腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术10例

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术可行性。方法回顾分析同一术者,同时期内10例腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌手术的临床资料,观察手术时间、术中出血、淋巴结清扫数量及近期并发症情况。结果 10例患者均顺利完成手术,平均手术时间(283±42)min,术中平均出血量(80±15)ml,均未术中输血,平均清扫淋巴结数目(21.3±9.3)枚,肛门平均排气时间(47.4±8.3)h。术后病理显示所有标本切缘均为阴性。无吻合口瘘、腹腔内出血等术后并发症。结论腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术,创伤小,手术安全,近期效果良好。远期效果尚需循证医学证据证实。     

3D腹腔镜与2D腹腔镜胃癌根治术短期临床疗效对比研究

目的 对比分析3D和2D腹腔镜胃癌根治术患者的临床资料,探讨3D腹腔镜在胃癌根治术中的临床优势和应用价值.方法 回顾性分析本院2015年1月至2016年12月52例胃癌患者行腹腔镜胃癌根治术(D2淋巴结清扫)的临床资料.其中3D腹腔镜手术共22例,2D腹腔镜手术共30例.分析两组的手术时间、术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数量、术后并发症发生率、术后病理分期.结果 3D腹腔镜手术组的手术时间明显少于2D腹腔镜手术组[(202.7±21.9)min vs.(258.0±56.3)min,P＜0.001].3D腹腔镜手术组清除淋巴结数量多于2D腹腔镜手术组[(23.6±3.8)枚vs.(20.1±4.2)枚,P=0.02].两组术中出血量相比无明显差异[(146.8±35.6)m]vs.(148.8±82.4)ml,P=0.905].两组患者术后并发症发生率无明显差异(P＞0.05).两组患者术后病理分期无明显差异(P＞0.05).结论 3D腹腔镜行胃癌根治术可缩短手术时间和增加淋巴结清扫数量并不增加手术并发症.     

腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术的临床分析

目的探讨腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术治疗胃癌的疗效。方法对64例胃癌患者分别采用腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术（腹腔镜组,n=33）和开腹远端胃癌D2根治术（开腹组,n=31）治疗,然后分析2组患者的临床资料。结果2组患者的淋巴结清扫数、肿瘤上切缘长度、肿瘤下切缘长度都无显著差异（P〉0．05）。腹腔镜组患者在术中出血量、切口长度、胃管拔除时间、排气时间、进食流质时间、下床活动时间、住院时间、止痛剂注射次数以及并发症等方面均显著好于开腹组患者（P〈0．05）。但是腹腔镜组患者的手术时间显著长于开腹组患者（P〈0．05）。结论腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术创伤小、淋巴结清扫彻底、患者反应轻、术后恢复快,能达到肿瘤根治原则,值得在临床推广应用。     

腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术淋巴结清扫的早期体会

目的 分析腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术清扫血管根部各组淋巴结所需时间,探讨各组淋巴结清扫的难点和手术技巧.方法 采用观看手术录像方法,计算2010年10月至2011年7月于中山大学肿瘤防治中心施行的25例腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治术,分别计算清扫胃网膜左、胃网膜右、胃右及胃左血管根部淋巴结群所需时间,并比较各组淋巴结清扫所需时...     

腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术的临床价值

目的对比分析腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术与传统开腹术的手术时间、手术创伤程度,探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术的应用价值。方法选取2009年3月至2013年9月间收治的172例癌患者,其中行传统开腹手术80例,行腹腔镜手术92例。回顾性对比分析两种手术方式的手术时间、术中出血量、手术切口长度、淋巴结清扫枚数、术后患者疼痛情况、围手术期并发症情况及术后恢复情况等指标。结果两组患者在不同手术方式下均顺利完成手术。腹腔镜手术组患者手术时间、术中出血量及切口长度明显优于传统开腹手术(P<0.05),但术中淋巴结清扫枚数两组无明显差异(P>0.05)。术后采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评估两组患者术后疼痛情况,腹腔镜手术组明显优于开腹手术组(P<0.05)。腹腔镜手术组首次肛门排气时间、首次排便时间、首次下床活动时间、术后住院时间明显少于开腹手术组(P<0.05)。两种手术方式,术后吻合口瘘、吻合口出血、十二指肠残端瘘、切口愈合等围手术期并发症无明显差异,但肺部感染腹腔镜手术组明显好于开腹手术组(P<0.05)。结论腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术与传统开腹远端胃癌D2根治术比较,具有对患者创伤小,术后疼痛耐受好,恢复快,围手术期并发症少等优点,值得临床推广应用。     

腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的疗效及安全性

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的疗效及安全性。方法选择宜昌市中心人民医院2010年8月至2013年8月间收治的68例进展期胃癌患者,按照临床前瞻性研究原则将患者分为腹腔镜治疗组(观察组)和远端胃癌D2根治术治疗组(对照组),观察两组患者手术相关指标、术后恢复情况以及治疗效果。结果与对照组比较,观察组患者的手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、进流质饮食时间、住院时间以及并发症中的切口感染、吻合口瘘的发生率均明显降低,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。但清扫淋巴结总数、远切端距肿瘤距离均降低,近切端距肿瘤距离则增加,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者的存活率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌安全、有效,可达到与开腹手术相当的根治效果,近期疗效甚佳,并发症较少。     

腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术在进展期胃癌中的临床应用价值

目的:对比分析完全腹腔镜与开腹远端胃癌D2根治术在进展期胃癌中的应用价值。方法:回顾性分析我院2013年1月至2014年12月收治的接受完全腹腔镜胃癌D2根治手术的进展期胃癌患者40例(腹腔镜组）及接受开腹胃癌D2根治手术的进展期胃癌患者36例（开腹组）的临床资料。对比分析两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症、淋巴结清除数、肿瘤距远近切缘距离。结果:腹腔镜组手术时间明显较开腹组长,但术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院时间均少于开腹组,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）;两组术后并发症发生率、淋巴结清扫数目及两组远、近切端距肿瘤距离比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论:完全腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌是安全、可行的,可以达到与开腹手术同样的根治效果。     

腹腔镜胃癌D2手术的临床疗效观察

目的 观察腹腔镜胃癌D2手术的临床疗效.方法 将进行腹腔镜胃癌D2手术的60例患者作为试验组,行传统开腹胃癌根治术30例患者作为对照组.比较2组术前、术后3 d应激反应、炎症及免疫功能,手术与术后指标.结果 术后3 d 2组应激指标中SOD指标较术前上升,且试验组高于对照组;而术后3 d 2组应激指标中MDA、炎症下降...     

腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术的学习曲线

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术的学习曲线.方法 回顾性分析2007年1月至2008年11月我科开展腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术以来150例患者的临床资料,按手术先后顺序分3组(A、B、C组),每组50例,对各组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹率、淋巴结清扫数目、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院天数和术后并发症发生率等进行比较.结...     

微创远端胃癌D2根治术对进展期患者的短期疗效

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期远端胃癌的安全性、可行性及近期疗效。方法回顾性分析腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌D2根治术患者49例(腹腔镜组)的临床资料,选择同期行开腹远端胃癌根治术患者41例作为对照(开腹组)。结果与开腹组比较,腹腔镜组手术时间更长[(273.4±62.7)min vs(228.6±31.9)min],但手术切口更小[(5.3±1.7)cm vs(23.2±3.1)cm]、术中出血量更少[(143.5±94.6)ml vs(331.6±157.9)ml],术后肠道恢复功能更快[(2.9±1.3)d vs(4.2±1.5)d],住院时间更短[(8.9±4.2)d vs(11.3±4.5)d],差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者淋巴结清扫数目[(24.5±11.7)枚vs(26.0±11.3)枚]和术后并发症发生率[3/49(6.12%)vs 6/41(14.63%)],差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌D2根治术是治疗进展期远端胃癌的微创、可行、安全的方法。     

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with distal pancreatosplenectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer

Received on Aug. 31, 1999; accepted on Jan. 27, 2000     

Fully robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer

PurposeRobotic surgery with technical advantages was shown to make complex maneuvers easier and more precise for gastric surgery [1]. This video demonstrates our technique on robotic total gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi platform for gastric cancer.Methods68-year-old female was presented with persistent epigastric abdominal pain and underwent upper endoscopy showed ulcerated mass extended from the cardia to the lesser curvature. Histopathology showed gastric adenocarcinoma. After patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, decision was made to proceed with surgery.ResultsInitially, greater curvature dissection was started by division of the gastrocolic ligament with entering the lesser sac with monopolar scissors and bipolar forceps. The right gastroomental vessels were identified and divided at their root along with lymph nodes. After ligation of the right gastric vessels, dissection was extended to retrieve lymph nodes around the left gastric vessels. Duodenum was circumferentially dissected and transected 2 cm distal to the pylorus. Subsequently, extended lymphadenectomy was started with suprapancreatic lymph node dissection to retrieve lymph nodes around the common hepatic artery and celiac axis. Spleen-preserving dissection of the lymphatic tissue of the distal splenic artery and the splenic hilum was performed. The distal esophagus was divided with robotic stapler. Fully robotic end-to-side esophagojejunal anastomosis was constructed. For the reconstruction of gastrointestinal continuity after total gastrectomy, side-to-side jejuno-jejunal anastomosis was performed. Total operative time was 5 hours and estimated blood loss was 20 cc.DiscussionTotally robotic gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy is a safe technique for gastric cancer and provides intracorporeal suturing in reconstructing the anatomy.     

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy

Background

Initial experiences with robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer have demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes, suggesting that RG is an effective alternative to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). However, data on long-term survival and recurrence after RG for gastric cancer have yet to be reported. The objective of this study was to assess long-term outcomes after RG compared with LG.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 313 and 524 patients who underwent RG or LG, respectively, for gastric cancer between July 2005 and December 2009. We compared long-term outcomes using the entire and a propensity-score matched cohort.

Results

The entire cohort analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival(OS) or relapse-free survival(RFS) (p = 0.4112 and p = 0.8733, respectively): 93.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 89.9–95.6] and 90.7% (95% CI, 86.9–93.5) after RG and 91.6% (95% CI 88.9–93.7) and 90.5% (95% CI 87.6–92.7) after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 0.828 (95% CI, 0.528–1.299; p = 0.4119) and 0.968 (95% CI, 0.649–1.445; p = 0.8741), respectively. The propensity-matched cohort analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences for 5-year OS or RFS (p = 0.5207 and p = 0.2293, respectively): 93.2% and 90.7% after RG and 94.2% and 92.6% after LG, respectively; hazard ratios for death and recurrence in the robotic group were 1.194 (95% CI, 0.695–2.062; p = 0.5214) and 1.343 (95% CI, 0.830–2.192; p = 0.2321), respectively.

Conclusion

The potential technical superiority of robotic system over laparoscopy did not improve oncological outcomes after gastrectomy. Long-term oncological outcomes were not different between RG and LG. Nevertheless, robotic applications in minimally invasive gastric cancer surgery may be an oncologically safe alternative.

     

Radical gastrectomy for D2 distal gastric cancer

Patient's information The patient is a 56-year-old man who visited our hospital for "repeated epigastric pain for more than two months."Physical examination showed nearly pale appearance;abdomen was soft and no mass palpable;left supraclavicular lymph node (-);and digital rectal examination (-).Gastroscopy revealed a bulging ulcerative lesion of the antrum at the lesion lesser curvature side,which had dirty appearance and was solid,fragile and prone to bleeding.Ultrasonic gastroscopy suggested myometrial invasion.Biopsy indicated adenocarcinoma.CT and MRI showed no obvious abnormalities.Therefore,the diagnosis of gastric cancer was definite for this patient.The preoperative staging was T3N0M0,and radical gastrectomy was considered (distal stomach,D2).The radical gastrectomy was performed under general anesthesia on April 21,2013.The operation was uneventful,with intraoperative blood loss of about 250 mL.The length of operation was 180 minutes.Postoperative pathology suggested moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of the "gastric antrum"with invasion to the serosa,and 2/35 of lymph nodes were positive.Postoperative staging:T3N1M0,stage Ⅲ A.The patient was discharged 12 days after surgery and began chemotherapy (oxaliplatin + CF + 5-FU) at the department of oncology.The treatment course has been uneventful.     

