肛管拖出式双吻合器在超低位直肠癌保肛术中的应用(附23例报告)

目的 探讨肛管拖出式双吻合器在超低位直肠癌保肛手术中的应用价值。方法 回顾性总结我院23例超低位直肠癌保肛手术的经验。结果 本组病例利用肛管拖出和双吻合器技术行超低位保肛术均获成功，术后发生吻合口漏1例（4．3％），切口感染2例（8．7％），术后局部复发2例（8．7％），无手术死亡。结论 肛管拖出式双吻合器技术行超低位保肛术是安全可靠的，它可以大大提高超低位直肠癌保肛手术的成功率。     

双吻合器法在直肠癌保肛手术中的应用

目的：探讨双吻合器吻合法在直肠癌保肛手术中的应用价值。方法：回顾性总结我院1994－1999年52例直肠癌应用双吻合器法行结直肠吻合保肛的经验。结果：本组52例，应用双吻合器的直肠癌手术中直肠残端闭合失败2例（3．8％），吻合器切割不全4例（7．6％），术后发生吻合口漏2例（3．8％），吻合口狭窄3例（5．8％），切口感染2例（3．8％），吻合口出血1例（1．9％）。术后局部复发3例（5．8％），无手术死亡。结论：双吻合器在低位直肠癌保肛手术中是安全可靠的，可以帮助外科医生完成以往手法缝合难以完成的低位结直肠吻合术。     

新型肠内引流预防低位直肠吻合口瘘的临床研究

目的评价一种新型肠内引流技术预防低位直肠吻合口瘘的临床应用价值。方法将119例获得经腹切除、低位直肠吻合的直肠癌病例随机分成2组，研究组（55例）术中附加由生物可降解吻合环、避孕套复合而成的新型肠内引流装置；对照组（64例）术中附加回肠末端保护性造瘘：比较两组治疗结果。结果两组患者性别、年龄、体形、肿瘤位置、肿瘤大小、肿瘤分化、吻合位置、营养状态及伴随疾病等生理病理因素差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。无围手术期死亡者。全组病例3个月随访率100％。研究组吻合口瘘的发生率7．3％（4／55），内引流装置排出时间平均18．3d，无引流相关并发症，术后3个月仅见5．5％（3／55）无需松解治疗的吻合口轻度狭窄；吻合口瘘者漏后引流时间平均4．8d，前3日引流量平均12．8ml／d，无严重感染及保肛失败病例。对照组吻合口瘘发生率10．9％（7／64）；45．3％（29／64）的病例伴有肠造瘘相关并发症，3个月后有28．1％（18／64）的病例吻合口轻度狭窄，6．3％（4／64）的病例吻合口严重狭窄需进行松解治疗：吻合口瘘者漏后引流时间平均17．1d，前3日引流量平均35．4ml／d；2例并发严重感染，1例吻合口毁损而致保肛失败。两组吻合口瘘发生率的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），但漏后腹腔引流量、引流时间、感染及3个月后吻合口狭窄发生情况两组差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论新型肠内引流技术简便、安全．能有效避免低位直肠吻合口瘘所导致的严重后果。与预防性肠造瘘相比．保护吻合口的作用更为优越，同时也显著减少了因废用而导致的吻合口狭窄的发生率。     

应用双吻合器治疗低位直肠癌56例临床分析

目的 评价双吻合器技术在低位直肠癌保肛术中的应用。方法 回顾分析我院2000年7月～2004年7月56例低位直肠癌应用双吻合器技术保肛的临床资料。结果 本组手术中结直肠吻合顺利，术后无吻合口瘘出血发生，吻合口狭窄2例（3．6％），无手术死亡病例。结论 应用双吻合器技术治疗低位直肠癌保肛的并发症少。     

低位三管引流预防低位直肠癌保肛术后吻合口瘘的效果

目的观察低位三管引流预防低位直肠癌一期切除吻合术后吻合口瘘的效果。方法将1985年1月至2007年12月1302例低位直肠癌患者按术后引流方式分为两组。低位三管引流组（822例）术中经肛门吻合口上放置肠腔内双管引流，经肛管旁放置一盆腔引流管。对照组（480例）仅经肛管旁放置一骶前腔引流管。对两组患者术后并发症进行分析。结果切口感染、吻合口瘘发生率：引流组分别为8．9％、2．2％；对照组分别为9．4％、8．1％。两组切口感染发生率相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），引流组吻合口瘘发生率显著低于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论低位三管引流可显著降低低位直肠癌保肛术后吻合口瘘的发生率。     

