腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除术治疗低位直肠癌32例疗效观察

对32例低位直肠癌患者行腹腔镜下全直肠系膜切除术(TME),结果手术均获成功,平均手术时间230min,平均失血量90 ml,术后2～3 d恢复胃肠功能并下床活动,平均住院时间9 d,无死亡病例.认为腹腔镜下TME治疗低位直肠癌安全可靠,且具有创伤小、术后康复快、并发症少等优点.     

经腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术治疗低位直肠癌

目的探讨经腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术(TME)治疗低位直肠癌的可行性。方法经腹腔镜对14例低位直肠癌患者实施TME。结果14例患者手术顺利。手术时间120～240分钟，平均180分钟；术中出血30～180ml，平均50ml；术后1～2天恢复胃肠功能并下床活动；住院5～14天，平均6天。术后6例应用镇痛剂，无死亡者，无并发症发生。结论经腹腔镜TME治疗低位直肠癌安全可行，且创伤小、术后疼痛轻、恢复快。     

老年腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术保肛治疗直肠癌15例

近年来。全直肠系膜切除术（TME）在临床上的成功应用，使低位直肠癌的保肛率明显提高，局部复发率显著下降。目前临床研究表明，采用腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术可取得与开放手术相同的疗效。我院应用腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术保肛治疗直肠癌取得了满意的临床效果。     

全直肠系膜切除联合双吻合器在低位直肠癌保肛术中的应用

目的观察全直肠系膜切除（TME）联合双吻合器在低位直肠癌切除术中的应用效果。方法69例直肠癌患者术中采用TME联合双吻合器治疗。结果本组元1例死亡,术后发生吻合瘘2例,吻合口狭窄3例,无排尿及性功能障碍;术后随访5a,吻合口局部复发5例,盆腔软组织复发4例,生存率为60．9％。结论TME联合双吻合器手术是治疗低位直肠癌的有效方法。     

经肛全直肠系膜切除与腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术后肛门功能的比较

目的探索与传统腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术（lap-TME）相比,经肛全直肠系膜切除术后（TaTME）的肛门功能情况。 方法回顾收集2015年1月至2018年3月在北京大学人民医院胃肠外科施行的直肠癌全直肠系膜切除术患者资料40例,其中TaTME组20例,lap-TME组20例,用直肠低位前切除综合征（LARS）评分量表比较lap-TME与TaTME两组患者术后的肛门功能。 结果TaTME组与lap-TME组相比,术中出血量、手术时间、淋巴结清扫数目、术后住院天数、远切缘和环周切缘等方面差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。术后3个月内TaTME组LARS总评分和各项评分均显著高于lap-TME组（均P<0.05）。术后1个月两组患者在排气控制和稀便漏出两项问题中的得分差异存在统计学意义（均P<0.05）,术后2个月、3个月两组患者在排气控制、稀便漏出与排便后1小时内再次排便三项问题差异均存在统计学意义（均P<0.05）。两组患者在排便次数和排便急迫问题上差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。 结论在术后早期,接受TaTME手术患者的肛门功能可能差于lap-TME患者,但随着术后时间的延长,经过适当的功能锻炼,TaTME术后肛门功能可在一定程度上得到改善。     

腹腔镜TME治疗中低位直肠癌疗效观察

目的观察腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术(TME)治疗中低位直肠癌的疗效。方法 198例中低位直肠癌患者,随机分为腹腔镜组93例和传统开腹组105例。分别采用腹腔镜和传统开腹手术方法进行TME。结果两组患者切除标本长度、清扫淋巴结数量、肠管远切缘距离相比P>0.05。两组所有标本远切缘病理学检查均为阴性。腹腔镜组合传统开腹组完整TME切除+近完整TME切除率分别为92.5%和91.7%。腔镜组复发率和总生存率分别是5.6%和93.3%,而开腹组分别为7.3%、94.8%,两组相比P>0.05。结论腹腔镜TME治疗中低位直肠癌疗效与开腹手术相似。     

直肠癌全直肠系膜切除术中盆腔植物神经的易损区域及保护

全直肠系膜切除术（TME）是目前国际公认的直肠癌标准术式,随着TME手术的推广和认识,盆腔植物神经保护（PANP）的理念逐渐受到重视。笔者认为,在开展直肠癌TME手术时,有六个区域容易发生盆腔植物神经损伤,需要识别和保护：肠系膜下动脉根部的肠系膜下丛、上腹下神经丛及腹下神经的近端、盆丛前丛的近端、盆丛后丛的主干、盆丛后丛的终末支及盆腔内脏神经。熟悉盆腔筋膜、植物神经解剖,开展以TME手术层面为主导,盆腔植物神经为引导的精准直肠癌手术,对于提高手术质量,保护器官功能至关重要。     

