腹腔镜结直肠癌手术治疗进展

腹腔镜手术在结直肠癌外科治疗上的应用迅猛发展,然而腹腔镜结直肠癌手术操作相对复杂,且要达到开腹手术所要求的肿瘤根治的目的,所以对外科医师的手术操作技能和经验要求更高。腹腔镜结直肠癌手术是否优于传统开腹手术,一直是争论的焦点。1993年英国医生GuiUon等报道了59例腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的初步经验,并证明了其技术上的     

腹腔镜结直肠癌手术治疗进展

腹腔镜手术在结直肠癌外科治疗上的应用迅猛发展,然而腹腔镜结直肠癌手术操作相对复杂,且要达到开腹手术所要求的肿瘤根治的目的,所以对外科医师的手术操作技能和经验要求更高。腹腔镜结直肠癌手术是否优于传统开腹手术,一直是争论的焦点。1993年英国医生GuiUon等报道了59例腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的初步经验，并证明了其技术上的可行性。     

腹腔镜结直肠癌手术治疗进展

腹腔镜手术在结直肠癌外科治疗上的应用迅猛发展,然而腹腔镜结直肠癌手术操作相对复杂,且要达到开腹手术所要求的肿瘤根治的目的,所以对外科医师的手术操作技能和经验要求更高.腹腔镜结直肠癌手术是否优于传统开腹手术,一直是争论的焦点.1993年英国医生GuiUon等报道了59例腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的初步经验,并证明了其技术上的可行性.随后腹腔镜技术在结直肠外科领域的应用范围不断得到拓展和深入.近年来随着腹腔镜技术自身的不断完善以及业界对该技术的更好消化吸收,特别是超声刀、腔内切割闭合器等高科技器械的出现,使腹腔镜结直肠手术有了更好的发展,并取得较好的临床疗效,其手术安全性、可行性、肿瘤根治性及近、远期疗效已得到前瞻性随机对照临床研究(RCT)结果的证实[1].所以,随着腹腔镜以及内镜技术,设备及手术器械的不断更新及新能源系统的出现,TME概念的提出及临床应用,腹腔镜直肠癌手术范围,适应症和术式也在不断拓展和发展;同时,手术机器人这项新技术在腹腔镜结直肠外科上的应用已成为该领域新一轮的研究热点.本文就该领域的应用和研究进展作综述.     

腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的临床研究

目的 评价腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的优点和存在不足之处.方法 对2002年1月至2006年10月完成的22例腹腔镜结直肠癌手术者与同期具可比性的40例传统开腹结直肠癌手术的资料进行比较.结果 腹腔镜组的术中出血量、肠功能恢复时间、尿管留置时间、下床活动时间和人均镇痛次数等均明显少于传统手术组(P＜0.05).腹腔镜组手术时间、手术费和住院总费用等明显多于传统手术组(P＜0.05).两组手术切除的肿块大小、结直肠标本长度、直肠肿瘤远端长度和清扫淋巴结数目的 差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).手术并发症发生率分别为9.1%和32.5%,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).随访时间6～51个月,两组局部复发率、转移率、病死率均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术可以达到与传统结直肠癌根治术同样的根治效果,具有创伤小、安全、可行的优点.但手术时间较长,费用较高.     

腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的应用现状与进展

腹腔镜手术应用于结直肠癌在技术上是安全可行的,且微创优点明显,然而对于其能否达到肿瘤根治以及是否增加腹腔及切口种植等仍存在争议。文章就腹腔镜应用于结直肠癌的手术适应证、禁忌证,根治效果、远期疗效及其是否促进手术戳口癌种植转移进行评价,认为腹腔镜结直肠癌手术在严格遵循肿瘤根治的原则下是安全有效的,也能达到与开腹手术相当的长期生存效果。     

腹腔镜在直肠癌保肛手术中的应用与评价

腹腔镜技术存结直肠恶性肿瘤手术中的应用．是结直肠肿瘤手术发生的重大变革之一．该文主要对腹腔镜技术在直肠癌保肛手术中应用的原则、病例选择、技术关键进行论述，并对腹腔镜直肠癌保肛手术的可行性、肿瘤根治性、短期疗效、远期疗效进行了评价．认为腹腔镜直肠癌根治手术术后生命质量、远期疗效、卫生经济学评价将是今后需要探讨的重要目标．     

