胸腹腔镜联合与传统食管癌根治术疗效比较

目的 比较胸腹腔镜联合行食管癌根治术与传统手术食管癌根治术的临床疗效.方法 比较70例接受腔镜联合食管癌根治术与80例接受传统手术食管癌根治术患者的一般情况、病理学资料、术后并发症、复发或转移比例等方面的差异.结果 腔镜联合组手术时间长于传统手术组,但术中出血量、术后胸腔引流液总量及术后吗啡用量少于传统手术组(P ＜0.05或P＜0.01).两组术后住院时间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).腔镜联合组切除食管标本长度、肿瘤近端切缘长度长于传统手术组,但前者差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),后者差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组淋巴结清扫数目及术后并发症和切口种植致局部复发发生率差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).腔镜联合组术后反流性胃炎发生率7.1％,传统手术组45.0％,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).两组术后同期复发转移率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 胸腹腔镜联合食管癌根治术具有与传统开胸癌根治术相同的治疗效果,且创伤小,恢复快.     

梗阻性结直肠癌导管减压后3D腹腔镜与开腹手术的疗效比较

目的:比较梗阻性结直肠癌导管减压后行3D腹腔镜与开腹根治术的疗效。方法:回顾性分析2011年5月—2013年6月96例行手术治疗的梗阻性结直肠癌患者资料,所有患者术前均行肠梗阻导管置入减压,然后50例行3D腹腔镜下行结直肠癌根治术3D(腹腔镜手术组),46例行传统开腹结直肠癌根治手术(开腹手术组),比较两组患者的相关临床指标。结果:两组患者术前资料具有可比性;腹腔镜手术组平均手术时间长于开腹手术组(5.9 h vs.5.2 h,P0.05),平均总住院费用高于开腹手术组(3.3万元vs.2.7万元,P0.05),但平均术后排气时间(2.4 d vs.3.0 d,P0.05)、留置尿管时间(2.7 d vs.3.9 d,P0.05)、住院时间(15.2 d vs.23.8 d,P0.05)均明显短于开腹手术组;两组患者术后吻合口瘘、切口感染、腹腔脓肿和肠梗阻发生率差异均无统计学差异(均P0.05);两组患者3年无瘤生存率无统计学差异(80.0%vs.82.6%,P=0.744)。结论:3D腹腔镜手术治疗导管减压后梗阻性结直肠癌术后恢复快,且围手术期并发症与预后方面与开腹手术相似,可作为梗阻性结直肠癌治疗的手术方式。     

腹腔镜与开腹TME保肛术治疗中低位直肠癌的对照研究

目的 评价腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除(TME)保肛术治疗中低位直肠癌的可行性、安全性和治疗效果.方法 回顾性分析2008年2月-2010年6月由同一组手术医师完成的37例腹腔镜TME与45例开腹手术保肛治疗中低位直肠癌患者的临床资料,比较两组的手术情况、并发症及近期疗效.结果 腹腔镜组术中失血量(60.6±20.9) mL、术后肠功能恢复时间(3.3±0.6)d、住院时间(9.2±2.8)d、吻合口瘘等并发症发病率(8.1％)均小于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).腹腔镜组和开腹组肿瘤下切缘长度(5.1±2.3vs4.3±2.0)cm、淋巴结清扫数(14.5±7.1vs15.1±5.6)枚,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),腹腔镜组和开腹组保肛率分别为(91.9％ vs 73.3％),差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).术后随访6 ～ 36个月,腹腔镜组和开腹组患者复发率和总生存率分别是10.8％和11.1％、94.6％和91.1％,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜TME保肛手术治疗中低位直肠癌是一种安全的术式,肿瘤根治效果与开腹手术相当,且提高了保肛率,并发症的发病率低,术后恢复情况优于开腹手术,值得临床推广应用.     

