结肠癌伴肝转移同期切除影响预后相关因素分析

目的 探讨结肠癌伴肝转移行同期切除影响病人预后的相关因素。方法 回顾性分析2002年1月至2008年6月第二军医大学附属东方肝胆外科医院综合治疗三科结肠癌伴肝转移行同期切除59例的临床资料。结果 年龄、性别、CEA水平、门静脉化疗泵内局部化疗及肝转移灶大小、数目和位置对病人生存时间具有影响。结论 肝肿瘤的大小、位置、数目、CEA水平虽对预后有影响,但均为不可控因素,而术中及术后门静脉化疗泵内局部化疗为可控因素。术中及术后门静脉化疗泵内局部化疗并配合全身化疗者预后明显好于未给予者（P=0.0076）。     

Laparoscopic colon resection for colon cancer

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic colon resection for cancer is as yet an unproven operation. This review article summarizes current data on the topic. METHODS: A Medline review identified articles published since 1990 summarizing patients with potentially curable colon cancer who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted colon resection. Only articles that were randomized or had a control group with historical or matched open cases were used. RESULTS: Very few prospective randomized controls exist. Several clinical trials are under way with one completed. Data thus far support some patient benefits with a laparoscopic approach. No differences in morbidity, oncologic data, or survival appear to exist. CONCLUSIONS: The results of ongoing clinical trials are still needed to further evaluate the role of laparoscopic assisted colon resection in patients with potentially curable colon cancer.     

结直肠癌同时性肝转移同期与分期手术切除疗效比较

目的：比较结直肠癌同时性肝转移患者原发灶和肝转移灶同期与分期切除的近期和远期结局。方法回顾性分析北京肿瘤医院肝胆胰外一科2003年1月至2011年12月间的64例结直肠癌合并同时性肝转移患者的临床及术后随访资料,其中行原发灶和肝转移灶同期切除者20例（同期切除组）,分期切除者44例（分期切除组）。结果同期切除组Clavien-Dindo 1、2和3级并发症发生率分别为10．0％（2/20）、15．0％（3/20）和15．0％（3/20）,分期切除组分别为13．6％（6/44）、13．6％（6/44）和22．7％（12/44）,差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）。同期切除组1、2和3年总体生存率分别为85．0％、59．6％和37．2％,分期切除组分别为90．9％、68．2％和47．1％,差异亦无统计学意义（均P＞0．05）。两组中位无病生存时间分别为6月和7月,差异亦无统计学意义（P＞0．05）。多因素预后分析显示,原发灶淋巴结阳性（P=0．020）和肝切除术前CEA水平大于20μg/L（P=0.017）是影响患者总体生存的独立危险因素;复发后有机会接受根治性局部治疗联合化疗则是一项保护性因素（P=0.001）;而手术时机（同期或分期切除）与患者总体生存无关（P＞0．05）。结论对于结直肠癌同时性肝转移,选择同期或分期切除并不影响患者的术后并发症发生率和远期生存率。     

Different incidence of synchronous liver metastasis between proximal and distal colon cancer

Purpose  

The clinicopathological features of colon cancer differ between proximal and distal sites; however, the influence of tumor location on liver metastasis has not been fully examined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in the features of liver metastasis between proximal and distal colon cancer.     

大肠癌伴肝转移同期切除的预后分析

目的分析大肠癌(结肠癌和直肠癌)伴肝转移行同期切除影响患者预后的相关因素。方法采用多因素回归分析方法回顾性分析3 7例大肠癌伴肝转移患者行同期切除的临床资料;选取11项相关因素进行分析。结果年龄,门静脉化疗泵内局部化疗,组织学分型,淋巴结转移,肝转移灶位置,大小,数目对患者的生存时间有影响。结论大肠癌伴肝转移行同期切除术中术后行门静脉化疗泵内局部化疗可以改善患者的预后,延长其生存期,并且后者是惟一可控因素。     

结肠癌同时性肝转移同期手术与分期手术的疗效比较

目的：对比结肠癌同时性肝转移行同期手术与分期手术切除转移灶的疗效。方法：回顾性分析36例结肠癌同时性肝转移患者的临床资料,其中16例行结肠癌根治术同时切除肝转移病灶（同期手术组）;20例先行结肠癌根治性切除、二期行肝转移病灶切除（分期手术组）。比较两组患者的1,3,5年生存率。结果：同期手术组患者1,3,5年生存率分别为87.5%,37.5%,18.8%,分期手术组患者1,3,5年生存率分别为65%,10.0%,0.0%。两组比较,1年生存率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,同期手术组3,5年生存率明显高于分期手术组（均P<0.05）。结论：结肠癌同时性肝转移行同期手术可延长患者生存时间。