低位直肠癌前切除术后吻合口漏的临床特点分析

目的：回顾性分析低位直肠癌前切除术后吻合口漏发生的影响因素、临床特点、治疗方法和相关愈后。方法：回顾性分析本院674例低位直肠癌前切除术病人，根据不同性别、肿瘤大小、位置、Dukes分期、手术时机和方法对术后吻合口漏的发生进行了分析，并总结主要临床症状和处理方法。结果：674例低位直肠癌前切除术中共发生吻合口漏39例（5．8％），95％可信限区间（CI）为4．02％-7．54％，其中肿瘤下缘距肛缘〈6cm者吻合口漏发生率为6．2％，≥6cm者吻合口漏发生率5．5％。肿瘤直径≥3cm者吻合口漏发生率5．9％，〈3cm者吻合口漏发生率5．5％。Dukes B、C和D期肿瘤术后吻合口漏的发生率分别为2.4％、7．9％和7_4％。择期和急症手术吻合口漏的发生率为5．3％和26．7％。吻合口漏发生于术后7d或7d内为71．1％，发生于术后7d后为28．9％。经引流管局部冲洗引流及全胃肠外营养（TPN）治愈率为63．2％，横结肠失功性造瘘治愈率为36．8％。结论：低位直肠癌前切除术后吻合口漏的发生与肿瘤大小（P=0．962）和距肛门距离（P=0．798）无关，急症手术与择期手术吻合口漏发生率有显著差异（p=0．003），不同Dukes分期吻合口漏的发生率有显著差异（P=0．018）。间歇性或持续性发热、麻痹性肠梗阻、引流管中有粪质样液体是吻合口漏的主要表现，经引流管局部冲洗引流辅以TPN和横结肠失功性造漏是治疗吻合口漏的主要方法。     

非手术疗法治疗直肠癌保肛术后吻合口瘘

目的 探讨直肠癌保肛术后发生吻合口瘘的非手术疗法。方法 总结直肠癌保肛术后发生吻合口瘘而采用非手术综合治疗15例患者的临床资料。结果 直肠癌保肛术后吻合口瘘的发生率为11．5％。13例(86．7％)经非手术综合治疗治愈；1例行横结肠造瘘，1例改行miles术。从瘘发生至瘘治愈6-42(平均18)d。结论 结直肠癌保肛术后吻合口瘘绝大部分可以用非手术疗法治愈。     

直肠拖出单吻合器技术行超低位直肠癌保肛术

目的:探讨超低位直肠癌经直肠拖出采用单吻合器技术行保肛手术的可行性。方法:对近8年来收治的31例超低位直肠癌（肿瘤下缘距肛缘≤5 cm）患者，采用全直肠系膜切除、直肠拖出、双荷包、单吻合器技术行结肠肛管吻合术。结果:31例患者均顺利完成直肠癌保肛根治切除手术，且均未行预防性回肠或结肠造口。术后发生吻合口瘘5例（16.1%），吻合口狭窄2例（6.5%），局部复发2例（6.5%），无大便失禁及围手术期死亡。5年的生存率为78.6％ (11/14)。结论:对于超低位直肠癌保肛手术，采用直肠拖出单吻合器技术一期手术，安全可行，且费用相对较低。     

直肠癌行双吻合器保肛术后并发症的预防和治疗

目的：探讨低位直肠癌行双吻合器保肛术后无并发症的预防和治疗措施。方法：1996年6月至2001年9月对141例低位直肠癌用双吻合器法行保肛手术。结果：吻合口瘘的发生率是2．13％（3／141）。其中1996年至1999 年底吻合口瘘的发生率是6．06％（2／33），2000－2001年是0．93％（1／108）。仅有3例吻合口狭窄。结论：积极的预防是减少并发症发生的最简单有效的方法。并发症预防的主要措施：充分的肠道准备，良好的肠管血运，熟练运用双吻合器与正确放置引流管。     

