腹腔镜下右半肝切除术治疗右肝肿瘤的围手术期疗效评估

目的比较腹腔镜下右半肝切除术与开腹右半肝切除术治疗右肝肿瘤的围手术期疗效。方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2016年6月浙江省人民医院收治的36例右半肝肿瘤行右半肝切除患者资料。根据手术方法分为腹腔镜右半肝切除组(15例)和开腹右半肝切除组(21例),比较两组患者围手术期疗效。结果腹腔镜右半肝切除组与开腹右半肝切除组在切口长度[(8.93±1.53)cm vs(22.62±2.56)cm,t=19.992,P0.05]、手术时间[(305.67±42.96)min vs(254.29±53.53)min,t=-3.073,P0.05]及术中出血量[(386.67±201.31)mL vs(747.62±451.24)mL,t=3.242,P0.05]方面,组间差异均具有统计学意义。与开腹右半肝切除组相比,腹腔镜右半肝切除组术后胃肠道通气时间[(2.60±1.30)d vs(9.24±4.22)d,t=2.107,P0.05]、术后住院时间[(10.93±2.28)d vs(14.71±5.17)d,t=2.971,P0.05]及并发症发生率(13.33%vs 47.62%,χ~2=4.629,P0.05)均较低,组间差异有统计学意义。术中第一肝门阻断,腹腔镜右半肝切除组为2例,开腹右半肝切除组为8例,差异无统计学意义(χ~2=2.674,P0.05);术后标本肿瘤切缘,腹腔镜右半肝切除组为(8.13±3.74)mm,开腹右半肝切除组为(10.24±4.12)mm,组间差异学无统计学意义(t=1.569,P0.05)。结论腹腔镜下右半肝切除治疗右肝肿瘤方法可行,较开腹右半肝切除胃肠道功能恢复快,住院时间短,并发症少,具有创伤小、安全性高等特点,术后疗效肯定,值得临床推广。     

半肝切除联合血管切除和重建治疗肝门部胆管癌

目的 探讨半肝切除联合血管切除和重建治疗肝门部胆管癌的疗效.方法 本组10例患者分属Ⅲa、Ⅲb、Ⅳ型的肝门部胆管癌,施行右半肝切除+胰十二指肠切除+门静脉右支起始部切除重建1例;右半肝切除+门静脉右支起始部切除重建5例;左半肝切除+尾状叶左侧切除+门静脉左支起始部切除重建+肝动脉切除1例及左半肝切除+尾状叶左侧切除+门静脉左支起始部切除重建3例.结果 10例Ⅲa、Ⅲb、Ⅳ型的肝门部胆管癌患者行半肝切除联合血管切除重建根治联合性手术,无术后死亡.10例患者术后均获随访,1、2、3年生存率分别为50%、30%、20%.结论 采用半肝切除血管切除重建能提高肝门部胆管癌根治性切除率.     

联合肝叶及入肝血管切除和重建治疗肝门部胆管癌的临床研究

目的探讨侵犯血管的肝门部胆管癌(HCCA)根治术同时联合肝叶及入肝血管切除和重建的临床意义。方法选取徐州医学院附属宿迁医院/南京鼓楼医院集团宿迁市人民医院普外科2006年1月至2014年1月期间收治的62例同时侵犯肝门部肝动脉和门静脉的HCCA患者,根据对患者手术创伤耐受程度的评估、营养状况及家属的意愿,其中33例行HCCA根治术+肝叶切除+肝动脉和门静脉联合切除重建术即R0切除(简称联合切除组),29例仅行姑息性胆管肿瘤切除和(或)内引流减黄手术即R1~2切除(简称姑息手术组)。结果联合切除组和姑息手术组患者的中位生存期分别为26.3个月和9.6个月,1、2、3年生存率分别为84.85%比26.32%、66.67%比15.79%和42.42%比0,联合切除组患者的中位生存时间和1、2、3年生存率长于或高于姑息手术组(t=4.470、P=0.000。χ2值分别为28.338、20.348和15.891,均P=0.000)。联合切除组33例患者中,术后出现并发症9例(27.27%),姑息手术组术后出现并发症5例(17.24%),2组间的差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.888,P=0.346)。联合切除组术后第12天有1例死于肝功能衰竭,围手术期死亡率为3.03%,姑息手术组围手术期无死亡者,围手术期死亡率为0,2组间的差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.893,P=0.345)。结论联合肝叶切除及血管切除重建可明显提高HCCA根治性(R0)切除率,并能提高HCCA患者的1、2、3年生存率。联合血管切除重建和联合肝叶切除的并发症是可控的,不增加围手术期死亡率。     

