经脐单孔腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术临床疗效观察

［摘要］　目的　观察经脐单孔腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的临床疗效。方法　回顾性分析武汉大学人民医院胃肠外科2020年8月至2021年6月期间接受腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的74例患者的临床资料,其中经脐单孔腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术30例(经脐单孔腹腔镜组),传统五孔腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术44例(传统五孔腹腔镜组)。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术中清扫淋巴结数目、术后通气时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症和术后肿瘤复发率及术后生存质量等情况。结果　两组术中出血量、术中清扫淋巴结数目、术后通气时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症和术后肿瘤复发率比较差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。经脐单孔腹腔镜组手术时间长于传统五孔腹腔镜组,术后疼痛评分低于传统五孔腹腔镜组,生存质量评分高于传统五孔腹腔镜组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论　经脐单孔腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术与传统五孔法腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术疗效相当,均安全、有效。其中单孔腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术后疼痛更轻,生存质量更高,但手术时间更长。     

腹部无辅助切口经直肠切口取标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术（CRC-NOSES-Ⅷ式B法）近期疗效分析

目的探讨经直肠取标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术（CRC-NOSES-Ⅷ式B法）的安全性、可行性和近期疗效。 方法收集2018年1月至2021年4月在中国医学科学院肿瘤医院行腹部无辅助切口经直肠取标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术和腹腔镜辅助下右半结肠癌根治术患者的临床资料,回顾性分析两种术式对患者术后恢复情况、并发症及病理结果的影响。 结果共有15例患者行腹部无辅助切口经直肠取标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治手术（研究组）,随机抽取同期符合入组条件的腹腔镜辅助下右半结肠癌根治术男性患者45例设为对照组。研究组和对照组性别、年龄、ASA分级、实验室检查、术前肿瘤大小、部位及TNM分期等差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,BMI指数研究组和对照组之间差异有统计学意义（t=-2.401,P=0.022）。研究组和对照组患者均顺利完成手术,无中转开腹病例,手术时间、术中出血量、肠道功能恢复时间、术后住院天数、术后病理肿瘤最大径、淋巴结检出及阳性个数、肿瘤病理类型、分化程度和肿瘤的术后TNM分期等差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,术后第一天疼痛评分、第三天疼痛评分研究组与对照组差异有统计学意义（t=-6.477,10.160;P＜0.05）。研究组术后均未出现肠梗阻、腹腔出血、腹腔感染、吻合口漏、吻合口出血、吻合口狭窄、直肠切口出血、直肠切口漏等并发症,全组患者控粪功能未受明显影响。 结论BMI指数在CRC-NOSES-Ⅷ式B法与腹腔镜辅助右半结肠癌根治术术式选择方面有重要价值和参考意义。在经选择适合入组的右半结肠癌患者行CRC-NOSES-Ⅷ式B法与传统腹腔镜辅助右半结肠癌根治术的近期疗效类似,手术技术安全可行,患者的疼痛感明显减轻。     

改良根3式右半结肠切除术治疗结肠癌

88例进展期右半结肠癌患者行改良根3式右半结肠切除术.所有患者均获随访,无术后近期死亡、并发症,无复发.认为改良根3式右半结肠切除术安全可靠,有利于对Toldt筋膜及胰十二指肠筋膜的完整切除和相关淋巴结的彻底清扫,减少了并发症,改善了预后.     

右半结肠癌10例误诊分析

我们1990～2000年共收治右半结肠癌100例，其中误诊10例，误诊率10％。现分析其误诊原因如下。     

尾侧外侧入路行腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的安全性及可行性临床分析

目的 探讨尾侧外侧入路腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的安全性和有效性.方法 回顾性分析长征医院肛肠外科2019年1月至2019年12月以尾侧外侧入路法实施的21例腹腔镜完整结肠系膜切除(CME)右半结肠癌根治术患者临床资料.结果 本组21例患者均在腔镜下顺利完成手术,无中转开腹者.平均手术时间(150.4±28.1)min,平...     

腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术优先处理Henle干的近期疗效分析

目的对比胃结肠静脉干（Henle干）的优先处理与传统处理在腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的近期疗效分析。 方法回顾性分析2018年6月至2019年6月期间同济大学附属上海东方医院胃肠外科80例行腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术治疗结肠癌的临床资料,根据手术视频录像筛选,术中优先处理Henle干38例（优先组）,同期未优先处理Henle干（传统组）42例,比较两组的手术安全性及其近期疗效。 结果两组患者年龄、性别、体质量指数、肿瘤部位、肿瘤直径、肿瘤分期经比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。与传统组相比,优先组术中出血量减少[（62.89±29.31）mL vs.（86.90±33.89）mL,t=3.372;P=0.001],手术时间缩短[（146.61±10.40）min vs.（159.21±21.60）min,t=3.270;P=0.002],术中血管损伤率降低[5.3%（2/38）vs. 21.4%（9/42）,χ²=4.396;P=0.036];两组术后并发症发生率、术后首次排气时间、术后首次排便时间、术后引流时间、术后住院时间、手术标本质量评价及病理学检查结果经比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。 结论两组手术方式均为符合肿瘤根治性原则的有效手术,手术效果相当。在腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术中优先处理Henle干在减少术中出血量,缩短手术时间,减少术中血管损伤方面具有优势,是安全可行的手术方式。     

腹腔镜非计划性右半结肠手术16例

<正>右下腹痛是外科常见的症状,临床诊断首先考虑急性阑尾炎,因其发病急、临床表现多样,误诊率居高不下。近年我国以急性阑尾炎收治的病例其误诊率高达4.6%~〔1〕。本文旨在分析急诊腹腔镜阑尾切除术中发现的其他右半结肠疾病,行一期右半结肠切除肠吻合是否安全可行,并对手术情况、术后恢复时间、并发症情况、肿瘤根治效果及预后进行探讨。1资料与方法1.1一般资料2011年2月至2014年6月我院以急性阑尾     

3D腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术经阴道取标本的应用体会

目的探讨3D腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术经阴道取标本的安全性和可行性。 方法回顾性分析2015年10月至2018年2月间在河南大学淮河医院接受经阴道取标本的3D腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的13例女性患者的临床资料。中间入路,按全结肠系膜切除原则处理血管、清扫淋巴结,游离右半结肠、结肠肝曲和部分回肠系膜后,在横结肠和回肠末端预切断吻合处打开肠腔,腔内直线切割闭合器行回肠-横结肠侧侧吻合,更换枪钉后闭合切断回肠和横结肠完成标本切除和吻合。切开阴道后穹窿,经阴道置入保护套,将标本通过保护套经阴道后穹窿切口拖出体外,腔镜下缝合阴道后穹窿切口。所有患者于术前和术后3个月分别填写盆底功能障碍问卷（PFDI-20）,对盆底功能障碍中盆腔、直肠和膀胱功能进行评价。 结果13例女性患者中,年龄58~76（中位62）岁,体质指数20.8~34.5（中位31）Kg/m²,肿瘤位于结肠肝曲4例,回盲部7例,升结肠2例,全组患者手术均顺利完成,无一例中转开腹。手术时间164~232（中位176）min,术中出血50~200（中位100）ml,清扫淋巴结13~18（中位14）枚,术后排气时间1.8~5.2（中位2.8）d,术后住院时间6.3~9.2（中位6.8）d,术后无吻合口出血、吻合口漏或腹腔内感染病例。随访4~30个月未见局部复发和远处转移病例。术前与术后3个月患者的盆底功能评分差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。 结论经阴道取标本的3D腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术具有一定优势且不影响患者的盆底功能,是安全可行的。     

不接触技术在腹腔镜下结肠癌根治术中的应用

14例结肠癌患者在腹腔镜下行右半结肠切除术中采用不接触技术.手术成功13例,无严重并发症发生.认为腹腔镜下行结肠癌根治术安全可行,术中采用不接触技术可以做到和开腹手术一样完美.     