腹腔镜直肠癌根治术与同期开腹手术的回顾性分析

目的 评价腹腔镜治疗直肠癌的可行性及近期临床疗效.方法 腹腔镜辅助下直肠癌手术64例,其中直肠癌Dixon手术51例(79.7%),经肛门内括约肌直肠癌根治术(ISR)1例,Hartmann术1例,Mile手术11例;开腹直肠癌根治术患者51例,其中直肠癌Dixon手术38 例(74.5%)、Mile手术11例,Hartmann术2例.比较两组患者的手术及术后情况.结果 两组均无术中、术后严重并发症和手术死亡病例,腹腔镜组有4例中转开腹手术.腹腔镜组术中失血量明显少于开腹组[(51.4±20.0)ml比(180.0±64.7)ml,P＜0.01].两组平均手术时间、保肛率、清除的淋巴结数量、直肠前切除肿瘤远端切缘长度组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).腹腔镜组术后胃肠功能恢复时间早于开腹组[(2.5±1.0)d比(3.8±1.2)d,P＜0.05],腹腔镜组住院时间短于开腹组[(10.6±2.8)d比(13.5±3.1)d,P＜0.05].腹腔镜组的术后镇痛需求率、肠功能恢复时间、进食流质时间、下床活动时间及住院时间均低于或少于开腹组(P<0.05);手术并发症发生率两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).平均随访18个月,腹腔镜组和开腹组患者复发率和总生存率分别是7.8%和9.8%,95.3%和96.1%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 腹腔镜直肠癌切除术安全、有效,具有可行性.     

腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术安全性和生存状况分析

目的 评估腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的安全性和长期生存情况.方法 行远端胃癌根治术患者360例,其中160例行腹腔镜手术(腹腔镜组),200例行开腹手术(开腹组),比较两组患者手术安全性、术后并发症和生存率.结果 腹腔镜组手术出血量和术后住院时间分别为(42.5±15.3)ml和(9.5±2.6)天,均少于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组手术时间、淋巴结清扫数目和术后并发症比较,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组患者随访时间6 ～ 60个月,平均32个月,腹腔镜组与开腹组1、3、5年总体生存率分别为95.3％、82.7％、60.3％和95.4％、79.2％、60.3％,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术安全可行,有创伤小,恢复快,并发症少.腹腔镜组在术后生存率与开腹手术组相当.     

腹腔镜及开腹结直肠癌根治术的临床对比

目的:比较腹腔镜和传统开腹结直肠癌根治术的临床疗效.方法:回顾性分析由同一手术组完成的45例腹腔镜下结直肠癌根治术和同期49例开腹结直肠癌根治术患者的临床资料对比两组的手术安全性、手术时间、出血量、术后恢复、肿瘤根治性随访结果.结果:两组均无严重并发症,均无手术死亡病例.腹腔镜组在术中失血、术后恢复、住院时间、术后止痛药剂量、并发症发生率、进食时间明显优于开腹组(P＜0.05),但在切除标本中淋巴结个数与开腹组无差统计学异(p＞0.05).结论:腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术创伤小、术后恢复快、安全可靠.     

腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌根治术临床疗效的对比研究

目的 比较腹腔镜与开腹直肠癌根治术的远期和近期临床疗效.方法 2004年6月至2009年8月由同一手术组完成腹腔镜直肠癌根治术312例及开腹直肠癌根治术226例,分析比较两组患者的远期生存率、手术情况、术后恢复情况及术后并发症.采用Life table分析法对资料进行生存分析,Gehan法对生存曲线进行显著性检验.结果 两组患者在年龄、性别、肿瘤分期和肿瘤病理分型等方面无明显差异.术后3、5年生存率腹腔镜组分别是84.5％和66.7％;开腹组分别是83.3％和64.8％,两组患者术后生存率经Life table生存分析无明显差异.腹腔镜组和开腹组的出血量分别为61 ±13ml和174±84 ml(t =23.24,P＜0.05)、术后排气时间分别为2.7±1.3d和3.6±1.8 d(t =6.61,P＜0.05)、术后住院日分别为9.1±2.4d和12.0±3.4 d(t =11.8,P＜0.05).腹腔镜组与开腹组淋巴结清扫数分别为11.0±2.7枚和12.0±3.6枚(t=1.72,P＞0.05),直肠标本长度分别为16.0±3.4cm和16.0±4.3 cm(t =0,P＞0.05),直肠肿瘤远端切缘分别为3.2±1.3cm和3.2±1.7 cm(t =0,P＞0.05),开腹组术后切口感染28例,腹腔镜组8例(P＜0.05),两组患者术后其他并发症发生率无统计学差异.结论 腹腔镜直肠癌根治术远期疗效与开腹手术相似,且具有创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少等优势.     