精准肝切除治疗肝脏肿瘤的疗效评价

目的评价精准肝切除术治疗肝脏肿瘤的近期疗效。方法将近2年内收治的143例肝脏肿瘤患者采用前瞻性、非随机对照临床试验的方法行精准肝切除84例(精准组)和行传统肝切除59例(对照组),比较两组手术后的近期效果。精准组采用肝段或肝叶切除方式,术中以半肝阻断或不阻断入肝血流为主。传统组采用肝门血流全阻断下大块钳夹缝扎法。结果精准组手术切除时间[(134±86)min]显著长于对照组[(71±52)min](P<0.01)。两组术中出血量分别为(274±186)mL和(340±220)mL,组间无统计学差异(P=0.055)。术后精准组当日引流量[(175±86)mL]显著少于对照组[(311±98)mL](P<0.01)。精准组术后3 d内血清ALT,AST,总胆红素,C反应蛋白峰值依次分别为(283.9±218.4)U/L,(215.5±171.3)U/L,(27.7±15.9)μmol/L,(35.4±17.3)mg/L,对照组分别为(754.5±273.0)U/L,(692.1±216.7)U/L,(46.3±20.1)μmol/L和(79.5±31.8)mg/L,两组间上述指标差异有统计学意义(均P<0.01...     

肝动脉和门静脉切除重建在肝门部胆管癌根治术中疗效的比较

目的研究肝动脉和门静脉切除重建在肝门部胆管癌(HC)根治术中的意义。方法回顾性分析2011年1月至2019年7月接受手术治疗的183例患者临床资料,依据术式分为以下三组:A组(78例,姑息手术);B组(56例,门静脉重建);C组(49例,肝动脉重建)。采用SPSS22.0统计软件对数据进行分析。三组术后并发症发生率的比较采用χ~2检验,Kaplan-Meier法进行术后生存分析,P0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果所有患者平均中位随访时间为39.5个月,姑息手术组、门静脉重建组和肝动脉重建组5年生存率分别为22.3%、45.7%和51.2%,门静脉重建组和肝动脉重建组差异无统计学意义,但均高于姑息手术组(P0.05)。姑息手术组、门静脉重建组和肝动脉重建组并发症发病率分别为73.1%、66.1%和71.4%,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。在90 d死亡率比较上,三组分别为10.3%、3.6%、6.1%,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论门静脉重建术和肝动脉重建术的治疗效果无论是并发症还是死亡率都要优于姑息手术组。     

循肝中静脉精准半肝切除疗效的前瞻性研究

目的 探讨循肝中静脉精准半肝切除术的疗效及术前肝静脉评估的应用价值.方法 前瞻性非随机对照分析2007年10月至2009年9月南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院收治的68例行半肝切除术患者的临床资料.其中循肝中静脉的精准半肝切除术30例(精准组),传统解剖性半肝切除术38例(传统组).术前对精准组患者肝静脉进行评估分型.比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、输血量、肝功能、并发症发生率、住院时间等指标.计量资料采用t检验或秩和检验,计数资料采用x2和Fisher确切概率法进行分析.结果 精准组术前肝静脉评估Nakamura分型:Ⅰ型57%(17/30)、Ⅱ型27%(8/30)、Ⅲ型16%(5/30);Kawasaki分型:Ⅰ型37%(11/30)、Ⅱ型63%(19/30);保留肝中静脉右半肝切除13例、左半肝切除15例;不保留肝中静脉左半肝及右半肝切除各1例.精准组术中出血量、输血量、术后第3天ALT、TBil、胆碱酯酶、总住院时间、术后住院时间与传统组比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.07,0.92,0.07,0.21,0.63,0.63,0.75,P＞0.05).精准组和传统组患者手术时间、术后第3天Alb、并发症发生率分别为(342±113)min、(35±3)g/L、40%(12/30)和(270±73)min、(33±3)g/L、66%(25/38),两组比较,差异有统计学意义(t=2.79,2.19,x2=4.49,P＜0.05).精准组和传统组肿瘤标本切缘阳性率分别为5%(1/19)和35%(8/23),两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 术前通过肝静脉评估和分型,术中循肝中静脉的精准半肝切除可最大限度保留有完整静脉回流的功能性肝脏组织,保证合适的切缘,降低术后并发症发生率.     

