腹腔镜保留脾脏和脾血管的胰体尾切除术

With the maturation of laparoscopic surgical technology and the development of surgical instruments,the scope of application for laparoscopie surgery has expanded constantly in recent years.It is now p...     

腹腔镜保留与不保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术治疗胰体尾病变的效果分析

目的:对比腹腔镜保留脾脏(LSPDP)与不保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术(LDPS)治疗胰体尾病变的临床效果。方法:分析2011年3月至2018年6月行腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的31例胰体尾占位患者的临床资料。按手术方式将患者分为保留脾脏的胰体尾切除组(LSPDP组,n=14)与脾脏切除组(LDPS组,n=17),对比两组患者围手术期及随访结果。结果:两组均无围手术期死亡病例。LSPDP组肛门排气时间、术后住院时间优于LDPS组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术中出血量、手术时间、胰瘘发生率、门静脉血栓发生率、腹腔积液发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。31例患者术后随访6～81个月,平均(28.26±19.21)个月,无肿瘤复发转移。结论:由经验丰富的腹腔镜外科医生有选择性地行腹腔镜保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术治疗胰腺良性或交界性肿瘤是安全、可行的。     

腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术4例

目的：探讨在腹腔镜下,对胰体尾部肿瘤患者进行保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术的可行性与安全性。方法：我院2008年2月—2010年4月对4例胰体尾良性病变施行腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术。结果：4例手术均顺利完成,平均手术时间为235（115～305）min,术中平均出血量为200（100～450）mL,术后平均住院时间为12.8（10～21）d,术后有1例患者产生胰瘘,延迟拔管,治愈后出院。术后病理诊断为胰体尾浆液性囊腺瘤2例,黏液性囊腺瘤1例,胰岛细胞瘤1例。结论：对胰体尾部的良性病变行腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术是微创并安全的,具有恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

腹腔镜保留脾脏胰体尾切除术的关键技术

腹腔镜保留脾脏胰体尾切除术适用于胰体尾部良性或低度恶性病变,避免了脾切除术后近、远期并发症,手术方式包括保留脾动静脉的Kimura手术和切除脾动静脉主干、保留胃网膜左血管等侧枝循环的Warshaw手术。腹腔镜下Kimura手术视野清晰,安全可行,术后并发症发生率低,应为保脾胰体尾切除手术的首选。术前检查或术中探查可疑为浸润性恶性病变或病灶与脾血管、脾门关系密切者,应果断放弃保脾术式,改行胰体尾联合脾切除术。     

保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术28例报告

目的探讨保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术(SPDP)的可行性和手术技巧,比较SPDP与胰体尾、脾切除术(DP)患者的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析胰体尾切除术患者临床资料58例,其中DP30例(A组),SPDP28例(B组),B组又分为B1(保留脾血管组)和B2(合并脾血管切除组)两个亚组。比较两组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率及术后Α院时间的差异。结果 A、B组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率、胰瘘发生率、肺部感染发生率的组间差异均无统计学意义;SPDP组术后Α院时间明显较DP组短(P0.05)。B1亚组较B2亚组手术时间明显延长(P0.05);术中出血量、术后总的并发症发生率、胰瘘发生率、肺部感染发生率、术后Α院时间的差异无统计学意义。B1组与B2组的术后并发症发生率及术后Α院时间的差异无统计学意义。结论保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术不增加并发症发生率,而术后Α院时间缩短。保留脾血管㈦否对术后并发症发生率及术后Α院时间无影响。     

Kimura法保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术

目的探讨Kimura法保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的安全性和可行性。方法回顾性分析2016年8月~2019年3月Kimura法保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术11例资料。均为胰体尾部单发病灶,直径2.0~5.0 cm,平均3.5 cm。结果11例手术均顺利完成,无中转开腹。手术时间125~185 min,平均155 min;出血量35~100 ml,平均65 ml,术中均未输注血制品;围手术期无死亡,无腹腔出血、B级或C级胰漏、脾梗死等严重并发症发生。术后住院6~12 d,平均7.8 d。11例随访1~32个月,中位数16个月,均未见肿瘤复发、转移及脾梗死。结论Kimura法保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术安全、可行。     

胰腺损伤保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术

胰体尾部损伤伴主胰管撕裂或断裂,传统术式需行远端胰腺及脾脏切除［１］。随着对脾脏功能和解剖结构的深入认识,保留脾脏越来越受到人们的重视。我院近期对６例严重胰腺体尾部损伤患者进行了保留脾脏的胰体尾部切除术。现结合文献总结分析如下。１临床资料１．１一般资...     

