选择性保留半肝动脉血供的肝血流阻断法在肝切除术中的应用(附56例报告)

肝切除术中出血的控制一直以来备受关注,肝脏血流控制是减少术中出血的主要手段[1].肝血流阻断可以控制肝切除术中的出血,但同时又能带来肝功能的损害[2].目前临床最常应用的肝血流阻断法是第一肝门阻断法,包括Pringle法和半肝血流阻断法.Pringle法操作简单,但肝功能损害重,阻断时间受限;半肝血流阻断操作相对复杂,手术时间长.笔者近年来应用选择性保留半肝动脉血供的肝血流阻断法行肝切除术,效果满意.     

腹腔镜肝切除术中出血的控制

腹腔镜技术应用于肝脏外科尚处于探索阶段,尤其是腹腔镜肝切除术只能在少数医疗中心开展,而且大多数是小范围的非解剖性肝切除术.出现这种现象的主要原因是因为肝切除过程中创面出血难以控制.入肝血流阻断是肝切除过程中控制创面出血的主要方法,腹腔镜肝切除术中如采用全肝门血流阻断,会减少术中创面出血,但会引起余肝缺血再灌注损伤、胃肠道淤血等不良反应,在减少出血量的同时给机体带来了新的创伤,有悖于腹腔镜手术微创的宗旨.     

选择性出、入肝血流阻断技术在腹腔镜肝切除术中的应用

近年来,腹腔镜肝切除技术发展迅速,初期限制腹腔镜肝切除术发展的主要因素是术中出血在镜下难以控制,目前通过在镜下完全阻断入肝血流,或解剖第一肝门肝动脉、门静脉,选择性地阻断切除肝叶(段)的入肝血流技术的应用,使得术中出血量明显减少,解决了这一难题.因此,国内外腹腔镜肝切除术,尤其是大肝癌切除的病例报道越来越多[1-2].     

肝切除断肝器械的选择

肝脏外科的发展,始终面临着如何控制术中出血的困难和挑战.手术死亡率的下降标志着肝脏外科的发展,然而,术中出血仍然是威胁患者生命的主要危险因素之一.对于肝脏恶性肿瘤的患者,术中出血不仅增加死亡风险,同时增加输血需求,输血量的增加可能通过抑制患者免疫状态而导致术后的肿瘤复发风险增加[1].精准肝切除理念的提出并在临床上得到认可,其核心问题仍然是在不影响疗效的前提下最大限度地减少手术创伤和术中出血以及手术并发症,最终使患者从康复中最大获益[2].“工欲善其事,必先利其器.”肝脏外科的发展,离不开切肝器械的发展.令人高兴的是,近年来,新的切肝器械不断涌现,在临床上发挥巨大作用,推动着肝脏外科发展的同时,又给肝脏外科医师带来困惑.如何更好地选择和利用现有的切肝器械?哪种切肝器械临床效果最好?可以说仁者见仁,智者见智.无论选择哪种切肝器械或者不同切肝器械的联合使用,其根本目的都是为了快速的断肝,尽可能使断肝过程的出血量达到最少,封闭切断肝创面的血管和胆管,以减少术后并发症[3].指捏和钳夹法最早用于肝脏实质的分离,成为肝实质离断的最基本的技术.近20年来,新的切肝器械得到快速发展,主要包括超声刀,CUSA,水刀,百克钳,Ligasure,彭氏多功能手术解剖器以及Tissue-Link等.同时,肝脏血流阻断技术以及低中心静脉压麻醉技术的发展,使肝切除术中出血进一步减少,手术安全性得到进一步提高.笔者根据现有的文献以及多年来肝脏外科的经验,对常用的切肝方法和器械进行总结,希望能给读者以借鉴.     

肝脏手术中的肝门阻断

肝脏手术中的肝门阻断徐荣楠（安徽省立医院合肥２３０００１）．肝脏手术的关键问题是如何避免和控制术中的出血。以往使用的肝带、肝钳等现在已很少应用，目前在肝脏手术中控制出血的主要手段是肝门的血流阻断。第一肝门的阻断即肝蒂阻断，Ｐｒｉｎｇｌｅ在本世纪初创用...     

肝下下腔静脉阻断在肝切除术中控制出血的临床应用

如何有效地控制肝切除术中出血一直是肝胆外科领域研究的热点。肝脏有流人道和流出道两套血管系统,对肝脏的血流控制包括对流人道和流出道血流的控制。控制流人道出血有许多简单而有效的方法,而如何有效地控制流出道出血一直是个难题。学者们创立了许多方法,包括全肝血流阻断、选择性全肝血流阻断等,但是这些方法都存在一定的弊端,只在特定的患者中被采用。有学者发现通过降低中心静脉压可减少肝切除术中肝静脉系统的出血,但是对其有效性仍存在争议。近年来,有文献报道在第一肝门阻断的同时,阻断肝下下腔静脉即可有效减少肝切除时来自肝静脉系统的出血。此方法相对于其他控制肝脏流出道出血的方法都简单易行,在肝切除术中有很高的应用价值。本文对肝下下腔静脉阻断在肝切除术中应用的现状进行讨论,对其减少肝切除术中出血的有效性及安全性进行总结和评价。     

肝切除术中控制肝出血方法的选择

近２０年来随着解剖学、肝脏外科技术的发展,肝切除术中控制出血的方法有了长足的进步。目前控制出血的方法有局部血流阻断和入肝血流阻断。近年来全肝血流阻断,尤其是常温下全肝血流阻断方法的使用得到普及。目的均是为了切除病变肝组织、减少术中出血、确保手术安全、有利术后肝功能恢复。本文就近５年来,我们应用不同方法对１６１例原发性肝细胞肝癌病人施行肝切除治疗总结如下。临床资料１．本组病例均经手术病理证实为原发性肝细胞肝癌。其中男１３２例,女２９例;右半肝切除４３例,左半肝切除２８例,不规则肝段或联合肝段切除８…     

