy but not in cancer management. Our aim is to use the post-anal minimally invasive approach for better visualization and division of the levator Ani during the Extralevator abdominoprineal excision in 2 cases of carcinoma of the anal canal. After laparoscopic exploration of the abdomen and performing a laparoscopic nerve sparing TME down to the levator ani from the abdominal side, the perineal phase was started by a purse string suture followed by a postanal incision and division of the Anococcygeal ligament, the gel port was inserted where visualization of the levator ani allows its division under vision posteriorly and laterally in order to achieve a good circumferential resection margin in the studied 2 cases. Good circumferential resection margin was reported pathologically and photographed in one of them. Postanal minimally invasive PAMIS assisted technique facilitates the extralevator abdominoperineal “ELAPE” in supine position. However a large multicenter trial comparing this new assisted technique with the traditional ELAPE id needed for a final conclusion.     

A prospective case–control study of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of the rectum versus conventional laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal excision: comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and quality of life

Background

Conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) of the rectum is associated with higher circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, increased local recurrence, and reduced survival compared to anterior resection. A more radical extralevator APE (ELAPE) technique may improve oncological outcome. However, this technique may confer additional morbidity, and little comparative data on short-term outcomes have been reported. This study compares short-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) after open and laparoscopic ELAPE, laparoscopic APE (LAPE), and open APE (OAPE).

Methods

Data on all ELAPE and 10 consecutive LAPE and OAPE were extracted from a prospective database. Perioperative care and follow-up were standardized. QOL was assessed using EORTC questionnaires.

Results

Sixteen ELAPE (14 laparoscopic), 10 LAPE, and 10 OAPE were included. Demographics, tumour stage, and neoadjuvant therapy use were comparable. Operative time was higher with ELAPE than LAPE and OAPE (295, 207.5, and 157.5?min, respectively, p?=?0.01). A porcine collagen perineal mesh was used in 9 patients undergoing ELAPE but in no LAPE or OAPE patients. No difference in 30-day complications, re-admission, or length of stay was noted. ELAPE and LAPE were associated with earlier removal of urinary catheter (p?=?0.02), yet other enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) parameters were equivalent. All ELAPE resections were R0 with no positive CRM identified. One LAPE and 2 OAPE were R1 resections. Analysis revealed no deterioration in QOL with ELAPE, with equivalent global health status.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that ELAPE is not associated with deterioration in short-term outcomes or QOL when compared with LAPE or OAPE.     

Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective study with long-term follow-up

Purpose

To analyze the results of abdominoperineal excisions (APE) for locally advanced rectal cancer at our institution before and after the adoption of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) with a special reference to long-term survival.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary referral center. All consecutive patients operated for locally advanced (TNM classification T3–4) rectal cancer with APE in 2004–2009 were compared to patients with similar tumors operated with ELAPE in 2009–2016.

Results

Forty-two ELAPE and 27 APE patients were included. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was less than 1 mm (R1-resection) in 10 (24%) of ELAPE patients and 11 (41%) of APE patients (p?=?0.1358). Intraoperative perforation (IOP) occurred in 4 (10%) patients and 6 (22%) patients in ELAPE and APE groups, respectively (p?=?0.1336). There were 3 (7%) local recurrences (LRs) in ELAPE group and 5 (19%) in APE (p?=?0.2473). There were no statistical differences in adverse events, overall survival, or disease-free survival between ELAPE and APE groups.

Conclusions

We found a non-significant tendency to lower rates of IOP and positive CRM as well as lower rate of LR in the ELAPE group. Long-term survival and adverse events did not differ between the groups. ELAPE is beneficial for the surgeon in offering better vicinity to the perineal area and better work ergonomics. These technical aspects and the clinically very important tendency to lower rate of LR support the use of ELAPE technique in spite of the lack of survival benefit.

     

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for rectal cancer—short-term results from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Selective use of ELAPE warranted

Purpose

Local recurrences are more common after abdominoperineal excision (APE) than after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Extralevator APE was introduced to address this problem. This prospective registry-based population study aims to investigate the efficacy of extralevator APE (ELAPE) in improving short-term oncological outcome.

Methods

All Swedish patients operated with any kind of abdominoperineal excision and registered in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry 2007–2009 were included (n?=?1,397) and analyzed with emphasis on the perineal part of the operation. Short-term perioperative and oncological results were collected from the registry.

Results

Extralevator APE did not result in fewer intraoperative perforations or involved circumferential resection margins as compared to standard APE for the entire group. Intraoperative perforations were significantly fewer for patients with low tumours (≤4 cm) (ELAPE: n?=?28/386 versus APE: n?=?9/58) (p?=?0.043) and for early (T0–T2) T-stages (ELAPE: n?=?3/172 versus APE: n?=?6/75) (p?=?0.025). There were significantly more post-operative wound infections for ELAPE than for APE (n?=?106 (20.4 %) versus n?=?25 (12.0 %), p?=?0.011).

Conclusions

The short-term results indicate that selective use of extralevator APE can be warranted, for example, for subgroups with low tumours. In conclusion, selective use of the extralevator APE is advocated as not all patients seem to benefit from the technique, and there are significantly more short-term complications after extralevator APE.     

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: short-term outcomes of a prospective case series

Background

Laparoscopic approaches for the resection of low rectal cancer and the extralevator technique for abdominoperineal excision are both becoming increasingly popular. There are little published data regarding the combined application of these techniques to the resection of low rectal tumours. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of such an approach and to appraise short-term outcomes in a consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE).

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE at our institution between 2008 and 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The abdominal phase of the operation was performed laparoscopically, and following extralevator resection, the perineum was reconstructed using a biologic mesh. All patients were enrolled in an enhanced recovery programme.

Results

Of 166 patients undergoing radical resection of rectal cancer at our institution between 2008 and 2011, 28 underwent laparoscopic ELAPE. Median age was 70 years, median body mass index was 27.5 kg/m², and 71 % were male. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 18 %. Three patients (10.8 %) had circumferential resection margins <1 mm; no intraoperative tumour perforation occurred. The median length of stay was 7 days, with a 30-day readmission rate of 21 % and no 30-day mortality. Post-operative perineal wound complications occurred in 25 %. At median 38-month follow-up (range 23–66 months), overall survival was 75 %, disease-free survival was 71 %, and there were three local recurrences (11 %).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision can be safely performed without compromising short-term outcomes.     

直肠癌柱状经腹会阴切除术

柱状经腹会阴切除术(肛提肌外腹会阴切除术)作为直肠癌的一种新术式,较常规经腹会阴切除术可以切除更多的癌周组织,减少术中穿孔,降低环周切缘阳性率,从而达到改善预后的目的。作者在国内率先开展本术式,并创新性使用生物材料进行盆底重建,不但简化了手术,而且减少手术并发症发生的机会,使本术式更加安全可靠。笔者详细介绍了柱状腹会阴切除术操作要点和注意事项,阐述了本术式的优势和发展前景,柱状经腹会阴切除术有望成为无法保肛直肠癌患者的标准术式。