��ǻ���������г��ھֲ���չ��ֱ���������е�����

目的 评价盆腔脏器联合切除术（PE）对局部进展期直肠癌的疗效。方法 对12年中79例局部进展期直肠癌PE术后结果进行回顾性总结。结果 全盆腔脏器切除术（TPE）46例，其中保肛TPE5例，TPE联合骶骨切除1例，TPE联合半骨盆切除1例，后盆腔脏器切除术（PPE）33例。根治性切除65例（82．8％），合并症发生率48．6％，手术死亡2例（2．5％），根治术后再复发36例（58．1％），术后1、3、5年生存率75．8％、39．3％、35．8％。根治性切除与大体根治切除术后3年、5年生存率分别为44．2％、40．8％与11．1％、0。结论 PE是目前治疗局部进展期直肠癌有效的方法，积极的根治性切除病灶，可以有效提高其治愈率，改善生活质量。     

全盆腔脏器切除术治疗直肠癌术后盆腔局部复发

目的评价全盆腔脏器切除术(total pelvic exenteration，TPE)治疗盆腔局部复发直肠癌(locally recurrent rectal cancer，LRRC)的疗效。方法对1989-2003年行TPE治疗的35例直肠癌患者的临床资料进行分析。结果行TPE30例、保肛TPE2例、TPE联合骶、尾骨切除2例、TPE联合半骨盆切除1例。根治性切除率80％，手术死亡率3％，术后盆腔再复发率48％。全组术后5年生存率16％，根治性切除组为19％，无淋巴结转移者5年生存率24％，有淋巴结转移者为0。结论TPE手术成功的关键在于严格的适应证选择和作到真正的根治性切除。     

直肠癌局部复发行全盆腔脏器切除术的临床意义及适应证选择

随着全直肠系膜切除术（TME）及新辅助治疗的普遍应用,近10年来直肠癌的局部复发率已经从20％～40％降低至4％～8％。直肠癌局部复发（LRRc）治疗方式的选择是临床决策的难点。据统计,大约50％的局部复发患者不伴有远处脏器转移,而最理想的治疗方法是将复发肿瘤完整切除（R0切除）。目前的手术方式包括腹会阴联合切除术（APR）、低位前切除术（LAR）、全盆腔脏器切除术（TPE）、后盆腔脏器切除术（PPE）等,其中TPE的R0切除率可达30％～40％,是目前治疗LRRC的主要术式。     

胰腺癌128例手术疗效的临床观察

目的探讨胰腺癌手术治疗的临床疗效及其预后。方法对1996年1月-2004年12月我院收治的128例胰腺癌病人的临床资料进行回顾性研究。按治疗方式分为胰十二指肠切除术组（28例）、姑息手术组（50例）和未手术组（50例）。结果全组根治性手术切除率为35．90％。胰十二指肠切除术组1、3、5年生存率分别为67．86％、14．29％、3．57％,显著高于其它两组（P〈0．01）;胰十二指肠切除术组生存率曲线显著高于其它两组（P〈0．01）;手术组生存质量显著高于未手术组（P〈0．05）。结论对胰腺癌施行根治性胰十二指肠切除术能显著提高治疗效果及改善预后,从而提高远期生存率并明显提高病人的生存质量。对不能行根治性切除的病人应争取行姑息性手术,亦可改善病人的生存质量。     

低位Ⅰ期直肠癌患者的外科治疗与预后分析

目的探讨低位Ⅰ期直肠癌的外科治疗效果及影响复发和预后的因素。方法回顾性分析166例低位Ⅰ期直肠癌患者的临床资料。结果本组根治性手术138例，均按直肠全系膜切除（TME）手术原则进行；其中93例行腹会阴联合根治术，45例行保肛手术；肿瘤局部切除术28例。局部复发率根治性手术者为5．1％（7／138），其中腹会阴联合根治术组为6．5％（6／93），保肛术组为2．2％（1／45）；局部切除术组为17．9％（5／28）。X^2检验显示，肿瘤分化程度（P=0．009）和手术方式（P=0．039）与局部复发相关。腹会阴联合根治术组5年生存率为90．4％，保肛术组为95．5％。局部切除术组为82．6％。单因素分析显示，肿瘤分化程度（P=0．000）和局部复发（P=0．000）与预后相关；多因素分析显示，局部复发是影响预后的主要因素（P=0．000）。结论低位Ⅰ期直肠癌根治性手术切除复发率低、预后好。局部切除术的选择应严格把握指征。     