经肛门全直肠系膜切除术中自制气压平衡装置的使用体会

目的总结在经肛门全直肠系膜切除术中使用自制通气装置的体会。 方法在2016年11月至2017年4月完成的5例经肛门全直肠系膜切除手术中,当与腹腔贯通时使用自制的通气装置维持腹腔压力平衡,并分析5例患者的临床资料。 结果5例患者均顺利完成手术,无中转开腹,平均手术时间（206.0±9.5）min,其中1例在完全TaTME下完成,术中平均出血量（64.0±27.3）mL,切除肠管长度平均（17.4±1.3）cm,淋巴结清扫数目平均（16.8±1.2）枚,下切缘距肿瘤长度平均（2.5±0.3）cm,均符合全直肠系膜切除标准。术后肛门或造口排气时间（21.8±4.9）h,恢复进食时间（11.2±2.6）h,术后住院时间（5.2±0.7）d。未出现术后腹腔出血、肠瘘、腹腔感染或肠梗阻等并发症。 结论在经肛门全直肠系膜切除术中使用自制通气装置可获得稳定的操作空间和视野,有利于手术操作,效果切确。     

直肠癌全直肠系膜切除术的若干问题探讨

83例直肠癌患者在根治术中行全直肠系膜切除术（TME）和盆腔自主神经保留术（PANP）,观察其疗效并了解术后泌尿和生殖功能情况。术后随访5～38个月。术后肿瘤发生盆腔内局部复发3例,肝转移2例。其中1例行肝转移瘤手术切除,1例行肝动脉介入栓塞。认为直肠癌术中行TME能有效预防和降低直肠癌术后的局部复发率;如同时行PANP,可以改善患者术后的排尿功能与性功能,提高患者的术后生存质量。TME有术后的吻合口瘘发生率增高和直肠、肛门丧失储便功能之弊。     

全直肠系膜切除术治疗老年中低位直肠癌临床疗效

目的 观察全直肠系膜切除术(TME)治疗老年中低位直肠癌的临床疗效.方法 选择2000 ～ 2008年50例老年直肠癌患者(观察组),采用TME治疗;另选1995～2000年的30例老年直肠癌患者(对照组),采用传统手术治疗.比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间,以及保肛率、局部复发率、3年生存率.结果 观察组手术时间为( 110±15) min,术中出血量为(105±40) ml,住院时间为(14.5±2.0)d;对照组分别为( 188±24) min、(345±119)ml、(18.6±1.8)d,两组比较差异显著(P＜0.05).观察组保肛率、肿瘤局部复发率、3年生存率分别为80.0％、6.0％、84.0％,对照组分别为0、26.7％、60.0％,两组比较差异显著(P＜0.05).结论 TME治疗老年中低位直肠癌可缩短手术及住院时间,减少术中出血量,降低局部复发率,提高生存率及保肛率.     

机器人和腹腔镜治疗中低位直肠癌对照研究

目的对比机器人和腹腔镜治疗中低位直肠癌的近期疗效。 方法自2017年3月18日至2017年10月25日,共有56例中低位直肠癌患者在解放军总医院普通外二科接受直肠癌根治术,患者被随机分组接受机器人或腹腔镜手术,对两组的临床资料进行了比较。 结果最终机器人组27例,腹腔镜组29例。机器人组较腹腔镜组在手术时间、术后镇痛时间、排气时间、恢复饮食时间、导尿管留置时间、住院日和淋巴结清扫数目方面差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。机器人组术中失血量比腹腔镜少［（77.0±50.0）mL vs.（121.0±129.8）mL］,但差异无统计学意义（Z=-1.825,P=0.068）。机器人组术后有1例吻合口漏和1例肠梗阻,腹腔镜组术后有1例吻合口出血和1例肺部感染,术后并发症发生率方面差异无统计学意义（7.4% vs. 6.9%,χ²=0.006,P=1.000）。 结论机器人和腹腔镜直肠癌根治术围术期效果相当,远期功能学和肿瘤学效果有待进一步随访。     