门静脉切除重建在肝门部胆管癌手术切除中的应用分析

目的研究联合门静脉切除重建在肝门部胆管癌手术切除中的价值。方法回顾分析2006年10月至2019年12月宁波市医疗中心李惠利医院肝胆胰外科行肝门部胆管癌切除的104例患者资料, 其中男性63例, 女性41例, 年龄(64.4±10.4)岁。单纯行肝门部胆管癌切除的75例患者纳入对照组, 联合保留侧门静脉切除重建的肝门部胆管癌切除29例患者纳入联合组。分析门静脉切除重建情况。比较两组手术相关指标、术后并发症、再手术、死亡情况。随访生存情况。Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析, 生存率比较采用log-rank检验。结果门静脉楔形切除侧侧吻合2例, 节段切除端端吻合27例。门静脉切除重建时间(12.7±2.9)(时间范围8～18)min, 门静脉切除长度(20.7±7.3)(长度范围8～38)mm。联合组术中出血量[M(Q1, Q3)]800.0(600.0, 1 500.0)ml、淋巴结转移58.6%(17/29), 高于对照组的[M(Q1, Q3)]600.0(500.0, 1 000.0)ml、32.0%(24/75), 差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。术后Clavie...     

腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术联合门静脉部分切除重建一例

目的 总结腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术的经验,并探讨腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术联合门静脉部分切除重建的安全性。方法 回顾性分析2021年5月陆军军医大学第二附属医院肝胆外科一例肝门部胆管癌（BismouthⅢa）在腹腔镜下行肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术（包括右半肝联合肝尾状叶切除、门静脉部分切除端端吻合等）的临床资料。结果 手术过程顺利,手术时间465 min,术中出血500 mL,术中输注红细胞300 mL。术后病理：肝门部胆管中低分化胆管细胞腺癌,可见神经侵犯,淋巴结无癌,切除部分门静脉有癌,门静脉左支切缘无癌。术后住院11 d,无胆漏、肺部感染、腹腔感染、出血等并发症发生。结论 严格谨慎地选择合适的病例,术前充分评估,并由经验丰富的肝胆外科医师实施手术,腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术联合门静脉部分切除吻合是可行的。但目前腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术处于探索阶段,需慎重评估后选择手术方式,不宜广泛推广。     

肝门部胆管癌根治术中的门静脉切除与重建的体会

目的探索门静脉切除与重建在肝门部胆管癌扩大根治术中的价值。方法回顾性分析2003年1月至2009年12月收治的在行根治性手术同时,行联合门静脉切除重建和/或肝切除的扩大根治术的肝门部胆管癌10例的临床资料。结果全组获R0切除6例,R1切除4例。行门静脉壁部分切除修补4例中,术后病理检查未提示门静脉壁肿瘤侵犯2例。行门静脉主干切除重建6例中,联合肝叶切除术者4例,联合肝动脉切除重建病例2例。术后发生胆漏3例,出现肝动脉血栓形成1例,无门静脉血栓形成或吻合口狭窄,无术后肝功能衰竭和消化道出血。本组无围手术期死亡病例,平均住院时间(32.5±15.7)d。本组2003年至2008年完成手术的6例中,存活超过1年者4例,超过3年者2例,尚无存活5年者。2009年完成的4例中,3例尚存活。结论肝门部胆管癌联合肝叶切除和门静脉切除与重建的扩大根治术并不增加围手术期死亡率和并发症发生率。     

