腹腔镜辅助与开腹远端胃癌D2根治术的治疗效果比较

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌D2根治术的治疗效果.方法 分析2008年11月至2011年10月行腹腔镜辅助和开腹远端胃癌D2根治术患者的临床资料,其中腹腔镜组61例,开腹组37例作为对照.结果 56例顺利完成腹腔镜手术,5例中转,手术时间:腹腔镜组(178.00±15.51) min,开腹组(147.86±17.41) min;术中出血量:腹腔镜组(138.43±39.67) ml,开腹组(362.86±59.86) ml(P＜0.05);平均切口长度:腹腔镜组(5.12±0.85)cm,开腹组(18.40±1.98) cm;两组在淋巴结清扫数量上差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).开腹组术后发生5例肺部感染,腹腔镜组发生3例肺部感染,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).根据术后病检回报:两组均达到了癌肿的整块切除.规律随访得知所有患者均存活,未发现有远处转移.结论 腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治手术可以达到根治和微创的双重效果,其远期疗效有待进一步随访观察.     

腹腔镜辅助与开腹远端胃癌D2根治术近期康复的对比研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术患者术后早期的康复情况.方法 回顾性分析2010年1月至2012年12月56例腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术(腹腔镜组)与同期62例开腹远端胃癌根治术(开腹组)患者的临床资料.结果 两组手术时间、淋巴结清扫数目、pTNM分期、切除长度及术后并发症发生率等比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).腹腔镜组术中出血量明显少于开腹组(120±25 ml VS 165±42 ml,P＜ 0.05),腹腔镜组术后胃肠功能恢复时间、平均住院时间均短于开腹组,分别为(75±9hVS 101±12h,P＜ 0.05)和(8.2±2.5 d VS 10.5±2.9 d,P＜ 0.05).结论 腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术技术可行,同时具备手术视野清晰、创伤小、出血少等优点,患者近期康复效果优于开腹手术.     

腹腔镜与开腹胃癌D_2根治术的疗效分析

目的 评价腹腔镜与开腹胃癌D_2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2008年1月至2009年2月南京医科大学附属常州第二人民医院收治的64例腹腔镜胃癌D_2根治术患者(腹腔镜组)和60例同期行开腹胃癌D_2根治术患者(开腹组)的临床资料.采用t检验和X~2检验比较两组在手术时间,术中出血量,肿瘤近、远端切缘长度,淋巴结清扫数目,术后排气时间,下床活动时间,住院时间,并发症方面的差异.结果 两组患者均顺利完成胃癌D_2根治手术,腹腔镜组手术时间较开腹组长(t=5.56,P<0.05);腹腔镜组肿瘤的近、远端切缘长度和淋巴结清扫数目与开腹组比较,差异无统计学意义(t=0.67,0.86,1.09,P>0.05);腹腔镜组的术中出血量、排气时间、下床时间、住院时间,均显著少于开腹组(t=4.59,5.56,16.39,4.79,P<0.05).腹腔镜组有6例患者出现并发症,开腹组有5例患者出现并发症,两组并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(X~2=9.98,P>0.05).术后随访1～13个月,两组均无肿瘤复发及患者死亡.结论 腹腔镜胃癌D_2根治术安全、有效,能够达到理想的胃癌根治水平.     

腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术218例疗效评价

目的 探讨腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术的可行性及其疗效.方法 2007年1月至2009年3月,对529例胃癌患者施行胃癌D2根治术,其中腹腔镜手术患者(腹腔镜组)218例,开腹手术患者(开腹组)311例.对两组患者的术中及术后情况、淋巴结清扫数目、并发症及病死率等进行比较分析.结果 腹腔镜组手术时间为(237±42)min长于开腹组的(229±42)min,而两组术中出血量[(81±100)ml比(171±211)ml]、术中输血例数(7例比44例)、术后胃肠功能恢复时间[(4.1 ±2.3)d比(5.0±1.4)d]、首次进流质时间[(4.5±2.2)d比(5.5 ±1.4)d]和术后住院时间[(12±4)d比(14±4)d]等差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),腹腔镜组均优于开腹组.在腹腔镜组中,全胃切除术的手术时间为(250±46)min,显著长于远端胃大部切除术的(228±37)min(P<0.05),而两种术式在其他方面均无显著差异.腹腔镜组和开腹组术后并发症发生率分别为11.9%和19.0%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).腹腔镜胃癌手术的中转开腹率为6.0%.全组患者平均淋巴结清扫数目为(29±10)枚,中位数为28枚.腹腔镜组和开腹组患者平均淋巴结清扫数目分别为(28±10)枚和(29±9)枚,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术具有安全、术后恢复快和并发症少等优点,同时在淋巴结清扫方面能达到与开腹手术相同的效果.     