肝脏囊型包虫病腹腔镜与开腹根治性手术治疗的疗效比较

目的 评价和比较经腹腔镜与开腹根治性手术治疗肝脏囊型包虫病的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2006年5月至2013年1月收住并接受根治性手术治疗的肝脏囊型包虫病患者的临床资料,并对手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹率、平均术后住院时间、术后并发症进行统计学分析.结果 本研究共纳入153例患者,其中41例行经腹腔镜手术(腹腔镜组)、112例行传统开腹手术(开腹组).腹腔镜组平均手术时间较开腹手术短,但差异无统计学意义(t=1.97,P＞0.05).腹腔镜组5例患者行中转开腹手术,中转开腹率为12.2％(5/41).2组术中出血量比较差异无统计学意义(t=2.00,P＞0.05).腹腔镜组平均术后住院时间为3～8 d,而开腹组为4～14d,差异有统计学意义(t=1.99,P＜0.05).腹腔镜组并发症发生率为4.9％(2/41)、开腹组并发症发生率16.0％(18/112),差异有统计学意义(x2=3.92,P＜0.05).结论 腹腔镜肝包虫根治性手术治疗较传统开腹肝脏囊型包虫病手术治疗具有术后住院时间短,并发症少,恢复快,复发率低的特点,在严格选择患者的条件下是安全和可行的.     

腹腔镜和开腹直肠癌根治术的安全性及远期疗效比较

目的 探讨腹腔镜和开腹直肠癌根治术的安全性及远期疗效的差异.方法 回顾性分析2000年1月至2008年12月福建医科大学附属协和医院收治的602例行直肠癌根治术患者的临床资料.根据手术方式将患者分为腹腔镜组(324例)和开腹组(278例).比较两组患者淋巴结清扫数目、切除肿瘤标本的近端和远端切缘长度、局部复发率、远处转移率、生存率、无瘤生存率等.计数资料采用独立样本t检验,生存率采用寿命表法计算,采用Wilcoxon( Gehan)检验进行比较,复发率和转移率的比较采用x2检验或Fisher确切概率法.结果 腹腔镜组和开腹组平均淋巴结清扫数目分别为(21±8)枚和(21±9)枚,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.120,P＞0.05)；腹腔镜组和开腹组近端切缘长度分别为(15.1±1.3)cm和(15.0 ±0.8)cm,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.452,P＞0.05)；远端切缘长度分别为(4.0±1.6)cm和(3.3±1.4)cm,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(t=5.587,P＜0.05).局部总体复发率为5.6％( 34/602),无切口或戳孔种植.腹腔镜组与开腹组局部复发率分别为6.2％( 20/324)和5.0％ (14/278),两组比较,差异无统计学意义(x2=0.363,P＞0.05).总体远处转移率为11.5％ (69/602),腹腔镜组和开腹组远处转移率分别为11.1％ (36/324)和11.9％(33/278),两组比较,差异无统计学意义(x2 =0.085,P＞0.05).腹腔镜组和开腹组3年生存率分别为87.8％和84.9％,5年生存率分别为83.0％和79.3％,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组3年无瘤生存率分别为79.4％和79.7％,5年无瘤生存率分别为69.2％和73.1％,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).本组随访率为81.2％(489/602),49例患者死亡,其中腹腔镜组20例,开腹组29例.结论 腹腔镜直肠癌根治术不仅在肿瘤学安全性上是可靠的,而且可以达到和传统开腹手术同样的远期疗效.     