基于肝实质优先离断的腹腔镜右半肝切除流程优化及应用

目的:探讨肝实质优先离断在腹腔镜右半肝切除术中的应用价值。方法:回顾性分析陆军军医大学第二附属医院肝胆外科2016年10月—2017年10月所完成的20例腹腔镜右半肝切除术手术患者资料,其中10例行肝实质优先离断腹腔镜右半肝切除术(观察组),即优先进行肝实质离断,而不是先行第一肝门解剖;另外10例行常规步骤先行第一肝门解剖,再进行肝实质离断(对照组)。比较两组患者的相关临床指标。结果:两组患者基本资料差异无统计学意义(均P0.05)。两组患者均顺利完成手术。与对照组比较,观察组手术时间明显缩短[(273.0±70.4)min vs.(203.0±61.3)min,P0.05],手术出血量明显减少[(470.0±427.0)mL vs.(270.0±149.4)mL,P0.05],但术中输血量无统计学差异(P0.05)。两组术后肝功能指标、术后住院时间、并发症发生率,以及术后肿瘤复发、转移发生率均无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:肝实质优先离断在腹腔镜右半肝切除术中是一种安全、有效的方法。     

肝叶切除联合门静脉切除和重建在肝门部胆管癌根治术中的应用

目的总结肝叶切除联合门静脉切除和重建在肝门部胆管癌中应用的临床经验。方法回顾分析1998年至2003年收治118例肝门部胆管癌患者的临床资料。结果118例中66例实施了姑息性治疗;52例实施根治性切除手术,其中联合肝切除者47例,肝切除中11例实施了联合门静脉切除和重建。行肝切除者术后并发症发生率为22．9％,合并门静脉切除者为27．3％;1、3年的存活率仅行肝切除者和合并门静脉切除者分别为85．7％、31．4％和81．8％、27．8％,2组差异无统计学意义。姑息治疗组仅5例存活超过3年（7．58％）,无5年生存者。结论门静脉浸润不是肝门部胆管癌手术的禁忌证,肝叶切除联合门静脉切除和重建提高其治愈切除率,改善术后患者的预后。     

Combined portal vein and liver resection for biliary cancer]

Portal vein resection has become common in hepatobiliary resection for biliary cancer with curative intent. When cancer invasion of the portal vein is very limited, wedge resection followed by transverse closure is indicated. Longitudinal closure is contraindicated, as this procedure causes stenosis of the portal vein. In the case of right hepatectomy, segmental resection is feasible before liver transection. Reconstruction is completed with end-to-end anastomosis, in which an intraluminal technique is used for posterior anastomosis and an over-and-over suture for anterior anastomosis. More than 5-cm resection of the portal vein often requires reconstruction with an autovein graft. In the case of left hepatectomy, portal vein resection after liver transection is preferable. The resection and reconstruction method should be determined based on both the extent of cancer invasion of the right portal vein and the length of the right portal trunk. So far, we have aggressively carried out combined portal vein and liver resection in 106 patients with advanced biliary cancer (62 cholangiocarcinoma and 44 gallbladder carcinoma). Twenty-nine patients underwent wedge resections and 77 segmental resections (66 end-to-end anastomosis and 11 autovein grafting using an external iliac vein). In patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (n = 58), 3- and 5-year survival rates were 23% and 8%, respectively. Three patients survived for more than 5 years after resection. In contrast, the prognosis of patients with gallbladder cancer (n = 44) was dismal. All of the patients died within 3 years after surgery, although they survived statistically longer than unresected patients. These data suggest that portal vein resection has survival benefit for patients with cholangiocarcinoma. However, the indications for this procedure in gallbladder cancer should be reevaluated.     