腹腔镜辅助近端胃癌根治术临床近期疗效

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助近端胃癌根治术近期临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2011年6月至2013年1月收治的48例腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术患者(腹腔镜组),同时选取临床资料与腹腔镜组相近的,行开腹近端胃癌根治术患者40例(开腹组).比较两组在手术时间、出血量、清扫淋巴结数目、术后胃肠功能恢复时间和住院时间的情况.结果 腹腔镜组手术时间、出血量、清扫淋巴结数目、术后胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间分别为(164±38)min、(80±33)ml、(27.5±3.1)个、(2.5±0.8)d和(10.0±2.2)d.出血量、术后胃肠恢复时间、住院时间与开腹组比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).按胃周淋巴结组别观察两组淋巴结数目,腹腔镜组的NO.4、10、11d淋巴结平均清扫数目与开腹组比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术能够达到与开腹手术相同的根治效果,且具有创伤小、恢复快、安全等优点.     

腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术安全性和生存状况分析

目的 评估腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术的安全性和长期生存情况.方法 行远端胃癌根治术患者360例,其中160例行腹腔镜手术(腹腔镜组),200例行开腹手术(开腹组),比较两组患者手术安全性、术后并发症和生存率.结果 腹腔镜组手术出血量和术后住院时间分别为(42.5±15.3)ml和(9.5±2.6)天,均少于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组手术时间、淋巴结清扫数目和术后并发症比较,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组患者随访时间6 ～ 60个月,平均32个月,腹腔镜组与开腹组1、3、5年总体生存率分别为95.3％、82.7％、60.3％和95.4％、79.2％、60.3％,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术安全可行,有创伤小,恢复快,并发症少.腹腔镜组在术后生存率与开腹手术组相当.     

早期胃癌腹腔镜与开腹根治术的对照研究

目的评价腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的可行性、安全性、肿瘤根治性以及术后近期疗效.方法回顾性分析2004年8月至2007年8月间68例接受外科手术的早期胃癌的临床和手术资料,其中腹腔镜胃癌根治术31例,开腹胃癌根治术37例;并比较两组的手术时间、术中出血、术后胃肠道恢复、术后住院天数、术后并发症、术后病理及随访等结果.结果全部31例早期胃癌均在腹腔镜下完成胃切除和淋巴结清扫,无中转开腹,其中远端胃大部切除术28例,近端胃大部切除术2例,全胃切除术1例;D1 α式淋巴结清扫16例、D1 β式淋巴结清扫2例,D2淋巴结清扫13例.腹腔镜胃癌根治术的平均手术时间为194.8±50.8 min,与开腹组无显著性差异;术中出血量(138.7±157.3)ml,显著低于开腹组(P＜0.05).腹腔镜手术后肠道恢复功能时间1.8(1～4)d,显著少于开腹组(P＜0.01).腹腔镜组术后并发症发生率为3.2%,与开腹组无显著性差异(P＞0.05).腹腔镜组清扫淋巴结数(9.6±4.4)枚,测量胃近端和远端正常切缘(3.8±1.6)cm及(3.5±1.3)cm,与开腹组比较无显著性差异.术后中位随访15(2～35)个月,腹腔镜组无肿瘤复发或者死亡,开腹组一例因腹膜复发而死亡.结论腹腔镜胃癌根治术是治疗早期胃癌安全、可行、微创、有效的方法.     

腔镜辅助与传统远端胃癌根治术的近期疗效观察

目的通过对比腹腔镜与传统开腹远端胃癌根治术的近期疗效,探讨腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术可行性、根治性与安全性。方法将40例行胃癌根治术患者按照治疗方式分为观察组(实施腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术)17例和对照组(传统开腹远端胃癌根治术)23例,对比分析2组治疗效果与并发症发生情况。结果 2组手术时间相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);2组淋巴结清扫数相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组出血量、术后排气时间及术后住院天数均明显少于对照组,2组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组出现并发症1例,对照组1例,均经对症处理后症状缓解。结论腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术与传统开腹远端胃癌根治术近期疗效相近,且具有创伤小、出血量小、恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