1031例胃癌外科治疗预后的多因素分析

目的探讨影响胃癌外科治疗预后的因素。方法回顾性分析第四军医大学西京医院普通外科2003年1月至2007年12月间收治的1031例经手术治疗的胃癌患者的临床资料。结果本组早期胃癌95例（9．2％）;其余均为进展期胃癌（90．8％）。胃切除980例（95．1％）,其中根治性切除874例（84．8％）,姑息性切除106例（10．3％）,其余51例（4．9％）行胃空肠吻合或探查手术。本组患者1、3、5年总生存率分别为80．2％、58．0％和48．2％。ⅠA、ⅠB、Ⅱ、ⅢA、ⅢB、Ⅳ期患者的5年生存率分别为93．2％、65．1％、52.3％、41．4％、16．5％和10．6％。经单因素和多因素分析结果显示,影响胃癌患者生存的独立预后因素分别是肿瘤大小（P〈0．01）、血清白蛋白（P〈0．05）、手术根治度（P〈0．05）、TNM分期（P〈0．01）和综合治疗（P〈0．01）。结论根治性手术是治疗胃癌的最有效手段。以手术为中心、施行个体化治疗方案的综合治疗有助于提高胃癌患者的生存率。肿瘤大小、血清白蛋白水平和TNM分期可作为评估胃癌预后的重要指标。     

胃、十二指肠

20060961 残胃癌49例临床分析／吴红学…∥腹部外科．-2005．18（5）．-276～278 回顾性分析1994年1月至2004年3月收治的49例残胃癌病人的临床资料。按胃镜、病理检查结果和手术方式分组，采用Kap-lan—Meier法绘制生存曲线，进行累积生存率比较。结果：49例残胃癌病人中，早期残胃癌9例（18．4％），进展期残胃癌40例（81．6％），两者的5年累积生存率分别为88．9％，47．5％，早期残胃癌的5年累积生存率明显高于进展期（P〈0．01）。根治性切除36例，姑息性切除11例，根治手术组与姑息性手术组的中位生存时间分别为69个月和12个月，两者之间差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论：定期胃镜复查和合理的根治性手术是提高残胃癌病人生存率的关键。参5。     

肝门部胆管癌的临床诊断与手术治疗分析

目的探讨肝门部胆管癌的临床诊断方法及两种不同手术方法的预后。方法选取2002年12月至2008年3月就诊的肝门部胆管癌患者43例作为研究对象,回顾性分析所有患者的临床表现、影像学检查结果、手术方式、生存率等临床资料,所有对象按手术方法分为根治性切除术组（22例）和姑息性切除术组（21例）,对比分析两组间患者的术后并发症发生率,1、3、5年生存率有无统计学差异。结果临床表现以黄疸最为常见,占86．0％,其次是尿黄（81．4％）和皮肤瘙痒（72．1％）;经过常规超声、CT及MRI联合检查,根治性切除术组和姑息性切除术组对肝门部胆管癌检出率分别为90．9％和95．2％;MRI诊断阳性率明显高于超声诊断阳性率（χ^2=7．379,P〈0．01）。根治性切除术组患者并发症发生率明显高于姑息性切除术组（χ^2=14．321,P〈0．01）,1、3、5年生存率也明显高于姑息性切除术组（r=6．018、χ^2=2．842、r=17．483,P〈0．05）。结论对于肝门部胆管癌患者,MRI诊断阳性率明显高于超声,采取超声联合CT或MRI可提高早期诊断率;根治性切除术治疗肝门部胆管癌,能够提高此类患者的远期存活率。     

肝外胆管癌的外科治疗与预后分析(附107例报告)