Combined portal vein and liver resection for carcinoma of the biliary tract

Twenty-nine patients with advanced carcinoma of the bile duct or gallbladder underwent combined portal vein and liver resection. Segmental excision of the portal vein was performed in 16 cases and wedge resection of the vessel wall in 13. The operative mortality rate was 17 per cent. The median survival for the 24 patients who left hospital was 19.8 months. Actuarial survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years for all 29 patients were 48 per cent, 29 per cent, and 6 per cent respectively, whereas the median survival for 46 patients with unresectable carcinoma was 3 months and the 1 and 3-year actuarial survival rates were 13 per cent and zero respectively. This difference in survival times between patients undergoing hepatectomy with portal vein resection and those with unresectable carcinoma were statistically significant (P less than 0.01). Combined portal vein and liver resection is recommended as a reasonable surgical approach in selected patients with advanced carcinoma of the biliary tract.     

Portal vein resection and reconstruction prior to hepatic dissection during right hepatectomy and caudate lobectomy for hepatobiliary cancer

BACKGROUND: Hepatobiliary cancer invading the hilar bile duct often involves the portal bifurcation. Portal vein resection and reconstruction is usually performed after completion of the hepatectomy. This retrospective study assessed the safety and usefulness of portal vein reconstruction prior to hepatic dissection in right hepatectomy and caudate lobectomy plus biliary reconstruction, one of the common procedures for radical resection. METHODS: Clinical characteristics and perioperative results were compared in patients who underwent right hepatectomy and caudate lobectomy plus biliary reconstruction with (ten patients) and without (11 patients) portal reconstruction from September 1998 to March 2002. RESULTS: All ten portal vein reconstructions were completed successfully before hepatic dissection; the portal cross-clamp time ranged from 15 to 41 (median 22) min. Blood loss, blood transfusion during the operation, postoperative liver function, morbidity and length of hospital stay were similar in the two groups. No patient suffered postoperative hepatic failure or death. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that portal vein reconstruction does not increase the morbidity or mortality associated with right hepatectomy and caudate lobectomy with biliary reconstruction. This approach facilitates portal vein reconstruction for no-touch resection of hepatobiliary cancer invading the hilar bile duct.     

No-touch resection of hilar malignancies with right hepatectomy and routine portal reconstruction

Background/Purpose  Locoregional recurrence following resection of hilar biliary cancers could be caused by the microscopic dissemination of cancer cells during dissection of the portal vein from the involved bile duct at the hilar region. This retrospective study assessed the feasibility and safety of a new procedure consisting of right-sided hepatectomy, caudate lobectomy, and bile duct resection combined with routine resection of the portal bifurcation to enable no-touch resection of hilar malignancies. Methods  Of 64 patients who underwent right-sided hepatectomy for hilar biliary cancer, the portal bifurcation was routinely resected by the above new procedure in 25 patients, based on preoperative imaging diagnoses. Perioperative outcomes were compared with those in patients who underwent conventional portal reconstruction (n = 18) and with those in patients who had preservation of the portal bifurcation (n = 21). Results  Perioperative data from patients with routine portal reconstruction were similar to those in the patients with conventional portal reconstruction and the patients without portal reconstruction. There were no postoperative complications directly related to portal reconstruction. Conclusions  No-touch resection of hilar malignancies with right hepatectomy and the routine use of portal reconstruction was feasible and safe. The oncologic impact of this technique merits further evaluation.     

An experimental study on the pathophysiology of stenosis and occlusion in portal vein reconstruction in resection of cancer of the hepatic hilus

An experimental study using mature mongrel dogs was performed to clarify the pathophysiology of stenosis and occlusion of portal vein reconstruction accompanied with hepatectomy. All the animals underwent partial (53%) hepatectomy. They were arbitrarily divided into three groups: Non-stenosis Group I with hepatectomy only, Stenosis Group II with partial '70%) stenosis of the portal vein, and Occlusion Group III with ligation of the portal vein. All cases of Group III died within about 122 minutes. The blood flow and pressure of the portal vein, portography, ICG Rmax and the residual liver weight were serially examined until the fourth week following the operation in Group I and Group II. Two principal results were derived: 1) In Group I, portal circulation was sufficiently restored and the residual liver showed adequate regeneration. 2) In Group II, hepatofugal collateral vessels developed. However, the portal pressure remained significantly high (p less than 0.002) and, the portal blood flow and liver tissue blood flow were markedly reduced (p less than 0.001) for 1 week after operation. The residual liver weight and liver function (ICG Rmax) were significantly decreased even in the fourth week. Recently, portal vein resection accompanied with hepatectomy has been accepted as a procedure for advanced carcinoma of the hepatic hilus. This study suggests that stenosis or occlusion of the portal vein should be avoided in the procedure.     