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 dissection for advanced gastric cancer

The successful application of the laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 dissection for gastric cancer requires adequate understanding of the anatomic characteristics of peripancreatic and intrathecal spaces, the role of pancreas and vascular bifurcation as the surgical landmarks, as well as the variations of gastric vascular anatomy. The standardized surgical procedures based on distribution of regional lymph node should be clarified.Key Words: Gastric cancer, gastrectomy, laparoscopyThe D2 lymph node dissection has been widely applied in traditional open surgery for locally advanced gastric cancer with curative intent (1). However, the feasibility of this procedure in laparoscopic surgery has only been reported in a few conclusive studies around the world (2,3). That is because of the technical threshold for laparoscopic lymph node dissection derived from the perigastric anatomical complexity (4), which is an important factor of the surgical performance and the indicator of prognosis (5). Since the inception of this technique in our department in 2004, we have clinically accumulated proven experience in laparoscopic lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer. We believe that it is a combination of proper arrangement of surgical procedures and skilled application of laparoscopic techniques based on complete understanding of the perigastric space (6), surgical landmarks and variations in blood vessels.The key step in the radical treatment of distal gastric cancer lies in the regional lymph node dissection. The extent of D2 dissection for distal gastric cancer defined in the Japanese Gastric Cancer Surgery Guidelines and the Treatment Guideline for Gastric Cancer in Japan (7) involves stations number 1, 3, 4sb, 4d, 5, 6, 7, 8a, 9, 11p, 12a and 14v lymph nodes, while station 14v is excluded in the latest guidelines.According to the distribution of perigastric lymph nodes and the characteristics of laparoscopic techniques, especially the perigastric anatomical features of the gastric body and antrum flipped towards the head under laparoscopy, the scope of D2 lymph nodes can be divided into five regions: (I) lower left region (stations number 4sb and 4d around the left gastroepiploic vessel); (II) lower right region (mainly including station number 6 inferior to the pylorus, and at the root of the right gastroepiploic artery; station number 14v around the superior mesenteric vein in the former version); (III) upper right region (station number 5 superior to the pylorus and number 12a in the hepatoduodenal ligament); (IV) central region posterior to the gastric body (stations number 7, 8a, 9 and 11p surrounding the celiac artery and along its three branches); and (V) hepatogastric region (stations number 1 and 3 along the lesser curvature).Based on the above classification, we have established the standard procedure for laparoscopic D2 lymphadenectomy for distal gastric cancer in our department (Video 1):Open in a separate windowVideo 1Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 dissection for advanced gastric cancer