经肛荷包单吻合器技术在高难度低位直肠癌保肛手术中的应用

为探讨经肛荷包单吻合器技术在高难度低位直肠癌前切除保肛手术中的优越性,选择因肥胖、骨盆狭窄、远端闭合困难或器械吻合失败的距肛门7cm以下的超低位直肠癌患者121例,在严格遵循TME原则的前提下,采用经肛荷包单吻合器技术行保肛手术治疗。结果显示,121例患者全部完成保肛手术,2例（1．65％）术后2周内发生吻合口漏,3例（2．47％）发生吻合口狭窄,3例（2．47％）局部复发,无手术死亡。结果表明,采用经肛荷包单吻合器技术对高难度低位直肠癌行直肠癌前切除保肛手术疗效满意,方法简单、安全,值得临床推广。     

盆底腹膜重建联合肛管引流在预防腹腔镜直肠癌前切除术后吻合口漏的应用

目的探讨盆底腹膜重建联合肛管引流在预防腹腔镜中低位直肠癌前切除术后吻合口漏的可行性及有效性。方法回顾性分析2013年1月至2017年12月期间,137例在我院接受腹腔镜中低位直肠癌前切除术患者的临床资料,根治性切除肿瘤后用可吸收线连续缝合重建盆底腹膜,经腹膜外置入引流管于吻合口旁,并经肛门留置肛管引流管。结果 137例手术均成功,无围手术期死亡病例。9例术后出现吻合口漏,发生率为6.57%,8例经过充分引流保守治疗后痊愈,1例因盆腔感染并感染性休克再次行回肠末端造口后痊愈。结论盆底腹膜的关闭并肛管引流使吻合口周围形成相对闭合负压状态,使吻合口与周围盆壁软组织增加黏连接触机会,从而减少吻合愈合时间并且肛管引流使得吻合口减压充分,使得吻合口漏的发生机会减少。腹腔镜中低位直肠癌前切除术后盆底腹膜重建联合肛管引流可有效的预防术后吻合口漏发生,在临床上应用是有效可行的。     

术前低蛋白血症对直肠癌保肛术后吻合口漏发生的影响

目的:探讨术前低蛋白血症对直肠癌保肛术后吻合口漏发生的影响.方法:回顾性分析从2004年1月至2005年12月间在广西医科大学第一附属医院结直肠肛门外科行直肠癌保肛手术治疗患者137例资料.结果:137例患者中有8例术后发生吻合口漏,发生率为5.8%.其中,术前低蛋白血症的患者16例,发生吻合口漏4例,发生率为25.0%;术前非低蛋白血症患者121例,发生吻合口漏4例,发生率为3.3%,术前低蛋白血症组与术前非低蛋白血症组相比,差异有统计学意义(P=0.0067).结论:直肠癌低蛋白血症组患者行保肛术治疗后吻合口漏的发生率较无低蛋白血症组患者高,这可能与低蛋白血症对患者全身及局部肠管情况的影响以及手术打击加重低蛋白血症有关.     

左半结肠癌合并急性肠梗阻Ⅰ期吻合手术治疗体会

目的 探讨左半结肠癌合并急性肠梗阻手术治疗方法 及结局。方法 选取我院收治35例左半肠癌合并急性肠梗阻的患者,术中采取肠道充分灌洗处理,均行一期吻合术。结果 所有患者手术过程顺利,未发生围手术期死亡病例,吻合口漏1例（2.9%）,经通畅引流、冲洗、加强营养等治疗后痊愈出院。左半结肠癌伴急性梗阻患者平均住院时间为14.5（9～24）天,3例患者发生切口感染或液化（8.6%）,经换药等处理后愈合。发生肺部感染4例（11.4%）,经抗感染治疗痊愈。结论 左半结肠癌合并急肠梗阻进行术中结肠灌洗并行Ⅰ期肠切除吻合是可行的。     