胰腺癌扩大根治术中的血管处理

目的 探讨联合门静脉-肠系膜上静脉切除的胰腺癌扩大根治术的临床意义和手术方法 ,以及术中医源性血管损伤的处理方法 .方法 回顾性分析242例胰腺癌扩大根治术患者临床资料,所有患者分为三组,A组为门静脉/肠系膜上静脉切除组(n=51),B组为术中发生医源性血管损伤组(n=5),C组为未行血管处理组(n=186),比较三个组的手术时间、术中输血量、血管阻断时间、平均住院天数、术后并发症及术后生存分析.结果 三个组手术时间分别为(442.85±102.32)min、(348.62±92.31)min和(315.00±83.43)min,术中平均输血量为(1430.83±1092.43)ml、(1420.22±794.41 ml)和(928.19±571.57)ml,手术时间和术中输血量相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),平均住院天数、术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P 0.05).合并门静脉/肠系膜上静脉切除的胰腺腺癌患者术后中位生存期18.4个月,不合并门静脉/肠系膜上静脉切除组的胰腺腺癌患者术后中位生存期16.1个月,生存分析两者无明显差异(P 0.05).51例联合血管切除的患者中,行血管壁部分切除7例,行血管节段切除44例,44例血管节段切除患者中38例行端端吻合,6例行间置移植物,血管切除长度平均(2.92±1.35)cm;5例术中医源性动脉损伤的血管分别为肝动脉1例,肠系膜上动脉1例,腹腔干3例,处理方式为4例行端端吻合,1例行局部修补.结论 积极合理的开展联合门静脉/肠系膜上静脉切除的胰腺癌扩大根治术可以提高手术切除率,改善患者生活质量.由于局部的解剖关系复杂,术中较易发生医源性血管损伤,应引起术者重视并加以正确处理.     

Portal reconstruction in hepatectomy with resection of portal vein

Modern issues of the portal vein resection while hepatectomy conduction are enlighten. The indications for resection of region of the portal vein branches confluence were substantiated, various methods of portoplasty were depicted. New methods of the portal tract passability restoration in discrepancy of diameters of the sutured portal vein portions were proposed. The results of hepatectomy with the portal vein resection were studied up.     

肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术中血管切除和重建15例报告

目的探讨侵犯肝动脉和(或)门静脉的肝门部胆管癌在行根治性切除时肝动脉、门静脉切除重建的方法及安全性。方法回顾性分析2005年1月至2009年12月15例行肝门部胆管癌联合半肝或肝三叶根治性切除同时行肝动脉和(或)门静脉切除重建的临床资料。结果本组行肝动脉切除重建7例。其中,肝右动脉与肝右动脉对端吻合4例,肝固有动脉与肝右动脉吻合1例,肝左动脉与肝右后动脉吻合1例,胃十二指肠动脉与肝右动脉吻合1例。门静脉切除重建8例。其中,门静脉主干与门静脉左支吻合5例,门静脉主干与门静脉右支吻合2例,颈内静脉架桥1例。其中联合肝动脉和门静脉切除重建1例。本组R0切除12例,R1切除3例。术后发生腹腔出血1例,胆漏1例,腹腔感染1例,均经保守治疗痊愈。无围手术期手术死亡病例。结论对侵犯肝动脉和(或)门静脉的肝门部胆管癌联合受累血管切除重建能提高肿瘤的根治切除率。严格的术前评估流程,精细的术中操作和完善的术后管理能保证手术的安全性。