腹腔镜胃癌保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术的价值与实践

根据2010版《日本胃癌治疗指南》,对局部进展期胃上部癌行全胃切除加D2淋巴结清扫时,必须清扫包括脾门区淋巴结在内的第1~12组淋巴结。局部进展期胃上部癌腹腔镜脾门淋巴结清扫是其重要组成部分,目前该术式仍处于探索性开展阶段。现有的研究显示其近期疗效令人满意,但远期临床获益尚缺乏循证医学证据。我院已成功开展346例腹腔镜胃癌保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术,总结出一整套完整的手术操作流程,笔者将其称为"三步     

腹腔镜进展期胃上部癌保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术36例体会

目的:探讨腹腔镜保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术在局部进展期胃上部癌根治术中的安全性及疗效。方法:回顾分析2013年3月至2014年7月36例局部进展期胃上部癌患者行腹腔镜保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术的临床资料。结果:36例手术均获成功,无一例中转开腹。脾门淋巴结清扫时间平均(43.1±9.6)min,术中出血量平均(42±11)ml,脾门淋巴结清扫数量平均(3.1±1.6)枚,平均住院(12.0±3.4)d。1例患者术后发生左侧胸腔积液,经治疗康复出院,余者均未出现脾门区出血、脾缺血或坏死、胰漏等手术相关并发症。术后随访1~16个月,随访方式为术后复查及电话随访,未发现远处转移及术后死亡病例。结论:腹腔镜局部进展期胃上部癌保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术安全、可行,且能达到与开放手术相同的淋巴结清扫效果。     

胃上部癌腹腔镜脾门淋巴结清扫术的研究进展

随着胃上部癌腹腔镜全胃切除术的不断成熟,该术式已逐渐被经验丰富的外科医师接受.不同于腹腔镜远端胃切除术中已经规范化、程序化的D2淋巴结清扫,胃上部癌腹腔镜脾门淋巴结清扫的指征和方式尚存争议,阻碍其推广的问题涉及是否联合脏器切除、手术路径选择以及对脾门区血管多变的解剖结构的认识等.同时,腹腔镜脾门淋巴结清扫的安全性和远期疗效也有待更多高级别循证医学证据的进一步证实.随着手术理念和技术的不断进步,胃上部癌腹腔镜脾门淋巴结清扫术将会不断成熟.     

基于膜解剖的腹腔镜脾门淋巴结环周清扫术与前方清扫术的对比研究

目的:探讨基于膜解剖的局部进展期胃上部癌腹腔镜原位保脾脾门淋巴结环周清扫术的安全性、可行性及近期疗效.方法:回顾分析2016年12月至2019年12月为105例局部进展期胃上部癌患者施行基于膜解剖的腹腔镜原位保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术的临床资料,按脾门淋巴结清扫方式分为环周组(n=49,清扫脾叶血管前侧方及后方淋巴结)与前方...     

腹腔镜保留脾脏的脾门区淋巴结清扫术在进展期胃中上部癌中的应用研究

目的:探讨进展期胃中上部癌行腹腔镜保留脾脏的脾门区淋巴结清扫术的可行性及临床疗效。方法:回顾分析2014年1月至2017年10月行全胃切除术及D2淋巴结清扫术的94例进展期胃中上部癌患者的临床资料,患者分为腔镜组(n=68)与开腹组(n=26),对比两组围手术期相关指标、术后并发症等。结果:与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组术中出血量少[50(42.5,80)ml vs.100(67.5,162.5)ml,P0.001],术后下床活动时间[(3.6±1.5)d vs.(4.4±1.7)d,P=0.041]、术后住院时间[(12.3±3.6)d vs.(14.5±4.1)d,P=0.014]短。两组手术时间、淋巴结清扫数量、脾门淋巴结清扫数量、脾门淋巴结阳性率、切脾率、术后肛门排气时间、术后进食流质时间、术后并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜保留脾脏的脾门区淋巴结清扫术治疗胃中上部癌安全、有效,与开腹手术相比,具有微创、出血少及术后康复快等优势,临床疗效满意。     

