直肠癌结肠造口患者生活质量及其影响因素的研究进展

对结肠造口患者生活质量的研究工具、生活质量水平及其影响因素进行综述。影响结肠造口患者生活质量的因素有心理因素、躯体因素（性功能低下、造口并发症、排便规律）、社会因素（经济状况、就医条件、造口相关知识掌握程度、婚姻状况、自理能力等）。提出术后早期进行康复干预、家庭干预,加强健康教育，正确进行结肠灌洗等可提高患者生活质量。     

直肠癌结肠造口患者生活质量及其影响因素的研究进展

对结肠造口患者生活质量的研究工具、生活质量水平及其影响因素进行综述,影响结肠造口患者生活质量的因素有心理因素、躯体因素(性功能低下、造口并发症、排便规律)、社会因素(经济状况、就医条件、造口相关知识掌握程度、婚姻状况、自理能力等).提出术后早期进行康复干预、家庭干预,加强健康教育,正确进行结肠灌洗等可提高患者生活质量.     

结肠造口灌洗对直肠癌Miles术后病人生活质量的影响

将 94例直肠癌Milles术后病人随机分为两组 ,观察组 (4 4例 )采用结肠造口灌洗法 ,对照组 (5 0例 )采用自然排便法 ,根据测试评分分为优、良、中、差。结果观察组生活质量优占 5 4 .5 5 % ,对照组占 2 6 .0 0 % ,两组比较 ,差异有显著性意义 (P <0 .0 1) ;观察组生活质量显著优于对照组。提示结肠造口灌洗法可明显提高病人的生活质量。     

变径齿轮状扩肛器及固定腹带的设计与应用

经腹会阴联合直肠癌根治术并行永久性结肠造口术是直肠癌患者常见的一种治疗方法,术后患者永久性排便改道,给生活造成极大痛苦,而常见的肠造口狭窄并发症更严重影响其生活质量。为预防肠造口狭窄,造口处拆线愈合后,通常采取手指扩肛措施,如用力不当,易引起出血、水肿、疼痛,甚至坏死等并发症。笔者于2009年8月设计制作变径齿轮状扩     

直肠癌Miles术中造口方法的临床研究

目的　评价腹膜外结肠造口并一期开放在直肠癌Miles术中的临床应用价值。　方法　回顾性分析研究 2 18例直肠癌Miles手术的临床资料 ,其中 150例 (治疗组 )行腹膜外结肠造口并一期开放术 ,68例 (对照组 )行传统的腹膜内结肠造口分期开放术。　结果　所有病例经 2年以上的随访 ,治疗组有 4例出现造口周围皮肤炎 ,1例发生造口旁疝 ,并发症发生率为 3 .3 3 % ,55例病人获排便感觉。对照组造口并发症发生率为 3 3 .8% ,其中造口周围皮肤感染 1.47% (1例 ) ,造口回缩 4.41% (3例 ) ,造口狭窄 14 .71% (10例 ) ,腹腔内疝 4.41% (3例 ) ,造口旁疝 4.41% (3例 ) ,造口脱垂 4.41% (3例 ) ;无一例病人有排便感。两组在并发症发生率及排便感觉上有显著性差异 (P <0 .0 1)。　结论　Miles手术时采用腹膜外结肠造口并一期开放术 ,较传统术式并发症少 ,术后管理容易 ,排便功能好     

造口患者自我护理状况及健康需求研究进展

直肠癌是消化道常见的恶性肿瘤之一,其中低位直肠癌约占75％。Miles手术是治疗低位直肠癌的经典术式之一,需在患者左下腹行永久性乙状结肠造口。初步统计,我国每年新增加的造口患者平均约有2万例。由于结肠造口改变了患者原有正常排便方式,对患者的生活方式及社交生活有较大的影响,容易造成患者自尊低下和社交障碍等心理变化,严重影响其生活质量。     

腹会阴联合切除术后腹膜内与腹膜外造口的比较和研究

<正>直肠癌是我国发生率较高的恶性肿瘤之一。虽然低位直肠癌的保肛技术不断进步,改善很多病人的生活质量,但仍有部分病人因接受腹会阴联合直肠癌根治术而需永久性造口,生活质量大大降低。随着医学进步,直肠癌病人的生存时间越来越长,术后造口旁疝、内疝及结肠脱垂等并发症的发生率越来越高^[1-2]。有报道显示,造口旁疝的发病率在术后远期随访的病人中可达50%,甚至更高,     

腹腔镜腹膜外隧道式结肠造口的临床疗效∗

目的 探讨腹腔镜腹膜外隧道式结肠造口在低位直肠癌术后的临床疗效.方法 2015年1月～2019年12月我院60例因低位直肠癌行腹腔镜腹会阴联合切除术需行结肠造口,其中腹膜外隧道式结肠造口30例(腹膜外造口组),经腹膜结肠造口30例(腹膜造口组),比较2种造口方法造口时间、住院时间、术后排便预感和造口旁疝、回缩等.结果 ...     