     

完全腹腔镜治疗结肠癌伴同时性肝转移的临床疗效

目的：探讨腹腔镜下行结肠癌根治术与肝转移灶切除术的安全性及疗效。 方法：选择2009年3月―2011年4月收治的50例结肠癌同时性肝转移患者,其中25例患者行腹腔镜下结肠癌根治术及肝转移灶切除术（腹腔镜组）,另25例在传统开腹手术（开腹组）。比较两组患者的术中情况、术后恢复情况以及术后1、2、3年生存率。 结果：腹腔镜组的术中出血量、术后镇痛时间、排气时间、住院时间及并发症均明显少于开腹组（P<0.05）,但两组的手术时间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组患者术后1、2、3年生存率差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。 结论：完全腹腔镜治疗结肠癌伴同时性肝转移安全可行,与开腹手术疗效相同,同时具有创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

结直肠癌同时性肝转移的同期手术切除

目的探讨同时性结直肠癌肝转移行同期切除原发瘤和肝转移瘤的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性总结分析从1981年5月至2005年11月在我院住院治疗的43例结直肠癌同时性肝转移同期手术的临床病理资料及结果并结合文献复习。结果43例患者中男性21例,女性22例,中位年龄52岁,手术持续中位时间180min。共30例术中输血,中位输血量800ml。术后总住院时间10—50d,中位时间15d。并发症发生率18．6％（8／43）,手术死亡率2．3％（1／43）。全组总的中位生存期为25个月,5年生存率19．1％。R0切除组的中位生存期48个月,5年生存率33．8％;非R0切除组的中位生存期为20个月,5年生存率7．6％。两组的生存时间经LogRank检验差异明显,P=0．002。结论同时性结直肠癌肝转移同期手术的安全性和有效性可以保证。对可切除的同时性结直肠癌肝转移应争取同期手术,并争取R0切除。     

结直肠癌同时性肝转移的手术疗效分析

目的探讨结直肠癌同时性肝转移的外科治疗临床价值和疗效。方法自2003年5月至2008年10月,对32例结直肠癌同时性肝转移患者行同期切除术为治疗组,同期内未行手术切除的肝转移瘤27例患者为对照组。两组术后以XELox方案化疗。结果治疗组1、3和5年累积生存率为92．5％、53．1％、34．6％。对照组1、3和5年生存率为66．7％、18．5％、0。两组总生存率比较有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组临床资料相比较无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。治疗组中有6例患者术后发生胸腔积液,1例膈下积液,3例胆漏,无手术死亡病例。结论结直肠癌肝转移的的根治性切除是患者获得长期生存的有效治疗手段;直肠癌同时性肝转移行同期切除术可提高患者的幸存时闻和幸存后量．改善其预后．     

腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术

微创手术在腹腔镜平台发展已有30年之久,在消化道手术领域腹腔镜技术已进入成熟阶段。微创外科的近期发展在于对手术入路及解剖等进一步加以规范与推广,以及3D、4K等针对显像技术硬件设备的创新与开发。腹腔镜下尾侧－中间联合入路右半结肠癌根治术自回盲部背侧为起始点先行完成右半结肠系膜的后间隙游离,并结合传统中间入路进一步清扫系膜根部淋巴结。尾侧－中间联合入路可从不同角度完成右半结肠的系膜解剖,可帮助主刀医师完成右结肠后间隙的拓展,可成为手术医师首选的手术入路之一。     

Laparoscopic versus open resection of colorectal liver metastasis

Background

Findings have shown laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to be feasible and safe, but the data in the literature regarding oncologic outcomes are scant. This study aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes between LLR and open resection of colorectal liver metastasis (CLM).

Methods

Between January 2006 and April 2012, 40 patients underwent LLR of CLM. These patients were compared with a consecutive matched group of 40 patients who underwent open resection within the same period. Data were obtained from a prospective institutional review board (IRB)-approved database. Statistical analysis was performed using t test, Chi-square, and Kaplan–Meier survival.