腹腔镜胃上部癌保脾手术的脾门区淋巴结清扫技术

脾门区淋巴结是进展期胃上部癌患者行D2根治术中必须清扫的淋巴结。随着外科技术的进步和治疗理念的更新．保脾的脾门区淋巴结清扫术目前已逐渐被外科医师所接受。由于脾脏位置深在．脾血管解剖变异多,使得腹腔镜保脾的脾门区淋巴结清扫术操作难度大。术者一方面要把握手术适应证：另一方面应采取合理的手术人路和程序化的手术操作步骤．同时必须熟识腹腔镜下脾门区的血管解剖特点．以血管解剖为基础．才能更好地完成腹腔镜下保脾的脾门淋巴结清扫术。     

腹腔镜胃癌根治术保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术

脾门区淋巴结属于进展期胃上部癌D2根治手术必须清扫的范围。"黄氏三步法"降低了腹腔镜下保脾脾门淋巴结清扫的手术难度,使腹腔镜下常规对进展期胃上部癌行脾门淋巴结清扫成为可能。具体步骤如下:第一步为脾下极区域淋巴结清扫,超声刀沿胰尾处显露脾下叶血管,在根部裸化并离断胃网膜左血管,并离断1~2支胃短血管;第二步为脾动脉干区域淋巴结清扫,超声刀沿脾动脉干中部向脾门方向清扫,并裸化脾中叶血管及2~3支胃短血管和胃后血管;第三步为脾上极区域淋巴结清扫,超声刀沿脾上极附近裸化脾上叶血管,并离断最后一支胃短血管,完成脾门淋巴结清扫。     

进展期胃上部癌患者行腹腔镜保脾脾门淋巴结环周清扫术的安全性及疗效分析

目的:探讨进展期胃上部癌患者行腹腔镜保脾脾门淋巴结环周清扫术的安全性及疗效。方法:回顾性分析2014年1月—2018年1月福建省莆田市第一医院胃肠外科一区169例行腹腔镜下保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术的进展期胃上部癌患者资料,其中92例仅清扫脾门前方淋巴结(对照组),另77例行脾门环周清扫,即在常规清扫脾门前方淋巴结的同时加做脾门后方的淋巴结清扫(观察组)。比较两组患者的相关临床指标。结果:两组患者的基线具可比性。两组在总手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后进流质时间、术后住院时间、阳性淋巴结数方面均无统计学差异(均P0.05);与对照组比较,观察组脾门淋巴结清扫时间显明显延长,但淋巴结清扫总数、收获脾门淋巴结阳性患者例数、脾门淋巴结清扫数目均增加(均P0.05)。两组并发症发生率无统计学差异(P0.05),两组均无围手术期死亡病例。结论:进展期胃上部癌患者行腹腔镜保脾脾门淋巴结环周清扫术安全可行,同时能够避免脾门阳性淋巴结的遗漏。     

脾上优先暴露在腹腔镜胃癌保脾脾门淋巴结清扫的应用

目的:探讨脾上优先暴露法在腹腔镜进展期胃上部癌保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术中的应用。方法:回顾性分析2012年10月至2014年8月宁波市第一人民医院采用脾上优先暴露法对19例进展期胃上部癌行腹腔镜根治性全胃切除并保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术病人的临床资料和术中、术后及并发症等情况。结果:19例均成功行腹腔镜保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术。总手术时间(234±30)min,术中出血量(161±82)m L;第10组淋巴结清扫时间为(36±8)min,出血量为(33±18)m L。每例病人淋巴结清扫数(32±9)枚、第10组淋巴结清扫数(2.8±0.9)枚。2例病人有4枚第10组淋巴结转移,转移率10.5%(2/19)。病人术后肛门排气时间(3.2±1.1)d,术后进流质时间(4.0±0.8)d,术后住院时间(16.5±5.4)d,无吻合口漏、腹腔大出血及围手术期死亡。结论:脾脏上方优先暴露法临床可行,在一定程度上降低进展期胃上部癌腹腔镜保脾脾门淋巴结清扫术的手术难度,短期疗效满意。     