腹腔镜与开腹结直肠癌根治术的近远期疗效比较

目的探讨分析腹腔镜下结直肠癌根治的安全性和可行性,对比其与开腹手术的近远期疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2006年1月至2011年12月间结肠及中上段直肠癌根治术患者的临床资料,其中开腹手术120例,腹腔镜下手术76例。分析比较两组患者的临床病理资料、围手术期情况及近远期生存情况。结果两组患者年龄、性别比较无统计学差异。腹腔镜组平均手术时间大于开腹组,分别为(226.28±61.09)min和(193.50±53.79)min;术中失血量腹腔镜组小于开腹组,分别为(84.00±28.41)ml和(187.60±37.27)ml;术后住院时间腹腔镜组小于开腹组,分别为(7.55±2.04)d和(8.40±3.39)d。两组患者肠管近端及远端切缘长度、清扫淋巴结数目以及术后感染性和非感染性并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义。开腹组与腹腔镜组结直肠癌患者术后3、5年生存率分别为76.8%、65.7%和76.6%、71.2%(P>0.05);Duke’s A、B、C各期两组患者生存率比较无统计学差异。结论腹腔镜结直肠癌根治手术安全可行,具有出血少、术后恢复快等优点,肿瘤安全性、并发症发生率及术后近远期疗效不亚于开腹手术。     

腹腔镜直肠癌手术的现状及前景展望

0引言从1991年实施首例腹腔镜结肠手术后,腹腔镜结直肠手术在全世界范围内引起了广泛的关注。随机对照研究已证实腹腔镜手术和开腹手术在结肠癌中的远期疗效相当,近期疗效明显优于开腹手术[1],使结直肠癌患者大受裨益。但是腹腔镜直肠癌手术在狭窄的骨盆中进行分离、横断和吻合等操作,技术     

腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术与同期开腹手术的回顾性研究

目的回顾性分析比较腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术与同期开腹手术患者的临床资料,探讨应用腹腔镜技术行结直肠癌根治术的可行性。方法 2004年8月至2009年4月腹腔镜辅助下结直肠手术184例,右半结肠癌根治术37例,横结肠癌根治术11例,左半结肠癌根治术31例,直肠癌Dixon手术53例、Miles手术49例、Hartmann手术3例;开腹结直肠癌根治术患者718例（开腹组）,其中右半结肠癌根治术107例,横结肠癌根治术54例,左半结肠癌根治术131例,直肠癌Dixon手术288例、Miles手术117例、Hartmann手术21例,对照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。腹腔镜组与开腹组的平均手术时间分别为（210.5±26.5）min和（95.5±12.5）min,差异有显著性（P〈0.05）。腹腔镜组术中失血量明显少于开腹组〔（85.5±12.5）ml比（200.5±22.5）ml,P〈0.05〕。清除的淋巴结数量,直肠前切除肿瘤远端切缘长度两组间差异无显著性。腹腔镜组术后胃肠功能恢复时间明显早于开腹组〔进食时间：（4.5±0.5）d比（5.5±0.5）d,P〈0.05）。腹腔镜组住院时间明显短于开腹组〔（9.5±0.5）d比（12.5±0.5）d,P〈0.05〕。两组的3,5年生存率比较差异无显著性（89.8%比89.7%,P〉0.05;75.5%比74.5%,P〉0.05）。结论腹腔镜结直肠癌切除术安全、有效,具有可行性。     

腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠癌：外科的方向

 腹腔镜下结直肠癌手术是否能达到与开腹手术相同的肿瘤根治疗效曾存在争议。近年来，国际上主要的前瞻性大规模随机对照研究及大规模回顾性研究均揭示，腹腔镜下结直肠癌手术不仅具有损伤小、术后疼痛轻、肠道功能恢复快、住院时间短、不增加围手术期并发症等短期疗效，而且在肿瘤局部复发、远处转移、切口复发及长期生存率等方面，均可获得至少与开腹手术相同的远期疗效。相信随着循证医学研究的深入，腹腔镜手术在结直肠癌治疗中的地位将更加明确。     