保留外括约肌皮下层低位直肠癌根治术

近年来我国大肠癌发病率急剧上升,而直肠癌占大肠癌的多数,其中位于腹膜返折以下的占52.5%.过去经典的Miles术是治疗低位直肠癌的唯一合理手术,永久性腹部结肠造口也就成了直肠癌病人必须接受的手术后果.这种术式给病人心理上造成很大压力,生活上给病人带来极大不便,影响病人生活质量.越来越多的人要求避免永久性腹部结肠造口.本文报告了我院1991年以来选择保留肛门外括约肌皮下层低位直肠癌根治术,手术效果满意,现报告如下.     

必须重视结肠造口技术及其护理

结肠造口术对于解除消化道晚期肿瘤所造成的肠梗阻、左半结肠的损伤、旷置肠道远端炎症、溃疡等，亦为一应急的重要手段，因此结肠造口术在临床得到广泛应用。由于近年来直肠癌发病有增多趋势，且我国直肠癌发病多在低位，因而结肠造口患者逐年增多，已成为社会关注的问题。据统计我国每年结肠造口约１０万例，目前约有１００万结肠造口患者。由于结肠造口的不自主性排便及臭味，给患者工作和生活带来极大的不便，使患者思想上产生极大的压力和烦恼。因此，如何提高直肠癌患者的５年生存率，又使他们如常人一样正常生活，应是术者必须认真对…     

经腹膜外造口对低位直肠癌患者术后旁疝及排便功能的研究

目的探讨经腹-会阴联合直肠癌根治术后腹膜内造口与腹膜外造口对行腹腔镜手术治疗患者并发症及人工肛门控制排便能力影响。 方法选取2013年4月至2016年4月,涟水县人民医院收治的43例低位直肠癌患者,依据临床处理方法将其分为经腹膜外造口患者为观察组（21例,失访1例）;经腹膜内造口患者为对照组（22例,失访2例）,对比2组患者造口并发症及术后排便能力的差距。 结果（1）造口并发症情况比较：造口旁疝,观察组0,对照组2例,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;造口水肿,观察组4例,对照组1例,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。（2）对患者人工肛门排便控制能力进行比较,随访6个月,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;随访1年,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。（3）对患者综合评价优良率进行比较,随访6个月,2组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;随访1年,观察组高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论经腹-会阴联合直肠癌根治术后采用经腹膜外造口方式能够有效降低旁疝发生率,能够更好的对排便能力进行控制。     

乙状结肠成形术在中低位直肠癌前切除中的应用价值

目的 探讨乙状结肠成形术在中低位直肠癌前切除中的可行性,并评估其对直肠癌患者术后排便功能的作用.方法 选择中国医学科学院肿瘤医院2007年1月至2008年1月收治的43例中下段直肠癌(肿瘤下缘距肛缘<8 cm)的患者于直肠癌前切除术后行乙状结肠成形术(观察组),同期收治的43例中下段直肠癌患者行结肠J型贮袋重建(对照组).采用t检验、X2检验或Fisher确切概率法比较两种术式的可行性、安全性及术后患者排便功能.结果 观察组患者全部完成壶腹重建,对照组4例患者贮袋重建失败.两组各有3例患者行临时性横结肠造口术.观察组术后并发症发生率为7%(3/43),对照组术后并发症发生率为9%(4/43),两组比较差异无统计学意义(X2=0.282,P0.05).术后4个月时,24 h排便次数观察组为(2.0±1.5)次,对照组为(2.5±1.0)次,两组比较差异无统计学意义(X2=1.242,P0.05).大便失禁评分观察组为(1.7±0.7)分,对照组为(1.6±0.8)分.两组比较差异无统计学意义(t=0.285,P0.05).结论 乙状结肠成形术与结肠J型贮袋重建在改善患者排便功能方面作用相似.乙状结肠成形术是一种简便、安全和有效的手术方法.     