Risk Factors and Clinical Outcome for Anastomotic Leakage After Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: Anastomosis leakage is a major complication of rectal surgery. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection (LAR) in rectal cancer patients and study its impact on long-term prognosis and disease-free survival and overall survival in rectal cancer patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent rectal resection with primary anastomosis below the pelvic peritoneal reflexion for rectal cancer between October 1996 to February 2006 were included. RESULTS: Anastomosis leakage after LAR occurred in 51 patients (4.0%). The median time to leakage was 4 days (range = 2-30 days). In univariate analysis, gender, level of anastomosis less than 4 cm, preoperative concomitant chemoradiation (CCRT), and length of operation greater than 120 min were significantly associated with anastomosis leakage. In a multivariate analysis, gender (p = 0.041; relative risk = 2.007; 95% CI = 1.030-3.912) and preoperative CCRT (p = 0.003; relative risk = 2.861; 95% CI = 1.417-5.778) were identified as independent prognostic factors. The overall survival of the nonleakage group and the leakage group was 80.2% and 64.9%, respectively (p = 0.170). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were not significantly different between the nonleakage and leakage groups (78.1% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.166). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection is relatively low. Male gender and preoperative CCRT were associated with increased risk for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. No effect of anastomosis leakage on local recurrence was found in this series.     

Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the role of drainage in the prevention of complications after elective rectal or anal anastomosis in the pelvis. Anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection is more prevalent when the anastomosis is in the distal or infraperitoneal pelvis than in the abdomen. The benefit of pelvic drains versus their potential harm has been questioned. Drain-related complications include (1) those possibly benefiting from drainage (leakage, intra-abdominal infection, bleeding) and (2) those possibly caused by drainage (wound infection or hernia, intestinal obstruction, fistula). METHODS: Between September 1990 and June 1995, 494 patients (249 men and 245 women), mean age 66 +/- 15 (range 15 to 101) years, with either carcinoma, benign tumor, colonic Crohn's disease, diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon, or another disorder located anywhere from the right colon to the midrectum undergoing resection followed by rectal or anal anastomosis were randomized to undergo either drainage (n = 248) with 2 multiperforated 14F suction drains or no drainage (n = 246). The primary end point was the number of patients with one or more postoperative drain-related complications. Secondary end points included severity of these complications as assessed by the rate of related repeat operations and associated deaths as well as extra-abdominally related morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: After withdrawal of 2 patients (1 in each group) both groups were comparable with regard to preoperative characteristics and intraoperative findings. The overall leakage rate was 6.3% with no significant difference between those with or without drainage. There were 18 deaths (3.6%), 8 (3.2%) in those with drainage and 10 (4%) in those without drainage. Five patients with anastomotic leakage died (1%), 3 of whom had drainage. There were 32 repeat operations (6.5%) for anastomotic leakage 11 in the group with drainage and 4 in the group with no drainage. The rate of these and the other intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic drainage of the pelvic space does not improve outcome or influence the severity of complications.     

胰十二指肠切除术中胰肠吻合方式与术后胰漏及吻合口出血的相关性研究

目的分析胰十二指肠切除术（PD）中胰肠吻合方式与术后胰漏及吻合口出血的关系。方法回顾性分析2008年1月至2012年9月期间我院行PD的526例患者的临床资料。526例PD患者行胰肠吻合的方式：胰管空肠端侧黏膜对黏膜吻合（简称黏膜对黏膜吻合）359例,其中149例硅胶引流管内置（简称引流管内置）,130例硅胶引流管引流至体外（简称引流至体外）,80例硅胶引流管未放置（简称引流管未置）;胰腺空肠端侧套入式吻合165例（简称套入式吻合）,均未放置硅胶引流管;胰肠侧侧吻合2例（简称侧侧吻合）,均未放置硅胶引流管。结果526例PD患者术后共发生胰漏34例（6.46%）,胰肠吻合口出血8例（1.52%）,死亡32例（6.08%）。①黏膜对黏膜吻合的胰漏发生率明显低于套入式吻合〔4.18%（15/359）比11.52%（19/165）,χ2=10.029,P=0.002〕;黏膜对黏膜吻合与套入式吻合的吻合口出血发生率比较差异无统计学意义〔1.67%（6/359）比1.21%（2/165）,χ2=0.159,P=0.691〕。②黏膜对黏膜吻合术式中,引流管内置者和引流至体外者的胰漏发生率均分别明显低于引流管未置者〔2.68%（4/149）比11.25%（9/80）,χ2=7.132,P=0.008;1.54%（2/130）比11.25%（9/80）,χ2=9.410,P=0.002〕;引流管内置者与引流至体外者的胰漏发生率比较差异无统计学意义〔2.68%（4/149）比1.54%（2/130）,χ2=0.433,P=0.510〕。引流管内置者与引流至体外者的吻合口出血发生率比较差异无统计学意义〔2.68%（4/149）比1.54%（2/130）,χ2=0.433,P=0.510〕。结论黏膜对黏膜吻合方式胰漏的发生率明显低于套入式吻合方式,但吻合口出血的发生率无明显差异。胰管内硅胶引流管内置或引流至体外均能降低术后胰漏的发生率,但是对于吻合口出血的发生率无明显影响。     