腹腔镜与开腹手术在老年结直肠癌患者中的应用分析

目的 比较腹腔镜与开腹手术对70岁以上老年结直肠癌患者的近期疗效,并评价腹腔镜手术的安全性和可行性.方法 回顾分析2009年1月-2015年12月仪征市人民医院普外科收治的91例行腹腔镜与开腹手术的70岁以上老年结直肠癌患者的临床资料,其中腹腔镜组38例,开腹组53例.比较两组的手术学指标、术后恢复及并发症发生情况等.数据比较采用t检验、Mann-WhitneyU检验、Pearson x2检验或Fisher确切概率检验.结果 两组患者的年龄、性别、ASA评分、既往腹部手术史、病理分期及慢性合并症构成差异无统计学意义.两组均无死亡病例.腹腔镜组38例,1例(2.1％)因右侧输尿管损伤中转开腹行输尿管修补吻合+双“J”管置入术,传统开腹组53例.腹腔镜组和开腹组手术时间(238 ±71.3) minvs(175±60.8) min、术中出血量(145 ±58) ml vs (186 ±45) ml比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).淋巴结清扫数目(11.6±2.8)枚vs(13.1±3.0)枚,P=0.513,差异无统计学意义,所有标本切缘病理检查均为阴性.腹腔镜组术后首次下床活动时间(2.1±1.7)dvs(2.9±0.8)d、肠功能恢复时间(3.6±0.5)dvs(4.1±0.6)d、进食流质时间(3.3±0.3)dvs(3.9±0.6)d、术后住院时间(11.9±3.9) dvs (14.5±3.7)d,均显著低于开腹组(P＜0.05).术后总并发症23.7％,显著低于开腹组45.3％ (P =0.035);切口感染也显著降低(P=0.017).术中并发症以及术后吻合口瘘、吻合口出血、尿路感染、肺部感染、腹腔感染、肠梗阻、淋巴漏、心律失常、谵妄发病率两组差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 老年结直肠癌患者实施腹腔镜手术是安全可行的,近期疗效优于开腹手术.     

腹腔镜与开腹直肠前切除术治疗直肠癌的疗效比较

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹直肠前切除术治疗直肠癌的临床效果。方法:回顾分析由同一手术组医师施行的19例腹腔镜与21例开腹直肠前切除术治疗直肠癌患者的临床资料,并进行比较。结果:两组病例在肠段切除长度、肿块距下切缘距离和淋巴结清扫范围等方面,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腹腔镜组的术中出血量、术后止痛剂用量、术后肛门排气时间、切口感染数明显少于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:腹腔镜直肠前切除术安全有效,与开腹手术相比创伤更小,恢复更快,值得临床应用。     

直肠癌合并2型糖尿病患者腹腔镜与开腹手术近期疗效的比较

目的：探讨腹腔镜辅助下直肠癌前切除术与同期开腹手术对合并2型糖尿病患者短期疗效。方法：回顾性分析2年间解放军总医院实施直肠癌前切除术的97例患者的临床资料。其中43例行腹腔镜手术（腔镜组）,54例行传统开腹手术（开腹组）,比较两组术中及术后情况。结果：与开腹组比较,腔镜组术中失血量、切口长度、排气时间、开始进流食时间及术后住院天数均优于开腹组（均P<0.01）,且总并发症发生率低于开腹手组（P=0.0479）。两组手术时间、淋巴结清扫个数及术后镇痛泵使用例数差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。结论：腹腔镜直肠癌前切除术能有效减少直肠癌合并2型糖尿病患者术后并发症发生率,该术式对治疗直肠癌合并2型糖尿病是安全可行的,可作为首选术式。

     

手助腹腔镜与单纯腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的临床疗效对比

目的探讨手助腹腔镜与单纯腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的临床效果。方法回顾性分析2013年6月至2015年6月51例手助腹腔镜直肠癌根治术(HALS组)和47例单纯腹腔镜直肠癌根治术(LA组)患者的临床资料,采用SPSS18.0软件进行统计学分析,两组术中指标、手术疗效相关指标及术后恢复指标等以(x珋±s)表示,采用t检验;中转开腹率和术后并发症发生率组间比较采用χ2检验,P0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果 HALS组手术时间和术中出血量分别为(105.8±21.4)min、(98.7±12.5)ml;LA组手术时间和术中出血量分别为(316.9±32.8)min、(117.4±20.7)ml,HALS组手术时间和术中出血量均显著低于LA组(P0.01);两组患者中转开腹率、疗效指标、术后并发症发生率和术后恢复各指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论手助腹腔镜直肠癌根治术术中损伤较小且能够达到与单纯腹腔镜直肠癌根治术相同的临床疗效,值得在临床中进一步推广应用。     

Integration of open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer resection: oncologic and short-term outcomes

Background

Laparoscopy is increasingly used for rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is not attempted for some suitable patients because of concerns for conversion or technical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate oncologic and short-term outcomes for patients undergoing curative resection for rectal cancer via laparoscopic and open approaches.