Recent advances in minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery

Laparoscopy has improved surgical treatment of various diseases due to its limited surgical trauma and has developed as an interesting therapeutic alternative for the resection of colorectal cancer. Despite numerous clinical advantages (faster recovery, less pain, fewer wound and systemic complications, faster return to work) the laparoscopic approach to colorectal cancer therapy has also resulted in unusual complications, i.e. ureteral and bladder injury which are rarely observed with open laparotomy. Moreover, pneumothorax, cardiac arrhythmia, impaired venous return, venous thrombosis as well as peripheral nerve injury have been associated with the increased intraabdominal pressure as well as patient's positioning during surgery. Furthermore, undetected small bowel injury caused by the grasping or cauterizing instruments may occur with laparoscopic surgery. In contrast to procedures performed for nonmalignant conditions, the benefits of laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer must be weighed against the potential for poorer long-term outcomes of cancer patients that still has not been completely ruled out. In laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, several important cancer control issues still are being evaluated, i.e. the extent of lymph node dissection, tumor implantation at port sites, adequacy of intraperitoneal staging as well as the distance between tumor site and resection margins. For the time being it can be assumed that there is no significant difference in lymph node harvest between laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery if oncological principles of resection are followed. As far as the issue of port site recurrence is concerned, it appears to be less prevalent than first thought (range 0-2.5%), and the incidence apparently corresponds with wound recurrence rates observed after open procedures. Short-term (3-5 years) survival rates have been published by a number of investigators, and survival rates after laparoscopic surgery appears to compare well with data collected after conventional surgery for colorectal cancer. However, long-term results of prospective randomized trials are not available. The data published so far indicate that the oncological results of laparoscopic surgery compare well with the results of the conventional open approach. Nonetheless, the limited information available from prospective studies leads us to propose that minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer surgery should only be performed within prospective trials.     

Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial

BACKGROUND: The safety and short-term benefits of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer remain debatable. The multicentre COLOR (COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection) trial was done to assess the safety and benefit of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for curative treatment of patients with cancer of the right or left colon. METHODS: 627 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic surgery and 621 patients to open surgery. The primary endpoint was cancer-free survival 3 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, metastasis, overall survival, and blood loss during surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. Here, clinical characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative outcome are reported. FINDINGS: Patients assigned laparoscopic resection had less blood loss compared with those assigned open resection (median 100 mL [range 0-2700] vs 175 mL [0-2000], p<0.0001), although laparoscopic surgery lasted 30 min longer than did open surgery (p<0.0001). Conversion to open surgery was needed for 91 (17%) patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure. Radicality of resection as assessed by number of removed lymph nodes and length of resected oral and aboral bowel did not differ between groups. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with earlier recovery of bowel function (p<0.0001), need for fewer analgesics, and with a shorter hospital stay (p<0.0001) compared with open colectomy. Morbidity and mortality 28 days after colectomy did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic surgery can be used for safe and radical resection of cancer in the right, left, and sigmoid colon.     

Colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer has been a controversial issue. In this article summarizes the surgical procedures for right-and left-sided colon cancer as well as the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while comparing the long-term results of laparoscopic and open surgery. The RCTs revealed no significant differences in overall survival rate between laparoscopic and open procedures. In future, laparoscopic surgery will be a standard operation for a certain group of patients with colorectal cancer. Adequate skills of the surgical team and appropriate patient selection are essential.     

腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术与开腹手术远期疗效对比

目的：对比结直肠癌分别行腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术与开腹手术所取得的远期疗效。方法选择金湖县人民医院及江苏省人民医院收治的结直肠癌116例,随机分为观察组与对照组,每组58例。对照组以开腹结直肠癌根治术治疗,观察组以腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术治疗,对比两组患者的临床资料及其远期效果。结果观察组患者的手术时间及住院时间均短于对照组（均 P ＜0．05）,术中出血量明显少于对照组（P ＜0．05）;观察组术后并发症发生率为6．9％,对照组为29．3％,两组间差异明显（P ＜0．05）。观察组术后1、3与5年生存率分别为94．8％、86．2％、77．6％,对照组为72．4％、65．5％、55．1％,两组间差异显著（均 P ＜0．05）。结论腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术与开腹手术相比较,手术时间较短,术中出血量较少,可缩短住院时间,在治疗过程中所出现的术后并发症较少,且术后的生存率较高,在临床上可优先选择腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术。     

Mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic techniques have been extensively used for the surgical management of colorectal cancer during the last two decades. Accumulating data have demonstrated that laparoscopic colectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, some controversies regarding the oncologic quality of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer exist. Meanwhile, some progresses in colorectal surgery, such as robotic technology, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice specimen extraction, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, have been made in recent years. In this article, we review the published data and mainly focus on the current status and latest advances of mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.     