目的探讨肝外胆管癌（EHCC）的临床特征、治疗方法对远期生存率的影响，研究EHCC切除术后的预后因素。方法对1995年1月至2003年12月收治的107例EHCC的临床特点、诊断、手术方式和随访结果进行回顾分析。选择对EHCC切除术后预后可能产生影响的临床因素，通过Cox比例风险模型进行多因素的预后分析。结果107例手术治疗的EHCC，根治性切除47例（其中单纯骨骼化切除7例，联合各类肝叶切除12例，联合门静脉切除重建3例，联合胰十二指肠切除25例），姑息性切除12例，内或外引流术45例，探查性手术3例。EHCC总体生存率1，3，5年生存率分别为58．2％、30．0％和13．1％。其中根治性切除1，3，5年生存率分别为72．4％、44．7％和22．7％；姑息性切除1，2，3年生存率分别为54．5％、27．3％和9．1％，无5年存活者。引流组1，2，3年生存率分别为32．1％、17．2％和8．6％，无4年存活者。根治性切除组、姑息性切除组、内或外引流组及非手术组生存率相比较，差异有统计学意义（log-rank test，x^2=15．67，P〈0．001）。肿瘤的组织学类型、TNM分期、淋巴结转移、肝脏浸润、胰腺浸润、切缘癌残留、手术切除方式7个因素对预后的影响差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论根治性切除是提高EHCC远期生存率及改善生活质量的关键，骨骼化切除联合肝叶切除和（或）胰十二指肠切除是提高远期疗效的重点。淋巴结转移、切缘癌残留是EHCC切除影响预后的独立因素。     

一家医院胃癌外科治疗疗效20年之变迁

目的探讨20年来胃癌临床病理特征及外科治疗效果的变迁。方法回顾性分析中山大学肿瘤防治中心1990年1月至2009年12月期间行胃癌手术切除的2518例患者的临床病理资料,将其按入院时间段分为前阶段组（1990-1999年）和近阶段组（2000-2009年）,比较两组患者的临床病理特征及生存差异。结果全组患者5年生存率为48．1％,其中行根治性切除患者5年生存率为53．7％。前阶段组与近阶段组患者肿瘤大小、病理类型、脉管癌栓、T分期、N分期、TNM分期和淋巴结清扫数目的差异有统计学意义（均P〈0．05）。对于根治性切除患者,近阶段组平均清扫淋巴结数目为（20．1±8.3）枚／例,明显多于近阶段组的（9．5±6．0）枚／例（P〈0．01）。前阶段组和近阶段组患者5年生存率分别为40．1％和51．5％,其中根治性切除患者5年生存率分别为45．7％和57．1％．差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0．05）。多因素预后分析证实,时间段是胃癌患者的独立预后因素（HR=0．763,95％CI：0．669～0．872）。结论与20世纪90年代相比,近10年来胃癌外科治疗效果得到了确切提高。     

A 10-year experience of total pelvic exenteration for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer based on a prospective database

Aim The study was conducted in a dedicated centre treating the majority of Danish patients with intended curative total pelvic exenteration for primary advanced (PARC) or locally recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. We compared PARC and LRRC and analysed postoperative morbidity and mortality, and long‐term outcome. Method There were 90 consecutive patients (PARC/LRRC 50/40) treated between January 2001 and October 2010, recorded on a prospectively maintained database. Results The median age was 63 (32–75) years with a gender ratio of 7 women to 83 men. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists level I or II. Sacral resection was performed in five patients with PARC and 15 with LRRC (P = 0.002). R0 resection was achieved in 33 (66%) patients with PARC and in 15 (38%) with LRRC, R1 resection in 17 (34%) with PARC and 20 (50%) with LRRC and R2 resection in five (13%) with LRRC. R0 resection was more frequent in PARC (P = 0.007). Forty‐four (49%) patients had no postoperative complications. Fifty‐five major complications were registered. Two (2.2%) patients died within 30 days, and the total in‐hospital mortality was 5.6%. The median follow‐up was 12 (0.4–91) months. The 5‐year survival was 46% for PARC and 17% for LRRC (P = 0.16). Conclusion Pelvic exenteration is associated with considerable morbidity but low mortality in an experienced centre. Pelvic exenteration can improve long‐term survival, especially for patients with PARC. However, pelvic exenteration is also justified for patients with LRRC.     