1. The left side of the gastrocolic ligament is dissected near the transverse colon through to the lower splenic pole and the pancreatic tail. The key steps include extending and stretching the attachment of the greater omentum to the transverse colon tightly, and then separating from the greater sac into the anterior and posterior space of the transverse mesocolon near splenic flexure, until the lower edge of the tail of the pancreas is exposed;
2. The origin of the left gastroepiploic vessels are ligated. The key steps include extending and stretching the gastrosplenic ligament and fending off the posterior wall of the gastric fundus to expose the splenic hilum and the tail of the pancreas, and thereby the pancreatic capsule can be flipped from the lower edge to the upper edge of its tail. During this process, the left gastroepiploic artery and vein are ligated at the roots near the upper edge of the pancreatic tail, and division is continued from the greater curvature towards distal gastric body. The goal is the dissection of stations number 4sb and 4d lymph nodes;
3. The right side of the gastrocolic ligament is cut near the transverse ligament through to the hepatic flexure, the hepatic flexure of the colon is separated from the duodenal bulb and the surface of the pancreatic head. The key steps include cutting the mesogastrium and the mesocolon along the attachment line between the posterior wall of gastric antrum and mesocolon, and retracting the posterior wall of the sinus to the left anterior direction and the colon and its mesentery to the lower right direction to expose the underlying loose fusion fascial space. Take time to divide the vessels. In the process, the anatomical layer should be fully exposed to separate the right side of the transverse colon and its mesentery from the duodenal descending part, the surface of pancreatic head and the lower edge of pancreatic neck it is attached to. In this way, the gastrocolic trunk (variations may be present in certain patients) formed by the right gastroepiploic vein, right colic vein and their confluence has been completely revealed;
4. The right gastroepiploic vessels are transected. The key steps include fully exposing the lower edge of the pancreatic neck, the pancreatic head and the duodenum, so that the right gastroepiploic vein can be transected above the point where the anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal vein joins. Using the pancreas as a starting point, the pancreatic capsule is lifted and the tissue is separated from the lower edge of the pancreas along the anterior pancreatic space on the surface of the pancreas towards the external superior region, until the origin of the right gastroepiploic artery from the gastroduodenal artery is reached. The right gastroepiploic artery is then cut. The posterior inferior wall of duodenal bulb is denuded near the surface of the pancreatic head along the anterior pancreatic space. The goal is the dissection of stations number 6 lymph nodes;
5. The gastroduodenal artery is exposed and the right gastric artery is transected. The key steps include transecting the duodenum only after dissecting the tissue around the pancreatic head and the upper part of the pancreatic neck from inferior to superior along the gastroduodenal artery in the posterior region of the duodenal bulb on the surface of the pancreas and on the plane of the anterior pancreatic space, in which the bifurcation of the common hepatic artery is exposed at the upper edge of the pancreatic edge for the access to the inner layer of arterial sheath, and the proper hepatic artery is denuded along the adventitia through to hepatoduodenal ligament, where the right gastric artery is cut at its root. The goal is the dissection of stations number 12a and 5 lymph nodes;
6. The three branches of the celiac trunk are divided and the left gastric artery is transected. The key steps include stretching the left gastric vascular pedicle in the gastropancreatic fold and fending the gastric body towards the anterior superior region while pulling the pancreas downwards to fully expose the upper edge of the pancreas for access to the posterior pancreatic space. The three branches of the celiac trunk are denuded here and the left gastric artery is transected at the root. The division is continued upwards in the space until the crura of the diaphragm. The goal is dissection of stations number 7, 8a, 9 and 11p lymph nodes;
7. The hepatogastric ligament and the anterior lobe of the hepatoduodenal ligament are transected close to the lower edge of the liver, and the right side of the cardia and the lesser curvature are fully separated. The key steps include retracting the liver upwards and the gastric downwards to stretch the hepatogastric ligament so that the hepatogastric ligament and the anterior lobe of the hepatoduodenal ligament can be transected and the division can continue towards the right to reach the anterior surface of the proper hepatic artery, which has been separated previously, and towards the left to reach the right side of the cardia, where the lesser curvature is fully divided and denuded. Stations number 1 and 3 lymph nodes are dissected;
8. The distal subtotal gastrectomy, and reconstruction of the digestive tract were completed through minilaparotomy.

The above surgical procedure is designed to accommodate the characteristics of laparoscopic techniques by organizing the sequence of operations from proximal to distal, inferior to superior, and posterior to anterior. More importantly, it has incorporated with our understanding of the anatomical structures under laparoscopy, so that we can make full use of the advantages of visual amplification to identify the relevant anatomical landmarks based on the shape, color and other features, and always proceed at the correct surgical plane while minimizing bleeding.     

