腹腔镜胃癌根治术后加速康复外科方案应用的体会

目的 探索腹腔镜胃癌根治术后加速康复外科应用的体会。方法 收集2018年2月~2019年10月因胃癌接受根治手术的患者执行加速康复外科方案的23例患者的临床资料（ERAS组）。另选择同期常规胃癌根治术23例患者作为对照（常规组）,手术方式均为5孔法腹腔镜辅助胃癌D2根治+胃背侧系膜近胃端CME术,ERAS方案执行参考文献报道。比较两组临床效果。结果 与常规组相比,ERAS组术后住院时间缩短（分别为7.8±1.3 d和6.7±1.4 d）（P<0.05）;ERAS组术后早期进食量（3.1±0.8 d）较常规组（4.4±1.2 d）提前（P<0.05）;ERAS组的排便时间（3.3±0.8 d）与常规组（3.9±1.1 d）也有显著性差异（P<0.05）;活动时间（ERAS组：2.5±1.0 d,常规组：3.2±1.0 d）两组间也有显著差异（P<0.05）。ERA组与常规组的并发症发生率无显著性差异（P=0.437）。结论 ERAS组具有术后恢复快特点,但作者体会ERAS方案应用主要是根据手术医生术中和术后情况的经验判断,与患者个性化处理有关。     

Sleeve gastrectomy

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) was originally performed as the restrictive component of the duodenal switch procedure. This partial vertical gastrectomy served to reduce gastric capacity and initiate short-term weight loss while the malabsorptive component of the operation (biliopancreatic diversion) provided the long-term weight loss. Some patients, however, could not undergo the intestinal bypass, and early investigations found that substantial weight loss occurred with the SG alone. The sleeve then developed into a risk management strategy for very large or high-risk patients who would not tolerate a longer or higher-risk procedure.     

腹腔镜辅助下胃切除术

目的 探讨腹腔镜胃切除术的临床应用价值。方法 2000年8月-2001年4月应用腹腔镜辅助胃切除术治疗胃疾病18例,年龄28—87岁,其中胃大部分切除Billroth—I式吻合术l例,胃大部分切除Billroth-Ⅱ式吻合术7例,根治性胃近端切除术3例,根治性胃远端切除术4例,全胃切除术3例。结果 本组无中转开腹手术,手术时间1．50min-340min,出血20ml-120ml,术后平均住院时间8天,无手术并发症。胃肠功能恢复快,无手术死亡发生。结论 腹腔镜胃切除术是安全、有效、切实可行的。     

Total gastrectomy

Total gastrectomy is indicated principally for Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and for potentially curable gastric cancer. The diagnosis of cancer should be verified by biopsy before the resection is performed, and the margins of resection should usually be examined by frozen section. Of the various reconstructions, Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy gave the best long-term results.     

2014年欧洲加速康复外科协会《胃切除术加速康复外科指南》热点问题解读

加速康复外科(ERAS)是近年来新兴的围术期一系列优化处理措施.该学科以减少手术患者的创伤应激,减少术后并发症,加快患者康复为目标.它是一系列有效措施的组合而产生的协同结果.2014年7月,欧洲加速康复外科协会根据最新循证医学证据组织专家制订了《胃切除术加速康复外科指南》.现就该指南中热点问题做一简要解读,以期为我国该领域的临床工作提供循证医学证据.     

Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy compared with conventional open gastrectomy

BACKGROUND: Although several studies compare surgical results of laparoscopic and open colonic resections, there is no study of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared with open gastrectomy. HYPOTHESIS: When compared with conventional open gastrectomy, laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy is less invasive in patients with early-stage gastric cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective review of operative data, blood analyses, and postoperative clinical course after Billroth I gastrectomy. SETTING: University hospital in Japan. PATIENTS: The study included 102 patients who were treated with Billroth I gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer from January 1993 to July 1999: 49 with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy and 53 with conventional open gastrectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic features examined were operation time; blood loss; blood cell counts of leukocytes, granulocytes, and lymphocytes; serum levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, total protein, and albumin; body temperature; weight loss; analgesic requirements; time to first flatus; time to liquid diet; length of postoperative hospital stay; complications; proximal margin of the resected stomach; and number of harvested lymph nodes. RESULTS: Significant differences (P<.05) were present between laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open gastrectomy when the following features were compared: blood loss (158 vs 302 mL), leukocyte count on day 1 (9.42 vs 11.14 x 10(9)/L) and day 3 (6.99 vs 8.22 x 10(9)/L), granulocyte count on day 1 (7.28 vs 8.90 x 10(9)/L), C-reactive protein level on day 7 (2.91 vs 5.19 mg/dL), interleukin 6 level on day 3 (4.2 vs 26.0 U/mL), serum albumin level on day 7 (35.6 vs 33.9 g/L), number of times analgesics given (3.3 vs 6.2), time to first flatus (3.9 vs 4.5 days), time to liquid diet (5.0 vs 5.7 days), postoperative hospital stay (17.6 vs 22.5 days), and weight loss on day 14 (5.5% vs 7.1%). There was no significant difference between laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open gastrectomy with regard to operation time (246 vs 228 minutes), proximal margin (6.2 vs 6.0 cm), number of harvested lymph nodes (18.4 vs 22.1), and complication rate (8% vs 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy, when compared with conventional open gastrectomy, has several advantages, including less surgical trauma, less impaired nutrition, less pain, rapid return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter hospital stay, with no decrease in operative curability. When performed by a skilled surgeon, laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy is a safe and useful technique for patients with early-stage 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.     

Comparative study of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy and open distal gastrectomy

BACKGROUND: Most studies comparing surgical results of laparoscopic procedures for gastric cancer with open gastrectomies have been conducted based on limited experience. We aimed to compare laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and conventional open distal gastrectomy (ODG) after a protracted learning experience. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed medical records data. Two hundred fifty six patients underwent distal gastrectomies (136 LADG, 120 ODG). There were 150 early gastric cancer (EGC) patients (120 LADG, 30 ODG). RESULTS: Mean operation times for LADG and ODG were similar among EGC (156.5 versus 159.3 minutes, p = 0.666). Mean retrieved lymph node counts for LADG and ODG were different, but were > 30 (31.3 versus 40.4 for all and 30.4 versus 38.1 for EGC). For all subjects or EGC patients after LADG, C-reactive proteins on day 5 were substantially lower, first liquid diet was resumed substantially sooner, and postoperative hospital stays were substantially shorter than for ODG. CONCLUSIONS: LADG with lymph node dissection after a learning curve has several advantages compared with ODG, namely, less inflammatory reaction, rapid return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter hospital stay without compromising operation time or operative curability.