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG 0404

A randomized controlled trial was started in Japan to evaluate whether laparoscopic surgery is the optimal treatment for colorectal cancer. Patients with T3 or deeper carcinoma in the colorectum without transverse and descending colons are pre-operatively randomized to either open or laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surgeons in 24 specialized institutions will recruit 818 patients. The primary end-point is overall survival. Secondary end-points are relapse-free survival, short-term clinical outcome, adverse events, the proportion of conversion from laparoscopic surgery to open surgery, and the proportion of completion of laparoscopic surgery.     

Systematic review of laparoscopic vs open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients

AIM: To verify the safety and validity of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer in elderly patients. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of a systematic search of studies on an electronic database. Studies that compared laparoscopic colectomy (LAC) in elderly colorectal cancer patients with open colectomy (OC) were retrieved, and their short and long-term outcomes compared. Elderly people were defined as 65 years old or more. Inclusion criteria were set at: Resection of colorectal cancer, comparison between laparoscopic and OC and no significant difference in backgrounds between groups. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified for analysis. LAC was performed on 1436 patients, and OC performed on 1810 patients. In analyses of short-term outcomes, operation time for LAC was longer than for OC (mean difference = 34.4162, 95%CI: 17.8473-50.9851, P < 0.0001). The following clinical parameters were lower in LAC than in OC: Amount of estimated blood loss (mean difference = -93.3738, 95%CI: -132.3437 to -54.4039, P < 0.0001), overall morbidity (OR = 0.5427, 95%CI: 0.4425-0.6655, P < 0.0001), incisional surgical site infection (OR = 0.6262, 95%CI: 0.4310-0.9097, P = 0.0140), bowel obstruction and ileus (OR = 0.6248, 95%CI: 0.4519-0.8638, P = 0.0044) and cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.4767, 95%CI: 0.2805-0.8101, P = 0.0062). In analyses of long-term outcomes (median follow-up period: 36.4 mo in LAC, 34.3 mo in OC), there was no significant difference in overall survival (mean difference = 0.8321, 95%CI: 0.5331-1.2990, P = 0.4187) and disease specific survival (mean difference = 1.0254, 95%CI: 0.6707-1.5675, P = 0.9209). There was also no significant difference in the number of dissected lymph nodes (mean difference = -0.1360, 95%CI: -4.0553-3.7833, P = 0.9458). CONCLUSION: LAC in elderly colorectal cancer patients had benefits in short-term outcomes compared with OC except operation time. The long-term outcomes and oncological clearance of LAC were similar to that of OC. These results support the assertion that LAC is an effective procedure for elderly patients with colorectal cancer.     

What is the best surgical procedure of transverse colon cancer? An evidence map and minireview

Colorectal cancers comprise a large percentage of tumors worldwide, and transverse colon cancer (TCC) is defined as tumors located between hepatic and splenic flexures. Due to the anatomy and embryology complexity, and lack of large randomized controlled trials, it is a challenge to standardize TCC surgery. In this study, the current situation of transverse/extended colectomy, robotic/ laparoscopic/open surgery and complete mesocolic excision (CME) concept in TCC operations is discussed and a heatmap is conducted to show the evidence level and gap. In summary, transverse colectomy challenges the dogma of traditional extended colectomy, with similar oncological and prognostic outcomes. Compared with conventional open resection, laparoscopic and robotic surgery plays a more important role in both transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. The CME concept may contribute to the radical resection of TCC and adequate harvested lymph nodes. According to published studies, laparoscopic or robotic transverse colectomy based on the CME concept was the appropriate surgical procedure for TCC patients.     

Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer

Since the first minimally invasive colon resection 15 years ago, laparoscopic colectomy has been implemented as techniques have evolved. Like the laparoscopic approach for other operations, minimally invasive colectomy has potential benefits of improved short-term outcomes. Questions have been raised, however, regarding its use for colorectal cancer resection. Until recently, it was unclear whether minimally invasive surgery for colonic malignancies would achieve adequate oncologic resection. This review provides an overview of laparoscopic colectomy and techniques and examines recent data from randomized, controlled trials that report the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for cancer.