Results

The groups were similar in terms of age, gender, tumor size, number of tumors, and type of resections performed. The operative time was similar in the two groups, but the estimated blood loss was less in the LLR group than in the open resection group. The length of stay was shorter in the LLR group (3.7 vs 6.5 days; p < 0.001). The 2-year overall survival rate was 89 % for LLR and 81 % for open resection. The median disease-free survival time was 23 months in each group.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that LLR is associated with less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay than open resection for CLM. According to our short-term results, LLR is equivalent to open resection in terms of oncologic outcomes.     

腹腔镜下结直肠癌及肝转移癌一期同时切除术的临床应用

目的：探讨腹腔镜下一期同时切除结直肠癌和肝转移癌的安全性及可行性。方法回顾性分析2011年1月至2013年10月期间在中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院完成的腹腔镜下结直肠癌和肝转移癌一期同时切除手术的11例患者的病例资料,对该术式的可行性（中转开腹率、手术时间及术中出血量）、安全性（术后并发症）及疗效（术后恢复、复发及生存情况）进行评估。结果全组11例患者手术均取得成功,无中转开腹病例。手术时间（284．6±28．8） min,术中出血量（322．7±75．4） ml,术后肛门排气时间（2．9±0．7） d,术后住院时间（12．3±1．9） d。全组患者术后未出现肠瘘、胆瘘、腹腔大出血、腹腔感染及肝功能衰竭等并发症。术后随访时间3～35月,除1例患者因肿瘤转移死亡外,其余病例未见肿瘤复发。结论对于经过选择的合适病例,腹腔镜下同时切除结直肠癌和肝转移癌是安全、可行的。     

Simultaneous resection for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis is a safe procedure

Background

One quarter of colorectal cancer patients will present with liver metastasis at the time of diagnosis. Recent studies have shown that simultaneous resections are safe and feasible for stage IV colon cancer. Limited data are available for simultaneous surgery in stage IV rectal cancer patients.

Methods

One hundred ninety-eight patients underwent surgical treatment for stage IV rectal cancer. In 145 (73%) patients, a simultaneous procedure was performed. Fifty-three (27%) patients underwent staged liver resection. A subpopulation of 69 (35%) patients underwent major liver resection (3 segments or more) and 30 (44%) patients with simultaneous surgery.

Results

The demographics of the 2 groups were similar. Complication rates were comparable for simultaneous or staged resections, even in the group subjected to major liver resection. Total hospital stay was significantly shorter for the simultaneously resected patients (P < .01).

Conclusions

Simultaneous resection of rectal primaries and liver metastases is a safe procedure in carefully selected patients at high-volume institutions, even if major liver resections are required.     

Laparoscopic bowel resection for early colon cancer

Following the successful introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, many reports confirming the feasibility of using laparoscopy for bowel resection and predicting that it would be advantageous in terms of its minimal invasiveness have been published. In the context of cancer treatment, however, the feasibility of lymphadenectomy, the risk of recurrence, and survival have emerged as major concerns. Even though mucosal cancer (Tis) can be treated by endoscopic resection (ER), when this is not possible open surgery (OS) must be performed. In patients with T1 cancer, tumors showing slight submucosal layer invasion (sm 1) can be treated in the same way as Tis (in cancer) cancers. But 5% to 10% of patients with T1 cancer have massive submucosal layer invasion (sm 2-3) with paracolic lymph node metastasis. At least partial bowel resection with paracolic lymphadenectomy is considered necessary for T1 (sm 2-3) cancers in principle. In summary, laparoscopic local excision of Tis cancers that are endoscopically unresectable and laparoscopically assisted partial resection with paracolic lymphadenectomy for T1 cancers have become accepted because local excision and partial resection with paracolic lymphnedectomy are fairly simple to perform laparoscopically. Therefore as a strategy for the treatment of early colorectal cancer (CRC), minimally invasive laparoscopic bowel resection (LBR) has been positioned between endoscopic resection (ER) and open surgery (OS). While the difficulty of performing radical lymphadenectomy is considered one of the greatest obstacles to the introduction of laparoscopic bowel resection (LBR) for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), early colon cancer is a good indication for laparoscopic bowel resection.     