肝切除术中肝血流阻断方法的选择

为了减少肝切除术中出血和避免术中手术风险,目前仍在不断研究各种肝切除术的血流阻断方法,肝血流阻断方法繁多,合理、正确、个体化地应用于各种肝切除术中,可有效地减少和控制出血,确保患者术中的安全和术后顺利恢复,还能降低恶性肿瘤医源性复发和转移的发生率。笔者就各种肝切除术中如何选择合理的肝血流阻断方法进行了讨论。     

精细肝脏外科的发展

手术中有效控制出血是肝脏手术成功的关键.目前各种出入肝血流阻断方法,其共同特点是通过阻断入肝或全肝血流,减少出血.但阻断人肝血流及恢复血流可造成肝脏热缺血一再灌注损伤,特别是伴肝炎后严重肝硬化者术前肝功能多有明显损害,术中阻断入肝血流势必会造成余肝功能的进一步损害,以致不能很快恢复,甚至长期不能代偿.     

肝血流阻断技术在临床应用中的选择

肝切除是目前处理肝脏占位、严重肝外伤的有效方法,贯穿整个肝脏外科的根本问题是出血和止血,手术死亡率明显与术中出血量相关,大量输血可增加术后感染并发症的发生率和死亡率,也是恶性肿瘤术后复发的危险因素.因此,为了减少术中出血、输血、手术死亡、术后并发症及术后肿瘤复发的发生,各种肝血流阻断方法先后应用于临床,包括入肝血流阻断法、全肝血流阻断法和绕肝提拉法肝血流阻断.肝血流阻断可以控制肝切除术中的失血,但同时又带来副损伤,本文就肝血流阻断技术在临床应用中的选择进行综述.     

Body composition assessment and methodology in nonathletic and athletic adolescent and adult males and females

The purpose of this review is to outline methodology for assessing body composition utilizing anthropometric and densitometric techniques. The objective of body composition assessment is to measure body fat and lean body mass. The quantity of these components varies due to growth, physical activity, dietary regimens, and aging. Anthropometric techniques incorporate selected skinfolds, circumferences, skeletal widths, or other variables to estimate body composition within k2.0-4.0%. These techniques are adequate for field testing of groups or individuals, but are population specific. Densitometry measures body volume irrespective of physique, sex, or age. This laboratory technique estimates body composition within 1.0-2.0%, is more difficult to administer, but is not population specific. Some limitation exists with any present technique due to biological variability and incomplete research of reference body composition in children, females, and the aged. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1984;5(6):336-347.     

Perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality after above-knee and below-knee amputations in diabetics and nondiabetics

We performed a retrospective review of a vascular surgery quality assurance database to evaluate the perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality of above-knee amputations (AKA, n = 234) and below-knee amputations (BKA, n = 720) and to examine the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) (181 of AKA and 606 of BKA patients). All patients in the database who had AKA or BKA from 1990 to May 2001 were included in the study. Perioperative 30-day cardiac morbidity and mortality and 3-yr and 10-yr mortality after AKA or BKA were assessed. The effect of DM on 30-day cardiac outcome was assessed by multivariate logistic regression and the effect on long-term survival was assessed by Cox regression analysis. The perioperative cardiac event rate (cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was at least 6.8% after AKA and at most 3.6% after BKA. Median survival was significantly less after AKA (20 mo) than BKA (52 mo) (P < 0.001). DM was not a significant predictor of perioperative 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.76 [0.39-1.49]; P = 0.43) or 3-yr survival (Hazard ratio, 1.03 [0.86-1.24]; P = 0.72) but predicted 10-yr mortality (Hazard ratio, 1.34 [1.04-1.73]; P = 0.026). Significant predictors of the 30-day perioperative mortality were the site of amputation (odds ratio, 4.35 [2.56-7.14]; P < 0.001) and history of renal insufficiency (odds ratio, 2.15 [1.13-4.08]; P = 0.019). AKA should be triaged as a high-risk surgery while BKA is an intermediate-risk surgery. Long-term survival after AKA or BKA is poor, regardless of the presence of DM.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting: guidelines for prevention and treatment

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) causes patient discomfort, lowers patient satisfaction, and increases care requirements. Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) may also occur if opioids are used to treat postoperative pain. These guidelines aim to provide recommendations for the prevention and treatment of both problems. A working group was established in accordance with the charter of the Sociedad Espa?ola de Anestesiología y Reanimación. The group undertook the critical appraisal of articles relevant to the management of PONV and OINV in adults and children early and late in the perioperative period. Discussions led to recommendations, summarized as follows: 1) Risk for PONV should be assessed in all patients undergoing surgery; 2 easy-to-use scales are useful for risk assessment: the Apfel scale for adults and the Eberhart scale for children. 2) Measures to reduce baseline risk should be used for adults at moderate or high risk and all children. 3) Pharmacologic prophylaxis with 1 drug is useful for patients at low risk (Apfel or Eberhart 1) who are to receive general anesthesia; patients with higher levels of risk should receive prophylaxis with 2 or more drugs and baseline risk should be reduced (multimodal approach). 4) Dexamethasone, droperidol, and ondansetron (or other setrons) have similar levels of efficacy; drug choice should be made based on individual patient factors. 5) The drug prescribed for treating PONV should preferably be different from the one used for prophylaxis; ondansetron is the most effective drug for treating PONV. 6) Risk for PONV should be assessed before discharge after outpatient surgery or on the ward for hospitalized patients; there is no evidence that late preventive strategies are effective. 7) The drug of choice for preventing OINV is droperidol.