左、右半结肠癌的差异

目前认为左、右半结肠癌是两种不同的疾病,二者在临床特征、流行病学、组织学、分子生物学、靶向药物治疗、预后等方面存在明显差异,因此二者的治疗理念也不尽相同。对于左、右半结肠癌差异的深入认识,可以指导临床医生在精准医疗时代对患者做出准确的个体化评价和精准化治疗。     

Oncologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open surgery for advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for advanced colorectal carcinoma still remains controversial because of the technical difficulties in lymph node dissection, which is a routine procedure for advanced colorectal carcinoma, and uncertainty regarding the oncologic outcome after laparoscopic colectomy. This study reviewed the results of laparoscopic colectomy with lymph node dissection in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma performed at our hospital. METHODOLOGY: The oncologic outcomes of 48 patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma who underwent laparoscopic colectomy between 1993 and 1998 were compared with those of 48 matched patients who underwent conventional open surgery during the same period or immediately before the introduction of laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: The median follow-up for the laparoscopic group and the open colectomy group was 41 and 68 months, respectively. No port site recurrence occurred in the laparoscopic group, and the medium-term disease-free rate, overall survival rate, as well as the patterns of recurrence were comparable in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic outcome of laparoscopic colectomy at a minimum of two years was not compromised compared with conventional open surgery even in advanced carcinoma. However, information regarding true oncologic outcome will require careful long-term follow-up.     

Recovery of gastrointestinal motility following open versus laparoscopic colon resection in dogs

The recovery of gastrointestinal motility was compared in dogs undergoing either laparoscopic or open sigmoidectomy. During surgery, bipolar recording electrodes were placed on the proximal and distal antrum, mid- and distal colon, and the rectum. Fasting myoelectric data were recorded postoperatively. Scintigraphic gastric emptying studies employing a solid test meal were performed before and after [postoperative day (POD) 2] operation. Ten radiopaque markers were given just before operation and retained markers were counted daily by abdominal x-ray. Gastric emptying on POD 2 was significantly delayed in the open group at 120 min compared with preoperative studies for the open group and compared with the laparoscopic group on POD 2 (P<0.05 andP<0.01, respectively). A significant difference in the number of retained markers was observed between the groups on POD 4 (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in slow-wave frequency, presence of dysrhythmias in the proximal and distal antrum, or presence of either discrete or continuous electrical response activity in the colon and rectum between groups on any days. We conclude that using a laparoscopic approach results in more rapid recovery of fed-state gastrointestinal motility following colon resection. These data also suggest that myoelectric activity alone is not a sensitive enough parameter to detect these differences in recovery in this animal model.This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, United States Public Health Service (R01-DK45727).A part of this study was presented at the American Gastroenterological Association, May 13–16, 1995, San Diego, California.     

Comparison of long-term outcome of laparoscopic and conventional surgery for advanced colon and rectosigmoid cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer postoperative recovery is better than after open surgery, oncologic outcome after this minimally invasive technique remains unclear. In this study we tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the outcome of advanced colorectal cancer according to whether it is treated by laparoscopic or conventional open resection. METHODOLOGY: The long-term outcome of 79 patients with advanced colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery between 1996 and 2002 was compared with that of 79 who underwent open surgery during the same period, being well-matched patients for age, gender, tumor site, and pathological TNM stage (II or III). Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up time after laparoscopic and open surgery was 36 months and 47 months, respectively (p = 0.0756). No significant difference was found between the groups in overall or disease-free survival rates (96% versus 88%, p = 0.12; 96% versus 86%, p = 0.09, respectively). The recurrence rate was 23% in both groups, and liver metastasis was the most frequent form of recurrence. No port site recurrence was observed in the laparoscopic surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for advanced colorectal cancer because of the comparable medium-term outcome. Longer follow-up and large scale RCT is needed to fully assess the oncologic outcome.     