Methods

A prospective database was reviewed to identify rectal cancer resections from 2005 to 2011. Patients who had primary rectal cancer within 15 cm of the anal verge were included in the study. Those with recurrent or metastatic disease were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic or open approaches preoperatively based on clinical criteria and imaging. All patients underwent a standard total mesorectal excision and followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. The oncologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by approach.

Results

The analysis included 81 patients. The preoperative assignments consisted of 62 laparoscopic (77 %) and 19 open (23 %) procedures. Nine laparoscopic procedures (14.5 %) were converted to open procedures. After a median follow-up period of 25 months, all oncologic outcomes were comparable. Three patients (two laparoscopic, one open) had a positive circumferential margin (≤1 mm). The laparoscopic and open groups were similar in terms of their 3-year disease-free periods (93.6 vs. 88.2 %; P = 0.450) and overall survival periods (93.5 vs. 90.9 %; P = 0.766). The local recurrence rate was 2.5 %.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer can be attempted for most patients. Conversion to open procedure does not compromise clinical or oncologic outcomes. In practice, combining laparoscopic and open surgery optimizes resource use and results in at least equivalent outcomes.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection

Background: Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer has never gained wide acceptance among general surgeons, mainly due to the technical difficulties encountered during pelvic dissection. It has therefore been stated that these patients should undergo open rather than laparoscopic surgery. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is a new technique that has the potential to overcome many of the existing limitations of pure laparoscopy. In the treatment of rectal cancer, HALS could reproduce an operative setting similar to that of the open approach. Methods: To assess the technical feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer and evaluate potential benefits and drawbacks of this new procedure, a pilot study was conducted at a university hospital on 16 consecutive patients during a 12-month period. Only patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer were included in this series. Patients' clinical data, operative time, conversion rate, complications, and early outcome measures were prospectively examined. Results: There were 9 men and 7 women. The average ± SD operation time was 238 ± 38 min. Conversion to open surgery was never required. Ten of 16 patients were off pain medication on the third postoperative day. Eight were able to walk the day after surgery. Three minor postoperative complications were recorded. Mean postoperative stay for patients without complications was 5.6 ± 1.4 days. Conclusion: From a technical standpoint, the reported hand-assisted procedure makes pelvic dissection during laparoscopic low anterior resection almost equivalent to the laparotomic operation. The incision for hand access that is needed with this technique does not seem to compromise the quick recovery of patients undergoing purely laparoscopic procedures.     

腹腔镜直肠癌Miles手术对机体应激反应和内脏蛋白的影响

目的:探讨腹腔镜直肠癌Miles手术对机体应激反应和内脏蛋白的影响。方法:将60例行直肠癌Miles手术的患者按其意愿分为腹腔镜组和开腹组,每组30例,于术前、术后第1、2、3天晨检测血C反应蛋白(CRP),IL-6及内脏蛋白,包括白蛋白(ALB)、前白蛋白(PRE)、转铁蛋白(TRF)、视黄醇结合蛋白(RBP)的变化。结果:两组CRP、IL-6术后1~3d较术前均明显升高(P<0.01),腹腔镜组术后CRP、IL-6明显低于开腹组(P<0.01)。两组术后ALB、PRE、TRF、RBP较术前明显下降(P<0.01)。术后第2天腹腔镜组PRE高于开腹组(P<0.01),术后第3天腹腔镜组ALB、PRE、TRF、RBP均明显高于开腹组(P<0.01)。结论:腹腔镜直肠癌Miles手术较开腹手术机体创伤及应激反应小,有利于机体内脏蛋白的恢复。     