Results of resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer

AIMS OF THE STUDY: The treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) remains a difficult and controversial issue. The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the results of an univocal attitude associating resection of a priori resectable lesions using visceral excisions as required, without sacral excision, but including intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 1999, 32 patients underwent resection for LRRC. Twelve had previously undergone abdomino-perineal excision and 22 had received radiotherapy. Twenty-three patients underwent pelvic exenteration (total in 17, with rectus myocutaneous flap in 18). Twenty-five patients underwent IORT. RESULTS: Three patients (9.3%) died in the early postoperative period and 11 experienced complications (37%). Resections were considered R0 in 6 patients, R1 in 21 patients and R2 in 5 patients. Five-year survival rates, overall and without disability, were respectively 12%, 12% and 5%. Median survivals, overall and without disability, were respectively 22 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: Resection of LRRC remains a surgical challenge. It may achieve an average of one-year survival without disability, and hope for a few cures. Improvement of oncologic results might come from a more accurate patient selection.     

盆腔脏器切除术治疗复发直肠癌

目的：探讨盆腔脏器切除术治疗复发直肠癌的疗效。方法：对1984年至2000年复发直肠癌患49例行盆腔脏器切了作术的临床资料及生存资料进行分析，结果：全组无手术死亡，R0切除率为91．8％，手术并发症发生率为12．2％，本组总的3年生存率为82．4％，5年生存率为48．7％，其中45例获得R0切除患的3年生存率为83．5％，5年生存率为59．5％，17例行全盆腔脏器切除术患的3年生存率为72．7％，5年生存率为45．5％，结论：盆腔脏器切除术是治疗复发直肠癌的有效方法，严格选择病例，确保R0切除，妥善重建泌尿和消化通道及妥善覆盖盆腔，是获得满意疗效，降低术后并发症发生率的关键。     

Total pelvic exenteration and rectal cancer. Apropos of 20 cases]

STUDY AIM: The report of a series of 20 patients with the aim of trying to specify the implications of pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1986 to 1996, 20 total pelvic exenterations were performed for rectal adenocarcinoma. This retrospective study included locally extended carcinomas (n = 10), and recurrences (n = 10) after anterior resection (n = 7), and after abdominoperineal resection (n = 3). The subjects included 13 men and seven women with a mean age of 54 years (34-74 years). Complaints were major and serious: pain (n = 20), rectal syndrome (n = 17), recto-vesical fistula (n = 5) recto-vaginal fistula (n = 5), urinary infection (n = 13), and hematuria (n = 6). Preoperative radiotherapy was performed in 11 patients and preoperative radio chemotherapy in six. The surgical procedure included a total pelvic exenteration with perinectomy in 12 patients, and a total pelvic exenteration with preservation of levator ani and perineum in eight, associated in two cases with a partial resection of the sacrum, and in two other cases with partial hepatectomy for a single liver metastasis. Urinary diversion was a trans ileal ureterostomy in 17 patients and a direct double ureterostomy in three. RESULTS: The mean duration of surgery was 6 h. The mean preoperative blood loss was 1,200 L. Nine patients received blood transfusion. There was no postoperative mortality but in contrast, the morbidity rate was high with mainly urinary and digestive complications, pelvic sepsis and thromboembolic complications. After pathological examination, tumoral resections were classified R0 in 19 cases, and R1 in one. All tumors were T4 with tumoral invasion of the bladder (n = 15), prostate (n = 6), seminal vesicles (n = 4), ureter (n = 3), vagina (n = 7), urethra (n = 1), and sacrum (n = 1). Lymph node involvement was present in four patients. The 3 and 5 year actuarial survival rate was respectively 47 and 18%. Thirteen patients died of their cancer, nine from metastases, and four from local recurrence with a mean survival of 29 and 32 months respectively. Seven patients were alive at the time of this study, six without actual recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of its aggressive aspect, total pelvic exenteration seems justified in rectal carcinoma when extended to the urinary tract, when it causes major functional disorders, when there are no detectable metastases, and when the tumor has no posterior or lateral fixation. Local tumoral evolution can usually be controlled by pelvic exenteration but prolongation of survival is not demonstrated.     