中上部进展期胃癌腹腔镜保留胰脾清扫No．10、11淋巴结的技巧

目的探讨中上部进展期胃癌腹腔镜手术保留胰脾时,清扫No．10、11淋巴结的技巧。方法回顾性分析2012年1月～2013年6月86例腹腔镜保留胰脾清扫N0．10、11淋巴结的中上部进展期胃癌的临床资料及手术情况。结果清扫N0．10淋巴结1～15个,（3．8±1．6）个,No．10淋巴结转移率15．1％（13／86）;清扫No．11淋巴结1～12个,（3．2±1．3）个,No．11淋巴结转移率11．6％（10／86）。无一例因术中损伤脾血管或脾实质而中转开腹。未出现No．10、11淋巴结清扫相关术后并发症（如脾门区出血、脾缺血或坏死、胰漏等）。结论中上部进展期胃癌腹腔镜手术保留胰脾清扫No．10、11淋巴结是安全、可行的术式。对脾门血管变异充分认识,仔细解剖和正确找到脾门区域淋巴结清扫的人口是彻底清扫No．10、11淋巴结的关键。     

腹腔镜联合髂腹股沟淋巴结清扫术在黑色素瘤淋巴结转移中的应用

目的探讨腹腔镜联合髂腹股沟淋巴结清扫术在黑色素瘤淋巴结转移中的应用效果。 方法回顾性分析第四军医大学西京医院2015年5月至2017年2月收治的9例转移性黑色素瘤患者,均为下肢原发灶切除术后、IFN-β治疗期间经影像学检查发现髂血管旁和(或)腹股沟区淋巴结转移。手术方式为腹腔镜自髂血管分叉逆行清扫髂血管旁淋巴结,开放手术清扫腹股沟区淋巴结。 结果9例手术均顺利完成。平均手术时间(150.9±41.08)min、平均术中出血量(55±21.51)ml、平均术后下床活动时间(3.11±1.67)d、平均术后住院时间(8.57±2.19)d,术后病理均证实为髂血管旁淋巴结和(或)腹股沟区淋巴结转移。 结论腹腔镜联合髂腹股沟淋巴结清扫术是治疗下肢黑色素瘤转移的新术式探索,该术式手术创伤较小、恢复较快、清扫彻底,具备一定的临床应用价值。     

腹腔镜右半结肠癌CME根治术与策略

相对传统右半结肠癌手术,完整全结肠系膜切除(CME)手术可以提供高质量的手术标本和更多的淋巴结清扫数目。因此,腹腔镜右半结肠癌CME根治术既结合了腔镜手术的微创性又兼具CME手术的肿瘤根治性。右半结肠因解剖结构复杂、比邻器官众多、血管变异等因素,手术难度较大。高质量腹腔镜右半结肠癌CME手术的完成需要术者丰富的腹腔镜操作经验与技巧、扎实的解剖学知识和助手的良好配合。腹腔镜右半结肠癌CME手术目前没有标准的手术方式,因此本文拟从右半结肠CME概念、手术适应证、手术步骤、外科操作平面及中央组淋巴结清扫边界等方面介绍腹腔镜右半结肠CME手术的相关内容及注意事项。     

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: long-term oncologic outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was first described in 1992, and has become more commonly practiced at certain centers. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection may be less morbid than open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, but more costly. Controversy exists, however, regarding the oncologic adequacy of the procedure. The published literature regarding the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is reviewed herein. RECENT FINDINGS: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has not been as widely adopted as other laparoscopic procedures for genitourinary malignancy. There have only been seven publications in the last 3 years, often coming from the same centers. Recently there has been a change in practice with a greater effort to perform therapeutic laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection and not simply a staging procedure. Adjuvant chemotherapy is no longer routinely offered to all patients with positive nodes. SUMMARY: The impressive cure rate and decreasing morbidity associated with conventional open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection are difficult to improve upon. While on par with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection series, the current oncologic outcomes are difficult to attribute to successful laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection alone. Most patients with viable tumor in the retroperitoneal lymph node dissection specimen received chemotherapy. Thus, we must await follow-up of the patients who declined adjuvant chemotherapy after laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection or the results of more recent initiatives with laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection alone.     