改良手辅助腹腔镜与传统开腹胃癌 根治术的疗效对照研究

目的:探讨改良手辅助腹腔镜胃癌根治术的优势,为其临床推广提供依据。方法:选取2013年6月至2014年12月确诊的102例胃癌患者,其中51例行改良手辅助腹腔镜胃癌根治术(手辅助组),51例行开腹胃癌根治术(开腹组),对比两组术后临床疗效。结果:两组患者年龄、性别、肿瘤组织分型、TNM分期差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。手辅助组切口长度、术中出血量、术后肛门首次排气时间、术后住院时间优于开腹组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01),两组手术时间、术后病理检获淋巴结数量、术后并发症发生率(9.8%vs. 11.76%)差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。手辅助组与开腹组术后3年总生存率分别为56.86%与52.94%。结论:改良手辅助腹腔镜胃癌根治术与开腹手术肿瘤根治效果相似,但其创伤小、康复快,值得临床推广。     

腹腔镜辅助下进展期胃癌根治术的临床应用(附47例报告)

目的 研究腹腔镜在进展期胃癌中根治术能否满足胃癌手术切缘及D2淋巴结清扫的根治要求.方法 对47例行腹腔镜辅助下胃癌根治术的进展期胃癌患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析.结果 腹腔镜辅助下根治性近端胃大部切除术25例,根治性远端胃大部切除术11例,全胃根治术10例,1例中转开腹;手术时间(220±55)min,术中出血(150±87)ml.术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、术后住院时间分别为(5.1±0.5)d、(3.2±0.8)d、(9.0±1.5)d;腹腔镜辅助远端胃大部切除术11例,手术时间(284±37)min,术中出血(120±70)ml.术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、术后住院时间分别为(4.0±0.8)d、(3.2±1.5)d、(9.0±2.0)d.腹腔镜辅助全胃切除术10例,手术时间(330±50)min,术中出血(240±65)ml.术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、术后住院时间分别为(4.1±0.8)d、(3.2±0.8)d、(9.5±2.0)d.淋巴结清扫平均数(21.95±9.88)个,近端切缘与肿瘤距平均距离(6.41±2.13)cm;远端切缘与肿瘤平均距离(6.22±1.98)cm.无术中及术后并发症,近期疗效良好.结论 腹腔镜在进展期胃癌中根治术是安全可行的,能达到胃癌标准根治术(D2)的淋巴结清扫范围和肿瘤切缘,远期疗效有待进一步观察.     

Comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open radical distal gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer management

Background The feasibility and safety of laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer has rarely been studied. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility, safety, and cancer clearance of laparoscopically assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy. Methods Of the 44 patients with distal gastric cancer who underwent radical distal gastrectomy from March 2004 to May 2005, 35 were treated with D2/D2⁺ lymphadenectomy. These patients were compared with 58 patients who, during the same period, underwent a conventional open radical distal gastrectomy. Results The mean total number of retrieved lymph nodes (30.11 ± 16.97) and the mean tumor margin were comparable with those in the open group. The mean operative time for laparoscopically assisted distal gastrectomy was significantly longer than for open surgery (282.84 ± 32.81 min vs 223.75 ± 23.25 min). The patients in the laparoscopic surgery group had less blood loss, shorter times of analgesic injection, and a faster recovery. The rates of complications were comparable between two groups. Conclusions Although laparoscopically assisted radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is more time consuming than open surgery, it is a safe, feasible procedure that achieves cancer clearance similar to open surgery and leads to a quick postoperative recovery.     

腹腔镜辅助下进展期胃癌Dν2根治术的临床分析

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助进展期胃癌D2根治术的可行性和近期疗效。方法分析行腹腔镜辅助进展期胃癌D2根治术的30例患者,包括全胃切除术14例,远端胃大部份切除术16例。结果 30例顺利完成腹腔镜手术,无一例中转。手术平均时间：全胃切除（261.2±22.1）min,远端胃切除（239.8±19.7）min。术中平均出血量：全胃切除（133.3±30.2）ml,远端胃切除（110.4±27.5）ml。清扫淋巴结平均为（21.6±2.3）枚。术后患者胃肠功能恢复时间（3.7±1.1）d,下床活动时间平均（2.6±0.5）d。术后效果良好,无近期并发症。所有患者均获随访,随访时间3～36个月。2例发生肝转移,1例肿瘤复发,未发生Trocar种植及腹膜转移。结论腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术在胃癌患者治疗中,创伤小,恢复快,安全有效,近期疗效好。     

Laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: Five years' experience

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy is being reported increasingly as the treatment of choice for early gastric cancer. However, no reports concerning the prognosis of patients who have undergone laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for early gastric cancer or data comparing the results to those obtained after open gastric surgery are yet available. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed comparing laparoscopic assisted and open distal gastrectomies for early gastric cancer. Eighty-nine patients who underwent LADG were compared to 60 who underwent conventional open distal gastrectomy (DG) in terms of pathologic findings, operative outcome, complications, and survival. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between LADG and DG in operation time (209 vs 200 minutes), complication rate (9% vs 18%), and 5-year survival rate (98% vs 95%). There were differences between LADG and DG with regard to blood loss (237 vs 412 mL), number of lymph nodes (19 vs 25), postoperative stay (17 vs 25 days), and the duration of epidural analgesia (2 vs 4 days) ( P < .05 each). CONCLUSIONS: For properly selected patients, LADG can be a curative and minimally invasive treatment for early gastric cancer.     

Assessment of pain by face scales after gastrectomy: comparison of laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy and open gastrectomy

Background  Laparoscopic gastrectomy is reported to cause little pain. However, only the total number of analgesics used has been studied to date. Because pain is a subjective experience, its evaluation requires indicators for the subjective assessment. Methods  Pain was evaluation for patients after open distal gastrectomy (ODG, 52 cases), laparoscopically assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG, 112 cases), open total gastrectomy (OTG, 18 cases), and laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy (LATG, 33 cases). The patients were administered continuous epidural anesthesia for 2 days after the surgery. The Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale was used to evaluate the differences in pain. Each patient was evaluated from postoperative day (POD) 1 to POD 7, and temporal changes in pain were studied comparatively between ODG and LADG and between OTG and LATG. Results  Peak pain scores were recorded on POD 3 for both distal and total gastrectomy. The scores decreased over time after POD 3. There was no significant difference in scores between open and laparoscopic gastrectomy up to POD 2, but lower scores were shown on PODs 3, 4, and 5 for LADG and on days 3 and 4 for LATG. Conclusions  The pain score for laparoscopic gastrectomy was low. There was no significant difference in pain between procedures while epidural anesthesia was in effect. Pain subsided earlier with laparoscopic than with open gastrectomy. The same characteristics were observed with both LADG and LATG.     

Is Totally Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Less Invasive Than Laparoscopy-assisted Gastrectomy?: Prospective,Multicenter Study

Background Laparoscopic surgery has been adopted for the treatment of gastric cancer, and many reports have confirmed its favorable outcomes. Most surgeons prefer to laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy using minilaparotomy rather than totally laparoscopic procedures because of technical difficulties of intracorporeal anastomosis. We conducted this study to compare laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. In addition, laparoscopic procedures were compared with open distal gastrectomy. Material and methods This prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study enrolled 60 patients with early gastric cancer at three branch hospitals of our institutes. Twenty-five- to 30-cm-long mid-line incision, 5-cm midline or transverse incision, and 3-cm U-shaped incision were used in open distal gastrectomy, laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy, and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, respectively. Postoperative outcomes, immunologic changes, and operation-related costs were compared between the three groups. Results There was no difference in gender, mean age, body mass index, and tumor characteristics between the three groups. No operation-related death occurred. Estimated blood loss, number of additional analgesics use, first flatus, and soft meal diet time were significantly different between the three groups (P < 0.05). In totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter than laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (3.7 vs. 2.8 days, in laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, respectively, P < 0.05). White blood cell count and C-reactive protein level at postoperative day 1 were significantly higher in open distal gastrectomy than the other groups; however, there was no difference between laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy and totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. The operation-related costs were significantly greater in totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (P < 0.05). Conclusion Although totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy needs more cost, totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy provides shorter bowel recovery time than laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy.     