全腹腔镜胰体尾切除术研究进展

[摘 要] 腹腔镜技术在胰腺外科的应用相对比较缓慢,且更具挑战性。随着腔镜手术器械的发展及术者手术经验的积累,腹腔镜胰体尾切除术在越来越多的肝胆胰诊疗中心相继开展,腹腔镜保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术被大多胰腺外科医生青睐。本文就腹腔镜保留脾脏的胰体尾部切除术的适应证和禁忌证、Warshaw与Kimura两种术式的优劣及手术并发症的防治等研究进展进行综述。     

保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术

长期以来,施行胰体尾切除术,同时切除脾脏,被认为是常规术式。近年来,随着对脾脏的功能有了很多新认识,特别是它的免疫功能和抗癌肿能力以及脾脏切除的患者,尤其是儿童,在术后可发生凶险性感染等,在处理脾脏外伤时,各种保脾措施,日益受到重视和公认。     

保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术的应用探讨

目的探讨保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术在胰体尾部肿瘤治疗中的可行性及作用。方法收集大连市中心医院于1999年1月至2010年12月期间收治的胰体尾肿瘤患者49例,其中行保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术18例,包括胰腺腺癌7例,胰尾囊腺瘤9例,胰岛素瘤2例,其中3例患者接受了腹腔镜辅助保留脾脏胰体尾肿瘤切除术。回顾性分析患者的临床症状、术前检查、术后并发症等指标,并进行术后随访观察。结果开腹和腹腔镜辅助保留脾脏胰体尾肿瘤切除术均顺利实施．所选术式患者耐受性好,术后并发症少,多数患者获得长期生存。结论术前影像学检查和肿瘤标志物检查是早期诊断胰体尾肿瘤的可靠办法,CTA、DSA等检查是术前判定的重要手段,保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术应作为胰体尾肿瘤的首选术式。腹腔镜辅助保留脾脏胰体尾肿瘤切除术是安全可行的,具有创伤轻、恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术的临床研究

目的 探讨保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术的安全性、可行性及应用价值.方法 回顾性分析2009年10月至2013年6月因胰体尾良性及低度恶性肿瘤行胰体尾切除术38例患者的临床资料,根据手术方式分为保留脾脏胰体尾切除术组（SPDP组,18例）和联合脾脏切除术组（DPS组,20例）.比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、围术期血小板计数、术后住院观察时间、并发症发生率及死亡情况.结果 SPDP组与DPS组相比,术后第3天及第7天血小板计数较低且基本在正常范围内[第3天（187.8±50.4）×10^9/L与（253.9±54.5）×10^9/L,第7天（202.7±48.0）×10^9/L与（356.4±63.4）×10^9/L],差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;住院观察时间短[（11.6±2.2） d与（14.1±2.3） d],差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）.手术时间[（188.6±20.1） min与（180.8±29.8） min]、术中出血量[（212.2±120.9） ml与（224.0±113.3） ml]、术后并发症发生率（16.7%与30.0%）等比较,差异均无统计学意义（P〈0.05）.结论 对于胰体尾部良性及低度恶性肿瘤保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术是安全、可行的,且可降低深静脉血栓形成的风险.     

腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术临床应用:附5例报告

目的:探讨腹腔镜下,对胰体尾部良性肿瘤进行保留脾脏胰体尾切除术的可行性与安全性评估。方法:2008年2月至2010年6月对5例胰体尾良性肿瘤病人施行腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术。结果:5例病人手术均顺利完成,平均手术时间为204(115～295)min,术中平均出血量310(200～450)mL,术后平均住院时间14(10～21)d。术后1例病人发生胰漏,延迟拔管后治愈出院。术后病理诊断为胰体尾浆液性囊腺瘤3例,黏液性囊腺瘤1例,胰岛细胞瘤1例。结论:对胰体尾部的良性病变行腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术是微创、安全的,具有恢复快、并发症少等优点,值得推广。     

Early management of traumatic pancreatic transection by spleen-preserving laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Pancreatic trauma is a common cause of acute pancreatitis in children and is often treated by conservative measures alone. Conservative measures are more likely to fail when there is complete pancreatic duct disruption. We report a case of complete transaction of the pancreatic neck following blunt trauma in a 14-year-old boy. Complete duct disruption was confirmed by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. The patient was successfully managed by a laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy and recovered quickly without complications. The merit of a laparoscopic approach to severe pancreatic injury in children is discussed.     