腹腔镜直肠全系膜切除术治疗中、低位直肠癌的临床研究

目的探讨腹腔镜直肠全系膜切除术(TME)治疗中、低位直肠癌的临床疗效。方法选择中、低位直肠癌患者96例,随机分为观察组与对照组各48例,观察组在腹腔镜下行TEM术,对照组则行开腹TME术,对比两组患者临床疗效。结果观察组术后肛门排气时间、住院时间及手术切口长度、术中出血量、术后VAS疼痛评分、围术期并发症发生率、术后性功能及泌尿功能障碍发生率等方面均显著优于对照组(P0.05),而手术时间、保肛率、肿瘤转移及复发率差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜直肠全系膜切除术治疗中、低位直肠癌疗效确切且安全可靠,可在达到传统开腹手术疗效基础上降低并发症发生率。     

闭合式切除术在直肠癌腹腔镜全系膜切除根治术中的应用效果研究

目的评价闭合式切除术（CE）在直肠癌腹腔镜全系膜切除（TME）根治术中的临床应用效果。 方法以潍坊医学院附属寿光市人民医院2011年2月至2014年6月收治的54例原发性直肠癌患者为研究对象,30例为实验组进行CE＋ TME腹腔镜根治术,24例为对照组进行TME腹腔镜根治术。术中均联合动脉灌注化疗。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数目、环周切缘（CRM）阳性比例、术后恢复饮食时间、肛门排气时间、尿管留置时间、住院时间、术后并发症发生比例及术后1年局部复发比例等指标。 结果术中出血量（t=11.775,P<0.001)显著低于TME组,CE＋TME组手术时间（t=2.207,P=0.035）、术后肛门排气时间（t=2.059,P=0.045）、导尿管置留时间（t=2.083,P=0.042）、术后1年内局部复发率（χ²=3.97,P=0.047）显著低于TME组;淋巴结清扫数目显著高于TME组（t=9.613,P<0.001）。 结论CE可显著降低TME术后局部复发率,具有一定的临床应用价值。     

Technical difficulty grade score for the laparoscopic approach of rectal cancer

Introduction We aimed to categorize laparoscopic rectal resections according to technical difficulty to standardize learning purposes and stratify results, making future studies more comparable. Materials and methods Fifty patients undergoing a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision were prospectively followed. Four preoperatively known facts (gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor localization, and preoperative radiation therapy) were compared to four operative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, a visual analogue score (VAS) for difficulty rewarded by the surgeon, and oncological radicality of the procedure). Results Operating time for male and female patients was 257 vs. 245 min (P = 0.229), blood loss was 300 vs. 300 ml (P = 0.309), the VAS was 8 vs. 6 (P < 0.001), and radicality was 93% vs. 91% (P = 0.806). Operating time was 215, 250, and 305 min for high, mid, and low tumors (Spearman −0.44; P = 0.02), respectively. Blood loss was 105, 300, and 600 ml (Spearman −0.38; P = 0.01). Lower tumors were rewarded a higher VAS (Spearman −0.57; P < 0.001) and were less often radically resected (Spearman 0.32; P = 0.026). Operating time for irradiated and nonirradiated patients was 277 vs. 225 min (P = 0.008), blood loss was 500 vs. 150 ml (P = 0.006), the VAS was 7 vs. 5 (P < 0.001), and radicality was 79% vs. 100% (P = 0.046). Operating time was 240 min for BMI 25–30 and 253 min for BMI > 30 (Spearman 0.13; P = 0.391). Blood loss was 150 ml for BMI 25–30 and 500 ml for BMI > 30 (Spearman 0.38; P = 0.01). Higher BMIs were rewarded a higher VAS (Spearman 0.06; P = 0.704). BMI had no correlation to radicality of the procedure (Spearman −0.12; P = 0.402). There was an association between technical difficulty score and operation time (P = 0.007), blood loss (P < 0.001), VAS (P < 0.001), and radicality of surgery (P = 0.043). Conclusion Laparoscopic surgery in male, irradiated, and obese patients with lower tumors seemed more difficult. A categorization according to technical difficulty, to preoperatively predict difficulty of the procedure, was found feasible.     

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs robotic surgery

AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision(TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014(robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?Ⅰ-Ⅲ disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME(L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME(R-TME)(P 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. Thepatients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients(8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group(18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients(1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.     