浸润其他器官及局部复发结、直肠癌的手术治疗

目的：探讨浸润其他器官及局部复发大肠癌手术治疗的效果及手术治疗的要点。方法：回顾性分析本院１９７５年～１９９８年收治的浸润其他器官及局部复发大肠癌的局部浸润情况及合并切除率,直接法统计生存率。结果：①联合切除情况： １１６６例结肠癌中属Ｄｕｋｅｓ Ｄ期者１２３例,占１０．６％,行联合切除者４１例,占全部病例的３．５％,Ｄｕｋｅｓ Ｄ期病例的３３．３％;２ ３５６例直肠癌中属Ｄｕｋｅｓ Ｄ期者３０５例占１２．９％,行联合切除者１１７例,占全部病例的５．０％,Ｄｕｋｅｓ Ｄ期病例的３８．３％。②４１例结肠癌病人合并切除后的５年生存率为５３．８％。③１１７例直肠癌病人合并全盆腔器官切除者２７例,５年生存率为３３．３％（９／２７）,９０例联合部分器官切除后病人的５年生存率为４６．７％（４２／９０）。结论：对浸润其他器官及局部复发大肠癌病人,不论初发或复发,只要病人全身条件具备,应积极采用手术治疗的方法,对延长病人的生存期有重要意义。     

影响Ⅱ期结直肠癌患者预后的临床病理因素分析

目的 分析影响Ⅱ期结直肠癌患者预后的临床病理因素,进一步探讨Ⅱ期结直肠癌患者进行辅助化疗的必要性.方法 收集2000年1月至2005年12月中山大学附属第一医院(作者原工作单位)收治的符合纳入标准的255例Ⅱ期结直肠癌患者的临床资料.采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制患者的生存曲线,Log-rank法分析患者生存情况,对各种影响预后的因素分别进行单变量和多变量Cox回归分析.结果 随访截至2010年4月23日,平均随访时间为(63±22)个月,中位生存时间为63个月.255例患者5年总生存率和无瘤生存率分别为85.3％和83.7％.术前无肠梗阻或肠穿孔患者的5年总生存率和无瘤生存率分别为86.9％和85.6％,高于术前出现肠梗阻或肠穿孔患者的72.7％和68.4％(x2=4.546,4.573,P＜0.05).手术切缘阴性患者的5年总生存率和无瘤生存率分别为85.5％和83.9％,高于手术切缘阳性患者的75.0％和75.0％(x2=7.020,6.009,P＜O.05).多因素分析结果提示术前肠梗阻或肠穿孔是Ⅱ期结直肠癌患者生存的独立影响因素(Wald=4.477,相对危险度为2.371,95％可信区间为1.066～5.275,P＜0.05);接受辅助化疗和无辅助化疗患者的5年总生存率分别为87.3％和82.2％,无瘤生存率分别为86.0％和80.3％,两者比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 术前肠梗阻或肠穿孔是影响Ⅱ期结直肠癌患者生存的独立危险因素;术后行辅助化疗并不能改善Ⅱ期结直肠癌患者的预后.     

Patterns of pelvic invasion are prognostic in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local recurrence of rectal cancer after curative resection remains a difficult clinical problem. The aim of this study was to elucidate prognostic risk factors after resection of recurrent cancer. METHODS: Between January 1983 and December 1999, 83 patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer were studied retrospectively for survival benefit by re-resection. Sixty patients underwent resection for recurrent cancer, including total pelvic exenteration in 30 patients and sacrectomy in 23 patients. The extent of locally recurrent tumour was classified by the pattern of pelvic invasion as follows: localized, sacral invasion and lateral invasion. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that the pattern of pelvic invasion was a significant prognostic factor which independently influenced survival after resection of recurrent cancer (P < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates were 38 per cent in the localized type (n = 27), 10 per cent in the sacral invasive type (n = 16) and zero in the lateral invasive type (n = 17). CONCLUSION: Resection for locally recurrent rectal cancer is potentially curative in patients with localized or sacral invasive patterns of recurrence. Alternatives should be explored in patients with recurrence involving the lateral pelvic wall.