低位直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫相关问题

对于低位直肠癌的治疗，在是否选择侧方淋巴结清扫为标准治疗，或将侧方淋巴结转移视为远隔转移而以放化疗为治疗策略等方面，东西方学者的观点仍存在诸多差异。JCOG0212试验并未证实预防性侧方淋巴结清扫的非劣性，其仍具争议。腹腔镜手术技术、辅助治疗等正在改变低位直肠癌的治疗策略，侧方淋巴结清扫的合理应用仍是未来研究的重要课题。     

腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的难点与争议

腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的手术技术已经非常成熟。但在淋巴清扫和手术入路方面,仍存在一些细节问题,成为当前争论的焦点。如淋巴清扫的内侧界,结肠肝曲癌常规清扫No.6淋巴结,手术入路除了经典的中间入路之外,头侧入路和尾侧入路是否更有优势,以及手术中的对Henle’s干解剖变异的认识等。     

腹腔镜直肠癌根治术侧方淋巴结清扫术

对腹膜反折以下cT3或N＋的直肠癌行侧方淋巴结清扫术可减少局部复发率及提高生存率。该术式采用五孔法完成,按日本学组提出的三间隙原则进行清扫：①分离保护输尿管及下腹神经,清扫下腹神经丛及下腹神经与髂总动脉、髂内动脉之间的第二间隙淋巴结;②清扫髂内外动脉间及闭孔内的第三间隙淋巴脂肪组织;③切除髂内血管及盆丛神经。应视肿瘤部位、浸润深度以及侧方淋巴结肿大情况,选择性行单或双侧清扫。腹腔镜下完成侧方淋巴结清扫具有视野好、狭小间隙操作方便、出血少等优势,是一种安全可行的手术方式。     

Laparoscopic versus open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a cost analysis

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is significantly less morbid than open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection but it is generally more costly due to longer operative time and disposable equipment. In response to budgetary pressure at our large county hospital we identified the cost components of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection that could be targeted to decrease procedure costs before expanding our laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review of open and laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was performed and certain parameters were abstracted, including operative time and equipment, hospital stay, perioperative complications and surgical success rates. Using these data the projected overall cost and individual cost centers at our institution were compared for open and laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Decision tree analysis models were devised to estimate the cost of each treatment using commercially available software. We performed 1 and 2-way sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effect of individual treatment variables on overall cost. Base case analysis involved a young man with clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular cancer who was a candidate for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. RESULTS: Based on a review of the costs at our institution open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was a less costly procedure at $7,162 versus $7,804 for the laparoscopic approach. The slight cost superiority of the open approach was due to significantly lower costs associated with operating room time and equipment. On the other hand, the laparoscopic procedure showed a cost advantage for hospital stay. On 1-way sensitivity analysis laparoscopic dissection was less costly when operative time was less than 3.6 hours, hospitalization was less than 2.2 days or laparoscopic equipment costs were less than $768. On 2-way sensitivity analysis the laparoscopic approach was cost advantageous when performed in less than 5 hours or when the patient was discharged home within 2 days postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The primary cost variables for surgical treatment for testicular cancer include operative time, hospital stay and equipment cost. According to published data and decision tree analysis open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is slightly less costly (less than $650) than laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for the surgical treatment of clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular cancer at our institution. Our model identifies several measures that can be applied at any institution to render laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection economically superior to the open approach.     

腹腔镜腹膜后淋巴结清除术9例

目的　探讨采用腹腔镜技术行腹膜后淋巴结清除术治疗I期非精原细胞瘤的方法和效果。　方法　 2 0 0 1年 1月～ 2 0 0 2年 5月 ,对 9例临床诊断为I期非精原细胞瘤的患者行腹腔镜腹膜后淋巴结清除术。　结果　手术均成功 ,平均手术时间 2 60min ,无患者需要输血 ,无严重并发症发生 ,术后平均住院时间 5 5d,术后平均随访 9个月无肿瘤复发。　结论　腹腔镜腹膜后淋巴结清除术非常适宜于治疗I期非精原细胞瘤 ,手术安全、创伤小、效果良好     

The current role of surgery in the management of residual disease

The increasing interest in surveillance rather than primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I testis cancer has led to retroperitoneal lymph node dissection being performed mostly after chemotherapy for stage II-IV disease. In most centres residual masses of 2-3 cm or more are removed; those smaller than this are most likely to be necrotic. The aim is to remove all residual disease even if this necessitates nephrectomy or excision of adjacent vascular structures. Laparoscopic approaches are hazardous in these circumstances. Thoraco-abdominal surgical approaches enable excellent access to retroperitoneal masses and synchronous excision of ipsilateral pulmonary metastases and thoracic lymph nodes. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection also appears to be worthwhile in chemotherapy-resistant disease ('desperation retroperitoneal lymph node dissection'), although the relapse rate is higher in this group.