Ultrasonically activated scalpel versus monopolar electrocautery shovel in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AIM： To investigate the feasibility and safety of monopolar electrocautery shovel （ES） in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision （TME） with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer in order to reduce the cost of the laparoscopic operation, and to compare ES with the ultrasonically activated scalpel （US）.
METHODS： Forty patients with rectal cancer, who underwent laparoscopic TME with anal sphincter preservation from June 2005 to June 2007, were randomly divided into ultrasonic scalpel group and monopolar ES group, prospectively. White blood cells （WBC） were measured before and after operation, operative time, blood loss, pelvic volume of drainage, time of anal exhaust, visual analogue scales （VAS） and surgery-related complications were recorded. RESULTS： All the operations were successful; no one was converted to open procedure. No significant differences were observed in terms of preoperative and postoperative d I and d 3 WBC counts （P = 0.493, P = 0.375, P = 0.559）, operation time （P = 0.235）, blood loss （P = 0.296）, anal exhaust time （P = 0.431）, pelvic drainage volume and VAS in postoperative d 1 （P = 0.431, P = 0.426） and d 3 （P = 0.844, P = 0.617） between ES group and US group. The occurrence of surgery-related complications such as anastomotic leakage and wound infection was the same in the two groups.
CONCLUSION： ES is a safe and feasible tool as same as US used in laparoscopic TME with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer on the basis of the skillful laparoscopic technique and the complete understanding of laparoscopic pelvic anatomy. Application of ES can not only reduce the operation costs but also benefit the popularization of laparoscopic operation for rectal cancer patients.     

Application of modified primary closure of the pelvic floor in laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision for low rectal cancer

AIM To introduce a novel,modified primary closure technique of laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision(LELAPE) for low rectal cancer.METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from 76 patients with rectal cancer who underwent LELAPE from March 2013 to May 2016.Patients were classified into the modified primary closure group(32 patients) and the biological mesh closure group(44 patients).The total operating time,reconstruction time,postoperative stay duration,total cost,postoperative complications and tumor recur-rence were compared.RESULTS All surgery was successfully performed.The pelvic reconstruction time was 14.6 ± 3.7 min for the modified primary closure group,which was significantly longer than that of the biological mesh closure group(7.2 ± 1.9 min,P 0.001).The total operating time was not different between the two groups(236 ± 20 min vs 248 ± 43 min,P = 0.143).The postoperative hospital stay duration was 8.1 ± 1.9 d,and the total cost was 9297 ± 1260 USD for the modified primary closure group.Notably,both of these categories were significantly lower in this group than those of the biological mesh closure group(P = 0.001 and P = 0.003,respectively).There were no differences observed between groups when comparing other perioperative data,long-term complications or oncological outcomes.CONCLUSION The modified primary closure method for reconstruction of the pelvic floor in LELAPE for low rectal cancer is technically feasible,safe and cost-effective.     

低位直肠癌腹腔镜TME手术经直肠取出标本影响因素的分析

目的探讨低位直肠癌腹腔镜TME手术经直肠取出标本的限制因素。 方法回顾性分析经纳排标准筛选的于2018年6~12月在同济大学附属东方医院接受低位直肠癌腹腔镜保肛手术的有效病例,利用单因素和多因素logistic分析比较经直肠取标本组（LAR-NOSES）和腹部小切口取标本组（Mini-Lapar）在术前基线资料、经CT/MRI测得肿瘤及盆腔局部骨性及软组织参数和术后临床病理分期等特征的差异。 结果本研究最终共纳入有效患者89例,其中Mini-Lapar组48例,LAR-NOSES组41例,经直肠取标本成功率为46.1%。单因素分析结果显示LAR-NOSES与女性性别（χ²=9.0,P=0.003）、更小的BMI（t=-3.4,P=0.001）、肿瘤距肛缘位置（Z=-2.4,P=0.015）、肿瘤最大直径（t=-3.6,P=0.001）、肿瘤最大纵向长度（t=-3.9,P＜0.001）、直肠最大系膜厚度（t=-2.2,P=0.033）及更大的坐骨棘间径（t=3.0,P=0.004）和坐骨结节间径（t=2.6,P=0.011）显著相关。除pT分期外（χ²=6.6,P=0.038）,两组在术后肿瘤病理大体、镜下分型分期及Wexner失禁评分方面差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。多因素logistic回归分析提示,BMI（OR=1.36,95%CI=1.09~1.70,P=0.006）、肿瘤距肛缘位置（OR=1.66,95%CI=1.03~2.70,P=0.039）、LTD（OR=2.99,95%CI=1.46~6.14,P=0.003）和坐骨棘间径（OR=0.44,95%CI=0.25~0.77,P=0.004）是限制腹腔镜低位直肠NOSES成功实施的独立预测因素。 结论直肠标本的尺寸越小、标本取出所经过的软组织通道越短、所经过的骨性通道尺寸越大越有利于LAR-NOSES的成功实现。