腹腔镜胃癌根治术的临床应用

目的：探讨腹腔镜胃癌根治术的可行性和效果。方法：为20例胃癌患者行腹腔镜胃癌根治术,其中根治性远侧胃次全切除术18例;根治性全胃切除术2例。结果：1例中转开腹,1例改行经胸食管空肠吻合,余者行腹腔镜胃癌根治术均获成功。平均手术时间270min（210～380min）,平均出血量185ml（80～350ml）,平均清扫淋巴结21.5枚（13～29枚）,平均肛门排气时间2.5d（1～4d）。结论：腹腔镜胃癌根治术是安全可行的,能获得与开腹手术相当的根治效果。     

Laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: comparison with conventional open total gastrectomy

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy has been applied to the treatment of early gastric cancer in Japan. So far, several studies about comparison between laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy and conventional open distal gastrectomy were reported. However, there are few reports on the laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy, mainly because this procedure is performed relatively infrequently, and the procedure is more difficult than laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy. This was a case-control study comparing between laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy group and open total gastrectomy group. From June 2001 to August 2004, laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy was performed in 20 patients. Reconstruction was performed by Roux-en-Y method or Roux-en-Y with jejunal pouch method through the mini-laparotomy. These cases were compared with 19 cases of open total gastrectomy, regarding operating time, blood loss, leukocyte count, C-reactive protein, time to the first passage of gas, time to initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay.Laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy was successful in 20 patients. The mean operating time was 280 minutes and blood loss was 227.5 mL. Leukocyte counts on days 1, 3, and 7 were significantly lower in laparoscopic surgery group than in open surgery group. The time to first flatus, time to initiate oral intake, and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group. This study demonstrated that laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy is suitable and feasible for early gastric cancer and has the advantage of a shorter recovery time compared with open total gastrectomy.     

改良腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术17例报告

目的：探讨改良腹腔镜辅助下远端胃癌根治术的手术方法及可行性,方法：回顾分析17例患者行改良腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术的临床资料。结果：17例均顺利完成腹腔镜手术,无中转开腹。平均手术时间205min（180—250min）,平均出血120ml（80—170ml）,平均下床活动时间51h（41—60h）,平均排气时间74h（58～90h）,平均住院时间9d（7-16d）。术后发生并发症2例,均经保守治疗治愈。结论：改良辅助下胃癌根治术在保留腹腔镜手术微创优点的同时减少了腹腔镜下的操作步骤,降低了腹腔镜胃癌根治术的手术难度,具有较好的,临床应用价值。     

不同吻合器在腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术Roux-en-Y式吻合中的安全性及卫生经济学对比

目的:比较直线切割吻合器与圆形吻合器在腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术Roux-en-Y吻合中的安全性与卫生经济学的差异。方法:回顾分析2017年8月至2019年2月192例接受腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术并Roux-en-Y式吻合患者的临床资料。根据胃肠吻合所用吻合器材类型,将患者分为直线切割吻合器组(A组,n=40,20.8%)与圆形吻合器组(B组,n=152,79.2%)。比较两组手术安全性、术后消化道功能恢复及卫生经济学的差异。结果:A组术中出血量[(59.75±38.397)mL vs.(63.29±67.792)mL,(P=0.752)]、手术时间[(249.28±65.72)min vs.(255.03±62.67)min,P=0.609]、淋巴结清扫数量[(30.68±11.74)枚vs.(32.43±12.61)枚,P=0.429]、Ⅱ度及以上并发症发生率[7.5%(3/40)vs.7.9%(12/152),P=0.934]、手术耗材费用(中位数:30758元vs.32749元,P=0.064)及住院费用(中位数:70759元vs.70851元,P=0.527)与B组差异无统计学意义。A组术后首次排气时间[(3.46±0.767)d vs.(3.98±1.190)d,P=0.013]、首次进流食时间[(4.32±1.029)d vs.(4.91±0.996)d,P=0.020]、拔除腹腔引流管时间[(6.00±0.882)d vs.(6.56±1.764)d,P=0.008]均短于B组,差异均有统计学意义。结论:腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术Roux-en-Y吻合中使用直线切割吻合器或圆形吻合器行消化道重建均是安全、可行的,使用直线切割吻合器术后首次排气时间、首次进流食时间更短,在术后胃肠道功能恢复方面存在优势。     

腹腔镜胃手术的体会

目的:探讨应用腹腔镜治疗早期胃癌及胃良性疾病的手术方法,评估其临床应用价值。方法:在腹壁选择适合的部位将4个穿刺套管置入腹腔。分别采用腹腔镜辅助、手助腹腔镜及全腹腔镜下行胃疾病手术治疗。结果:28例中,早期胃癌根治术23例,胃大部切除术5例,手术均获成功,无中转开腹。结论:早期胃癌及一些良性胃疾病用腹腔镜手术治疗安全可行且可靠。