腹腔镜下结直肠癌合并肝转移癌一期同时切除术的临床分析

目的探究腹腔镜下结直肠癌合并肝转移癌一期同时切除术的安全性及可行性。方法选取68例2012年11月~2015年6月至我院以及中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院胃肠外科二区就诊的结直肠癌合并肝转移癌患者,将所有患者分为两组,观察组34例,对照组34例。观察组采取腹腔镜下结直肠癌合并肝转移癌同期切除术,对照组采取传统的开腹结直肠癌合并肝转移癌同期切除术。记录两组患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后排气时间、总住院时间、术后并发症,对两组疗效、总生存期和无瘤生存期进行分析。结果观察组术中出血量、手术时间、术后排气时间、总住院时间与对照组相比,有统计学意义(P0.05);虽然观察组的术并发症比对照组低,但两组术后并发症比较无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论全腹腔镜下结直肠癌合并肝转移癌一期联合切除安全可行,总体临床效果优于开腹手术。     

胃癌同时性肝转移手术患者的预后分析

目的分析经手术治疗的胃癌同时性肝转移患者的预后因素。方法回顾性分析1998年1月至2012年12月间在大连医科大学附属第一医院胃肠外科手术治疗的胃癌同时性肝转移53例患者的临床病理学资料,对单发和多发肝转移患者的生存率进行比较并进行预后分析。结果本组53例患者5年总体生存率为11．3％。单发肝脏转移患者34例,5年生存率14．7％,明显高于19例多发肝转移患者的0（P=-0．000）。单因素分析结果显示,浆膜侵犯（P=0．000）、淋巴结转移（P=0．000）、手术根治度（P=0．044）、发生肝转移数目（P=0．000）和肝转移肿瘤直径（P=0．031）是影响胃癌肝转移患者预后的因素。其中浆膜侵犯（RR：3。355,P=0．012）和肝转移数目（RR：7．664,P=0．000）是影响胃癌肝转移患者预后的独立因素。结论手术治疗可以提高无浆膜侵犯的胃癌单发肝转移患者的预后。     

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted one-stage resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: a pilot study

Background/purpose  One-stage resection of primary colon cancer and synchronous liver metastases is considered an effective strategy of cure. A laparoscopic approach may represent a safe and advantageous choice for selected patients with the aim of improving the early outcome. Methods  Between January 2008 and October 2008, 7 patients underwent one-stage laparoscopic resection for primary colorectal cancer combined with laparoscopic or robot-assisted liver resection. Results  A total of five laparoscopic left-colon, one right-colon, and one rectal resections were performed. Three patients underwent preoperative left-colon stenting and two received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The patient with rectal cancer underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Liver procedures included one bisegmentectomy (segments 2, 3), 3 segmentectomies, 6 metastasectomies, and four laparoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablations (LUG-RFAs). One patient with multiple liver metastases was managed by a two-stage hepatectomy partially conducted by a totally laparoscopic approach. The overall postoperative morbidity was null. The median hospital stay was 10 days (range 7–10 days). Conclusions  This pilot study suggests that laparoscopic one-stage colon and liver resection is feasible and safe. Robot assistance may facilitate liver resection, increasing the number of patients who may benefit from a minimally invasive operation.     

Laparoscopic versus open resection for transverse colon cancer

Background

Previous large randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic (LR) and open resection (OR) for colon cancer have not specifically analyzed the outcomes in patients with transverse colon cancer. The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LR transverse colon cancer resection and to compare our findings with the results available in the literature.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing LR or OR for histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon.

Results

A total of 123 patients were included in this study: 66 LR and 57 OR. Median operating time was similar in the two groups. Median blood loss was higher in the OR group, even though the difference was not statistically significant. The rate of conversion from LR to OR was 16.7 %. Return of bowel function occurred significantly earlier in the LR group. The incidence and severity of 30-day postoperative complications and mortality rates were similar in the two groups. The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LR group. There was a trend toward a greater number of lymph nodes harvested in the OR group than in the LR group, although the difference was not statistically significant. The time to first flatus and bowel movement was significantly earlier in the LR group. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar in the LR and OR groups (86.4 vs. 88.6 %, p = 0.770 and 80.4 vs. 77.3 %, p = 0.516, respectively).

Conclusions

LR of transverse colon cancer is feasible and safe, with similar early short-term outcomes when compared to OR. Larger prospective comparative studies with long-term follow-up are needed to assess the oncological equivalence of the two approaches.