Rationale for gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer

BACKGROUND: In the surgical management of gastric cancer, D2 lymphadenectomy aims to reduce the incidence of locoregional relapse, and to increase patient survival. METHODS: A prospective study was made of 126 consecutive patients operated upon for gastric cancer, with gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy. Hospital morbidity and mortality, relapses, and patient survival after 5 years were studied. RESULTS: The overall hospital mortality rate was 1.6%, with a mortality of 2.1% in the patients submitted to total gastrectomy. The overall morbidity rate was 29.4%. Dehiscence of the esophagojejunal anastomosis was recorded in 1.6%. The median follow-up was 73.6 months. Relapses were observed in 37% of the patients (76% in the first 2 years). Overall actuarial survival after 5 years was 52.3%, and 5-year survival in the patients with R0 resection with positive N2 lymph nodes according to the Japanese classification was 26.5%. CONCLUSION: Our results show that D2 lymphadenectomy can be performed with low morbidity-mortality, and a 5-year survival of more than 50%. The procedure offers benefit in terms of survival for a certain percentage of patients with positive level N2 lymph nodes.     

新辅助化疗联合腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的临床疗效

目的探讨新辅助化疗联合腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的临床疗效及安全性。方法选取2013年8月至2017年7月间咸阳彬州市人民医院收治的100例进展期胃癌患者,按随机抽签法分为观察组和对照组,每组50例。观察组患者采用新辅助化疗联合腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术治疗,对照组患者采用腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术治疗,比较两组患者的根治性切除率、手术情况、恢复情况、淋巴结清除数量、并发症情况及生存质量。结果观察组患者根治清除率为88. 0%(44例),高于对照组的70. 0%(35例),两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P <0. 05)。两组患者术中失血量、手术时长和淋巴结清除数量比较,差异无统计学意义(P> 0. 05)。两组患者下床活动时间、排气时间及住院天数比较,差异无统计学意义(P> 0. 05)。两组患者并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P> 0. 05)。治疗前,两组患者生存质量评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P> 0. 05);治疗后,观察组患者评分高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P <0. 05)。结论进展期胃癌患者采用新辅助化疗联合腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术治疗,在不影响手术及术后恢复的情况下,可提高根治性切除率,改善生存质量,且不增加并发症。     

胃癌D2式淋巴结清除术的临床研究

目的:分析D2式淋巴结清除术对胃癌患者的预后、手术并发症和死亡率的影响。方法:对217例胃癌手术患者进行前瞻性研究,随机分成对照组(108例胃癌患者进行D0/D1式淋巴结清除术)和实验组(109例胃癌患者进行D2式淋巴结清除术),术后病理确诊分期,对比两组的有效率和不良反应发生率。结果:本组患者不同分期的5年生存率实验组:对照组分别为Ⅰ期90%(27/30)∶87.8%(29/33),P=0.878;Ⅱ期89.7%(35/39)∶47.2%(17/36),P=0.003;Ⅲ期52%(13/25)∶18.2%(4/22),P=0.008,Ⅳ期6.6%(1/15)∶5.8%(1/17),P=0.474。D2∶D0/D1术后总并发症发生率分别为27.5%∶21.3%,P=0.302,其中D0/D1、D2的手术死亡率均为0。结论:胃癌的D2式广泛性淋巴结清除术是安全的,能够显著地改善Ⅱ～Ⅲ期胃癌患者的预后。     

胃癌D2式淋巴结清除术的临床研究

目的：分析D2式淋巴结清除术对胃癌患者的预后、手术并发症和死亡率的影响。方法：对217例胃癌手术患者进行前瞻性研究，随机分成对照组（108例胃癌患者进行D0／D1式淋巴结清除术）和实验组（109例胃癌患者进行D2式淋巴结清除术），术后病理确诊分期，对比两组的有效率和不良反应发生率。结果：本组患者不同分期的5年生存率实验组：对照组分别为Ⅰ期90％（27／30）：87．8％（29／33），P=0．878；Ⅱ期89．7％（35／39）：47．2％（17／36），P=0．003；Ⅲ期52％（13／25）：18．2％（4／22），P=0．008，Ⅳ期6．6％（1／15）：5．8％（1／17），P=0．474。D2：DO／D1术后总并发症发生率分别为27．5％：21．3％，P=0．302，其中D0／D1、D2的手术死亡率均为0。结论：胃癌的D2式广泛性淋巴结清除术是安全的，能够显著地改善Ⅱ～Ⅲ期胃癌患者的预后。