Meta-analysis of the laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery within fast track surgery

Background

Laparoscopic methods and fast-track surgery (FTS) can enhance recovery and reduce postoperative hospital stay. However, whether laparoscopic surgery can provide short-term benefits within FTS is controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery within FTS.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for eligible studies. Endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay, time to first bowel movement, total postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, mortality within 30 days after surgery, and conversation rate of laparoscopic surgery.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials and six clinical controlled trials (1510 patients) were eligible for analyses. Duration of postoperative hospital stay (weighted mean difference, –1.65 days; p?<?0.001), time to first bowel movement (–1.13 days; p?<?0.001), total postoperative complication rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.65; p?<?0.001), readmission rate (0.46; p?<?0.001), and mortality (0.45; p?<?0.001) were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group. Overall conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery was 11.1 %. Subgroup analyses based on each FT element demonstrated that studies without the element “prevention of hypothermia,” “no bowel preparation,” or “no routine use of drains” did not show significant differences between two groups with regard to duration of postoperative hospital stay or total prevalence of postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Within FTS, laparoscopic methods can significantly shorten postoperative hospital stay, accelerate postoperative recovery, and enhance safety in colorectal surgery. The FT elements “prevention of hypothermia,” “no bowel preparation,” and “no routine use of drains” may play important parts in the combined effect of these two methods.

     

Acute phase response in laparoscopic and open colectomy in colon cancer

PURPOSE: All types of trauma to the organism produce a systemic response that is proportional to the severity of the lesion caused. The more rapid clinical recovery during the postoperative period of patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs. patients receiving conventional surgery suggests that laparoscopic surgery produces less surgical trauma. The aim of this randomized, prospective study was to compare acute phase postoperative response in patients diagnosed with colon neoplasm undergoing open segmentary colectomy vs. laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. METHODS: From June 1994 to July 1997 the results of 97 patients (58 submitted to open colectomy and 39 undergoing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy) were analyzed. Blood determinations of cortisol, prolactin, C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 were performed before surgery and at 4, 12, 24, and 72 hours after surgery. RESULTS: The plasma levels of cortisol and prolactin were higher in the postoperative period with both surgical techniques with no significant differences being observed. The levels of interleukin-6 achieved a maximum peak at 4 hours after surgery, later showing a decrease and practically achieving basal levels at 72 hours in both groups. The levels of interleukin-6 were higher with significant differences at 4, 12, and 24 hours in the patients undergoing open colectomy. The plasma levels of C-reactive protein were significantly lower at 72 hours in patients receiving laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in this randomized, prospective study suggest that acute phase systemic response is attenuated in patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in comparison with patients receiving open colectomy.     

Five-year long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

AIM:To perform a meta-analysis to answer whether long-term recurrence rates after laparoscopic-assisted surgery are comparable to those reported after open surgery.METHODS:A comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE database,EMBASE database,and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991-2010 was performed.Prospective randomized clinical trials(RCTs)were eligible if they included patients with colon cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery and followed for more than five years.RESULTS:Three studies involving 2147 patients reported long-term outcomes based on five-year data and were included in the analysis.The overall mortality was similar in the two groups(24.9%,268/1075 in the laparoscopic group and 26.4%,283/1072 in open group).No significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery were found in overall mortality during the follow-up period of these studies[OR(fixed) 0.92,95%confidence intervals(95%CI):0.76-1.12,P=0.41].No significant difference in the development of overall recurrence was found in colon cancer patients,when comparing laparoscopic and open surgery [2147 pts,19.3%vs 20.0%;OR(fixed)0.96,95% CI:0.78-1.19,P=0.71].CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopic surgery was as efficacious and safe as open surgery for colon cancer,based on the five-year data of these included RCTs.