经腹-会阴联合直肠癌根治术后经腹膜外造口对患者旁疝与排便功能的影响

目的探讨经腹-会阴联合直肠癌根治术后经腹膜外造口对患者旁疝与排便功能的影响。 方法选择2016年1月至2017年6月,广元市中心医院行经腹-会阴联合直肠癌根治术78例患者的临床资料。其中经腹膜外造口者40例为观察组,经腹膜内造口者38例为对照组,2组患者均于围手术期接受全程护理。比较2组手术指标、术后并发症发生情况及排便功能。 结果观察组术中出血量、住院时间分别为（104.24±39.08）ml和（15.62±3.10）d,与对照组（120.46±47.35）ml和（17.20±2.95）d,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;观察组手术时间、造口时间、术后切口愈合时间分别为（233.12±40.50）min、（21.87±9.23）min和（7.31±0.28）d,与对照组（231.38±39.04）min、（20.95±9.14）min和（7.05±0.34）d,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。观察组排便功能优良率显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（67.50% vs 34.21%,P<0.05）。观察组造口旁疝的发生率显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（2.50% vs 18.42%,P<0.05）;但2组间造口出血、造口水肿、造口回缩或脱垂等发生率比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。 结论经腹-会阴联合直肠癌根治术后经腹膜外造口可显著降低术后造口旁疝的发生率,促进其排便功能的恢复,整体疗效优于经腹膜内造口。     

低位直肠癌保肛中预防性造口的临床应用分析

目的探讨预防性造口在低位直肠癌保肛术中的临床应用价值。方法分析2010年3月至2013年10月期间收治的37例低位直肠癌保肛术患者的临床资料,两组患者术前均经病理检查确诊,癌灶下缘距肛缘小于7 cm。将患者分成预防性造口组(19例)、未施行预防性造口组(18例),应用SPSS17.0对相关数据进行处理。手术时间、术中出血、首次排气排便时间、首次进食时间、住院时间等计量资料比较用t检验;术后并发症、再手术率发生率等资料用χ~2检验,P0.05差异具有统计学意义。结果预防性造口组术后首次排气、排便时间为(2.8±0.6)d,未施行预防性造口组为(4.1±0.5)d,差异有统计学意义(t=1.92,P0.05);术后首次进食时间分别为(3.8±1.2)和(5.6±1.8)d;术后平均住院时间分别为(8±2)d和(12±2)d,差异均有统计学意义(t=2.34,t=2.68,P0.05)。术后总并发症预防性造口组为1/19(5.3%),未施行预防性造口组为4/18(22.2%),两组术后总的并发症发生率差异有统计学意义(χ~2=4.75,P0.05)。预防性造口组发生1例(5.3%)吻合口漏,经反复腹腔冲洗引流等保守治疗后痊愈;未造口组发生3例(16.7%)吻合口漏,其中2例经保守治疗后愈合,1例发展为弥漫性腹膜炎接受再手术;经检验,两组吻合口漏发生率有显著统计学差异。两组术后均无因吻合口漏而死亡的病例。结论预防性造口能显著降低吻合口漏的发生率,同时也能降低与吻合口吻合口漏相关的再手术率。对吻合口高度较低及具有高危因素的患者,建议常规施行预防性造口。     

腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后乙状结肠造口坏死两例诊治分析

目的探讨腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后乙状结肠造口坏死的原因及处理策略。 方法回顾性分析2020年5～6月在西安交通大学第一附属医院进行腹腔镜经腹会阴联合直肠癌根治术后乙状结肠造口坏死的2例病例资料。病例1患者于造口坏死早期在局部麻醉下拆除造口周围缝线后外提肠管重新造口，病例2患者间断拆除皮下缝线后进行热敷、换药、引流及剪除坏死肠壁等保守治疗措施。 结果局部麻醉下重新造口患者的造口愈合良好，黏膜红润，排便通畅，术后1周出院。保守治疗患者的造口愈合后上缘轻度内陷及狭窄，术后28 d出院。 结论乙状结肠造口坏死至腹壁内时早期在局部麻醉下拆除缝线后适度外提肠管重新造口是一种积极、可行的治疗措施。     