Preservation of sexual and bladder function after laparoscopic rectal surgery

Background  There have recently been reports of higher levels of bladder and sexual dysfunction in men after laparoscopic rectal surgery when compared with those undergoing open surgery. This has led some surgeons to question the role of the laparoscopic approach to rectal surgery.
Method  This study represents a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database for a single unit, comprising 2406 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Bladder function, potency and ejaculation were assessed at postoperative clinic visits for men undergoing laparoscopic low or ultra-low anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision of the rectum.
Results  A total of 101 males were identified (median age 62 years: range 20–90 years). Urinary dysfunction was reported by six (6%) patients. Six (6%) patients had sexual dysfunction, manifesting as retrograde ejaculation in four patients and erectile dysfunction in a further two patients.
Conclusions  The low rates of sexual dysfunction in this unit may be attributable to pelvic dissection only being undertaken by experienced, dedicated laparoscopic colorectal surgeons. Laparoscopic restorative surgery for rectal cancer has been performed here only since 2001 after considerable experience accrued in operating on benign rectal disease and colon cancer. Studies from elsewhere reporting poorer functional outcomes have probably included a significant number of patients on the surgeons'learning curve'.     

腹腔镜联合经肛门括约肌间超低位直肠癌切除术：附68例报告

目的：探讨腹腔镜联合经肛门括约肌间径路超低位直肠癌切除的可行性。方法：回顾2010年1月—2012年6月68例行腹腔镜经肛门括约肌间径路超低位直肠癌根治术患者（腔镜组）与同期行76例开腹经肛门括约肌间径超低位直肠癌根治术患者（开腹组）的临床资料,比较两组临床指标与疗效。结果：144例手术均获成功,腔镜组无中转开腹。与开腹组比较,腔镜组手术时间延长[（243.7± 40.4）min vs.（150.5±32.1）min],但术中出血量减少[（103.2±10.5）mL vs.（231.6±23.5）mL]、术后切口感染例数减少（1例 vs. 8例）、肛门排气时间缩短[（2.5±0.6）d vs.（4.6±0.5）d]、住院天数减少[（10.5±0.4）d vs.（14.6±0.3）d],差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）;两组扫淋巴结数目、吻合口瘘与肠梗阻发生例数,以及术后1年生存率差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。结论：腹腔镜应用于经肛门括约肌间径路超低位直肠癌手术安全可行,并有微创、术后切口感染少等优点。

     

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a comparative study on short-term outcomes. A single-institution experience regarding anterior resections and abdominoperineal resections

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) is being used in rectal cancer more frequently. The aim of this study was to analyze the differences in short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic TME. METHODS: In this nonrandomized consecutive study, the short-term outcomes of 100 patients undergoing TME for proven rectal cancer were analyzed. RESULTS: Two groups of 50 patients underwent an open or laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer. Both groups were comparable. Laparoscopic surgery took longer to perform (250 vs. 197.5 min, p < 0.01), but was accompanied by less blood loss (350 vs. 800 ml, p < 0.01). Enteric function recovered sooner after laparoscopy. The numbers of major and minor complications were comparable between both groups, although fewer patients had major complications in the laparoscopic group (6 vs. 15 patients, p = 0.03). Hospital stay was shorter for patients who underwent a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (10 vs. 12 days, p = 0.04). Median follow-up was 17 months for the laparoscopic group and 22 months for the open group. Survival analyses between the groups showed no statistical difference in disease-free and overall survival. CONCLUSION: This study shows that laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is a safe and feasible technique with some short-term benefits over open TME.     

腹腔镜直肠癌根治术对病人生活质量影响的分析

目的:比较腹腔镜直肠癌根治术与传统开腹手术对病人术后生活质量(quality of life,QOL)的影响。方法:对照研究25例腹腔镜直肠癌根治术(腹腔镜组)和29例开腹直肠癌根治术(开腹组),采用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织的癌症病人QOL评价量表QLQ-C30,评价和比较手术前后QOL的变化特征。结果:两组病人在年龄、性别、肿瘤与肛缘距离、TNM分期方面差异均无统计学意义。两组病人术后早期除情绪功能和认知功能以外的QOL总体评价较术前均明显下降,术后3～6个月,各项功能分值呈逐渐恢复趋势,腹腔镜组恢复显著早于开腹组(P<0.05)。总体健康状况量表的评价结果显示,腹腔镜组病人QOL恢复到中等以上水平的时间也显著早于开腹组。结论:腹腔镜直肠癌根治术不但创伤小、痛苦少、恢复快,且病人术后QOL恢复较开腹手术佳。