Clinical outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy

Background  Few studies have compared laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (Lap-DP) and open distal pancreatectomy (open-DP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of Lap-DP and compare it to that of open-DP. Methods  A total of 37 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (Lap-DP, 21 patients; open-DP, 16 patients) between January 2000 and March 2007 were enrolled in this study. Prior to January 2004, open-DP was the standard procedure for patients with a lesion in the distal pancreas without invasive ductal cancer; thereafter, Lap-DP was also an approved procedure. All 16 open-DP procedures were performed prior to January 2004. Results  The operating times for the Lap-DP and open-DP patients were 308.4 ± 124.6 and 281.5 ± 83.3 min, respectively, and these were not significantly different (P = 0.4635). Blood loss for the Lap-DP group (249.0 ± 239.8 ml) was significantly smaller than that for the open-DP group (714.1 ± 650.4 ml) (P = 0.0055), and none of the patients in the Lap-DP group received transfusions. The frequency of complications for the Lap-DP and open-DP groups was 0 and 18.8%, respectively, which is not significantly different (P = 0.0784). The average hospital stay for the Lap-DP group was significantly shorter than that for the open-DP group (10.0 ± 2.6 vs. 25.8 ± 8.8 days; P < 0.0001). Conclusion  In pancreatic diseases, other than invasive ductal cancer, arising in the distal pancreas, Lap-DP might be a more feasible and safer than open-DP.     

改良的保留脾脏及脾血管的胰体尾切除术(10例经验体会)

目的：探讨一种新的保留脾脏及脾血管的胰体尾切除术术式。方法：2002年1月至2006年6月，哈尔滨医科大学附属第二医院肝胆胰外科施行改良的保留脾脏及脾血管的胰体尾切除手术10例。结果：本组10例均成功地按此术式完成胰体尾切除；术后无出血、感染等并发症；术后住院7-15d。随访无复发和转移。结论：本术式避免了损伤脾脏和脾血管，保护了脾脏的结构和功能。手术安全可行，疗效满意。     

腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的临床应用(附5例报告)

目的:探讨腹腔镜胰体尾切除术(laparoscop ic d istal pancreatectomy,LDP)治疗胰体尾肿瘤的临床价值。方法:2002年6月~2005年12月我院行LDP5例(保留脾脏1例),平均39.8(31~48)岁。其中胰腺体尾部实性占位2例,囊实性占位3例。结果:手术均在全腹腔镜下一次成功,平均手术时间305(95~465)m in,平均出血140(50~300)m l。1例发生胰漏,经保守治疗痊愈。术后平均住院9.8(5~18)d。结论:LDP创伤小、术后恢复快,是治疗胰体尾肿瘤安全、可行的方法。     

Case-control comparison of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is becoming an increasingly used modality in the surgical treatment of pancreatic disease. The assumption is that this will lead to shorter hospitalization and faster recovery. However, actual comparative data between open and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is lacking. The purpose of this study is to compare these surgical procedures. All patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy/splenectomy were reviewed. Fifteen patients underwent laparoscopic resection, whereas 41 underwent an open resection. The 15 laparoscopic patients were matched to 15 open patients for age, gender, and pancreatic pathology. Data gathered included length of stay, pancreatic leak, postoperative complications, and return to normal activity. Of the 15 laparoscopic patients, three were converted to open operations. Laparoscopic patients had a median length of stay of 5 days (range, 3–9) compared with 8 days (range, 6–23) for the open patients (P = 0.02). The pancreatic leak rate was 13% in each group. Overall postoperative complication rate was 20% in the laparoscopic group compared with 27% in the open group. Laparoscopic patients reported a return to normal activity in 3 weeks (range, 2–7) compared with 6 weeks (range, 4–10) for open patients (P =0.03). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy/splenectomy does lead to shorter hospital stay and faster return to normal activity. Pancreatic leak rate and overall complication rate appear similar. Presented at the 2005 American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Congress, Hollywood, Florida, April 14–17, 2005 (poster presentation).