Quality of Life of Stoma Patients: Temporary Ileostomy versus Colostomy

Abstract Ileostomy for proximal diversion as a preferred option over colostomy has been a recent topic of interest. Our study evaluated the quality of life (QOL) of patients with a temporary ileostomy and compared it with that of patients with a temporary colostomy. The QOL of 25 patients with an ileostomy (median age 42 years, range 22–76 years) was compared with that for 25 patients with a colostomy (median age 44 years, range 18–70 years). Indications for a stoma were rectal carcinoma, trauma, inflammatory bowel disease, anastomotic leak, or incontinence following an operative procedure for rectal prolapse. The study was conducted at a median of 8 weeks (range 6–16 weeks) for ileostomy patients and of 9 weeks (range 5–17 weeks) for colostomy patients following stoma creation. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used, with responses obtained for 10 QOL questions on a visual analog rating scale (0–100 mm); they were graded good (71–100), satisfactory (31–70), or poor (0–30). Altogether, 22 (88%) patients with an ileostomy, compared with 16 (64%) patients with a colostomy, were able to purchase their stomal appliances (p = 0.09, χ ²: NS). Effluent was tolerable in 18 (72%) patients with an ileostomy compared with 7 (28%) patients with a colostomy (p = 0.002, χ ²). Appetite was not affected in any of the patients with an ileostomy (100%), compared with 64% of patients with a colostomy (p = 0.002, χ ²), travel by public transport 32% compared to 28% with colostomy (NS), dress in 20% compared to 24% with colostomy (NS), and daily activities 28% compared to 24% with colostomy (NS). Moreover, 68% with an ileostomy did not have a problem with hygiene compared with 40% with a colostomy (NS); 95% with an ileostomy abstained from sexual activity compared with 81% with a colostomy (p = 0.21, χ ²: NS). Both ileostomy and colostomy resulted in significant QOL impairment. However, with ileostomy, the effluent was more tolerable, had less of an impact on personal hygiene, and preserved the appetite compared with colostomy. There were no differences in travel, dress, daily chores, or sexual activity between the two groups.     

Quality of life outcomes in 599 cancer and non-cancer patients with colostomies

BACKGROUND: A colostomy is known to impact negatively on a patient's quality of life (QOL). Concerns include incontinence, rectal discharge, gas, difficulties in returning to work, decreased sexual activity, and travel and leisure challenges. Reports have described QOL outcomes in cancer patients with colostomies and inflammatory bowel syndrome with colostomies, but little has been written regarding a comparison of cancer and non-cancer populations. The purpose of this study was to describe QOL issues of colostomy patients and compare these issues in cancer and non-cancer participants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A QOL-ostomy questionnaire was mailed to 2455 California members of the United Ostomy Association. RESULTS: Of the 1457 respondents (59%), 599 had a colostomy. Most were results from cancer (517/599), with colorectal cancer being the most common diagnosis. The most common benign diagnoses were inflammatory bowel disease and diverticulitis. Demographics were similar, except for more females in the non-cancer group (76%), and increased length of time with colostomy from the cancer group (mean 135.9 versus 106.4 months, P = 0.03). Common QOL problems included sexual problems, gas, constipation, travel difficulties, and dissatisfaction with appearance. Overall, cancer patients had less difficulty adjusting to their colostomies. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirmed the negative impact of a colostomy on QOL. While patients with cancer had a better overall QOL than those with benign processes, concerns were common to all colostomy patients. These results provide health care practitioners with information useful in discussing QOL concerns during pre-operation treatment decisions and post operative teaching and follow-up care.     

结肠J型贮袋在低位直肠癌吻合术32例中的应用

目的探讨结肠J型贮袋在低位直肠癌手术中的应用。方法对我科2001年~2004年实施的直肠癌结肠J型贮袋肛管(直肠)吻合术32例的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果全组无术中意外损伤及大出血病例。无死亡病例。发生吻合口狭窄1例。无吻合口漏及便秘。病人术后1年内排便状况满意。结论低位直肠癌行结肠J型贮袋肛管(直肠)吻合术具有操作方便、易于观察、容易推广等特点,有明显改善排便功能的作用,可显著提高病人术后的生活质量。     

Quality of life after coloanal anastomosis and abdominoperineal resection for distal rectal cancers: sphincter preservation vs quality of life

Aim A permanent colostomy is considered to have an adverse impact on quality of life (QOL). However, functional outcomes following sphincter preservation also affect QOL. Our aim was to determine differences in QOL of patients undergoing coloanal anastomosis (CAA) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for distal rectal cancer. Method Eighty‐five patients underwent CAA (72 with intestinal continuity and 13 with a stoma because of complications) and 83 patients underwent APR for a distal rectal cancer between 1995 and 2001 at a single institution and responded to our survey. QOL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐CR38. Results Patients with CAA were younger than APR patients (mean age 57 vs 62 years, P < 0.001), but gender distribution, tumour stage and proportion of subjects receiving radiotherapy was not significantly different. Patients undergoing CAA had higher scores (better QOL) for physical functioning; lower scores (fewer symptoms) for fatigue, pain, financial difficulties, weight loss and chemotherapy side effects; and higher scores (more symptoms) for constipation and gastrointestinal symptoms compared with APR patients. CAA patients had higher scores (better QOL) for body image in men but not in women. Sexual functioning scores in men and women were lower (worse QOL) in CAA patients compared with APR patients. Conclusions QOL after APR is comparable to sphincter preservation, although there are some differences that need to be considered. QOL and functional results should be taken into account with the oncological outcome when devising management strategy for distal rectal cancer.