直肠癌前切除术后吻合口漏的危险因素分析

目的探讨直肠癌前切除术后吻合口漏发生的危险因素。方法对我院从2005年1月到2007年12月三年间114例直肠癌前切除术后发生吻合口漏11例的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果11例确诊发生吻合口漏,总发生率为9.65%（11/114）吻合口漏发生在术后第6～10天。其中男性患者8例（11.76%,8/68）、年龄〉60岁者9例（14.52%,9/62）、肿瘤距肛缘距离≤6cm者6例（14.63%,6/41）、术前有糖尿病者3例（17.65%,3/17）、术前有贫血或低蛋白血症者2例（20%,2/10）、术前伴有肠梗阻者2例（22.22%,2/9）、行全直肠系膜切除者5例（13.89%,5/36）。结论男性患者、年龄〉60岁、肿瘤距肛缘距离≤6cm、术前合并糖尿病、贫血或低蛋白、伴有肠梗阻及全系膜切除者,是术后吻合口漏发生的危险因素。     

低位直肠癌保肛术后吻合口漏的原因及防治现状

目的分析低位直肠癌保肛术后吻合口漏的常见原因,以探索更好的预防及治疗策略。方法采用文献复习的方法对吻合口漏的定义、常见原因、防治现状等相关文献进行综述。结果目前直肠癌是我国常见恶性肿瘤之一,其中低位直肠癌约占2／3。低位直肠癌保肛手术已成为首选的术式,但保肛术后吻合口漏仍是最严重和常见的并发症之一。通过改善患者一般状况,提高手术技巧,规范化治疗等可有效减少吻合口漏的发生。结论术前合理评估患者基本状况,规范化并个体化治疗,有助于降低吻合口漏的发生率以及改善患者临床结局。     

Omentoplasty in the prevention of anastomotic leakage after colonic or rectal resection: a prospective randomized study in 712 patients. French Associations for Surgical Research.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of omentoplasty (OP) in the prevention of anastomotic leakage after colonic or rectal resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It has been proposed that OP--wrapping the omentum around the colonic or rectal anastomosis--reinforces intestinal sutures with the expectation of lowering the rate of anastomotic leakage. However, there are no prospective, randomized trials to date to prove this. METHODS: Between September 1989 and March 1994, a total of 705 patients (347 males and 358 females) with a mean age of 66 +/- 15 years (range, 15-101) originating from 20 centers were randomized to undergo either OP (n = 341) or not (NO, n = 364) to reinforce the colonic anastomosis after colectomy. Patients had carcinoma, benign tumor, colonic Crohn's disease, diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon, or another affliction located anywhere from the right colon to and including the midrectum. Patients undergoing emergency surgery were not included. Random allotment took place once the resection and anastomosis had been performed, the surgeon had tested the anastomosis for airtightness, and the omental flap was deemed feasible. Patients were divided into four strata: ileo- or colocolonic anastomosis, supraperitoneal ileo- or colorectal anastomosis, infraperitoneal ileo- or colorectal anastomosis, and ileo- or coloanal anastomosis. The primary end point was anastomotic leakage. Secondary end points included intra- and extraabdominal related morbidity and mortality. Severity of anastomotic leakage was based on the rate of repeat operations and related deaths. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics. Intraoperative findings were similar, except that there were significantly more septic operations and abdominal drainage performed in the NO group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). Thirty-five patients (4.9%) had postoperative anastomotic leakage, 16 in the OP group (4.7%) and 19 in the NO group (5.2%). There were 32 deaths (4.5%), 17 (4.9%) in the OP group and 15 (4.2%) in the NO group. Five patients with anastomotic leakage died (0.8%), 2 of whom had OP. There were 37 repeat operations (30%), 12 (6 in each group) for anastomotic leakage. Repeat operation was associated with fatal outcome in 14% of cases. The rate of these and the other intra- and extraabdominal complications did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION: OP to reinforce colorectal anastomosis decreases neither the rate nor the severity of anastomotic failure.