影响胰十二指肠切除术死亡的危险因素分析

目的探讨影响胰十二指肠切除术治疗胰头和壶腹周围癌死亡的危险因素.方法对1995年1月至2004年6月期间行胰十二指肠切除术的196例胰头和壶腹周围癌患者的10项临床观察指标进行分析.结果术后并发症发生率为31.1%,病死率为5.6%.术前低蛋白血症( < 35 g/L)、高血糖( > 10 mmol/L)、术中出血量 > 1 000 ml、围手术期的APACHEⅡ评分 > 12和POSSUM评分 > 38时手术危险度较大,与手术死亡率呈正相关(P < 0.05).而年龄 > 65岁、手术时间超过6 h、术前血清胆红素 > 170μmol/L、黄疸持续时间 > 30 d、肿瘤 > 3 cm并不增加手术的病死率(P > 0.05).结论术前低蛋白血症,高血糖,出血量多及高APACHEⅡ和POSSUM分值是影响胰头十二指肠切除术死亡的高危因素.     

套入式胰管空肠吻合预防老年人胰十二指肠切除术后胰瘘

胰十二指肠切除术(pancreatoduodenectomy,PD)是治疗胰头癌、壶腹癌、胆总管下段癌及十二指肠乳头部恶性肿瘤等疾病的常规手术方法.     

胰腺癌及壶腹周围癌120例临床分析

我院自1969～1984年6月共收治胰腺癌及壶腹周围癌120例,其中手术109例,手术切除率为28.4%,而胰头癌切除率为28.8%(19/66),壶腹周围癌切除率为80%(12/15),胰头十二指肠切除术死亡率为12.9%(4/31),手术总死亡率为17.4%(19/     

保留幽门胰十二指肠切除术的临床疗效

胰十二指肠切除术(PD)曾是壶腹周围癌的标准术式.保留幽门的胰十二指肠切除术(PPPD)目前已成为治疗慢性胰腺炎和壶腹周围癌首选的手术方式[1].PPPD较传统的PD减少了壶腹区肿瘤近端胃的切除范围,保留了胃的储存和消化功能.本文总结10例行PPPD的临床资料,进行疗效分析.     

胰管结扎在胰十二指肠切除术中的应用

自1912年德国医生Kausch成功实施了世界上第1例胰十二指肠切除术,1935年Whipple等人对壶腹癌实施胰十二指肠切除术后,这一术式逐渐成为胰头和壶腹周围良、恶性肿瘤的标准术式。由于受患者年龄较大、胰胆汁分泌受阻致营养不良和机体抵抗力下降等因素的影响,此手术并发症及病死率较高,20世纪70年代仍在20％左右,90年代下降到了5%以下。胰十二指肠切除术后患者最常见的死亡原因是胰空肠吻合口瘘。胰液与胆汁及肠液混合后胰酶可被激活。     

胰十二指肠切除术81例术后护理体会

胰十二指肠切除术是治疗胰头癌、十二指肠癌、胆总管下端癌、壶腹癌的有效手段，手术切除范围包括部分胰头部、胆总管及胆囊、十二指肠、空肠上端和胃幽门区，以及这些脏器周围的淋巴结清除、消化道重建等。由于手术复杂、创伤大，患者术后恢复缓慢、并发症发生率高，术后精心护理十分重要。2005年8月-2008年8月，我们共为81例患者行胰十二指肠切除术，效果满意。现将术后护理体会报告如下。     

老年二期胰十二指肠切除4例及一期联合结肠癌根治术1例

目的:探讨一期未能切除的老年壶腹周围恶性肿瘤患者和结肠癌根治切除术后胰头区转移癌患者行胰十二指肠切除术的可行性和手术特点.方法:4例恶性梗阻性黄疸患者中,2例一期手术施行胆囊切除术、胆总管探查术、T型管引流术,另2例一期手术施行胆管空肠吻合术.待黄疸减退、肝功能好转后,二期手术施行胰十二指肠切除术.1例结肠癌根治术后19年再次发现乙状结肠癌及胰头区转移癌,随后同时成功实施胰十二指肠切除术及乙状结肠癌根治术.分析患者生存情况.结果:5例患者中,有1例胆总管引流近2 mo后在外院拔除T管,拔管后出现黄疸及胆管炎表现,逐渐加重,再次来我院就诊后很快实施了胰十二指肠切除术.术后10 d死于肝肾功能衰竭.其余4例术后逐渐康复,术后定期化疗,分别生存32、41、58、79mo.其中存活58 mo的1例患者目前仍健康存活.结论:一期未能切除的老年壶腹周围恶性肿瘤患者及结肠癌根治切除术后胰头区转移癌患者,行胰十二指肠切除术仍能显著延长患者生命,改善生活质量.     

胰十二指肠切除术后并发症的影响因素分析

目前胰十二指肠切除术( pancreatoduodenotectomy,PD)是胆总管下段癌、壶腹部癌、十二指肠乳头癌、胰头癌的确定性术式,然而其手术复杂、创伤范围大、术后并发症高、病死率高,多种因素均可影响PD的预后.     

胰十二指肠切除术治疗老年胰头及壶腹周围肿瘤37例

胰头及壶腹周围肿瘤的发病率近年来呈上升趋势。胰十二指肠切除术（PDE）目前是治疗胰腺及壶腹肿瘤有效的治疗手段。但传统观念认为老年是手术禁忌证。2000年1月～2008年12,我们共采用PDE治疗老年胰头及壶腹周围肿瘤患者37例,效果满意。现报告如下。     

胰十二指肠切除术中血管损伤的原因及防治措施

随着技术的进步,胰十二指肠切除术已逐渐在基层医院开展,该术式是治疗壶腹周围肿瘤及胰头癌的首选术式.壶腹周围及胰腺肿瘤极易累及周围的重要血管,意外损伤后如果处理不当可造成严重后果.因此,该术式是考验并且反映手术者对上腹部器官解剖、手术技巧以及处理术中突发事件的应变能力.因此,在胰十二指肠切除术发生重要血管意外损伤时,术者应当正确判断并掌握正确的紧急应对措施,尽量避免意外损伤造成术中死亡及术后并发症的发生.     

Options for screening for colorectal cancer

Unlike other types of cancer, there are several options for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The most extensively examined method, faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), has been shown, in three large randomized trials, to reduce mortality from CRC by up to 20% if offered biennally and possibly more if offered every year. Recently published data from the US trial suggest that CRC incidence rates are also reduced by up to 20%, but only after 18 years. In this study, the number of positive slides was associated with the positive predictive value both for CRC and adenomas larger than 1 cm, suggesting that the reduction in CRC incidence was caused by the identification and removal of large adenomas. In this respect, this study supports the concept that removing adenomas prevents CRC. More efficient methods of detecting adenomas include the use of colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Considerable evidence exists from case-control and uncontrolled cohort studies to suggest that endoscopic screening by sigmoidoscopy reduces incidence of distal colorectal cancer. However, in the absence of evidence from a randomized trial, several countries have been reluctant to introduce endoscopic screening. Three trialsare currently in progress (in the UK, Italy and the US) to address this issue. Two of these trials are examining the hypothesis that a single FS screen at around age 55-64 might be a cost-effective and acceptable method for reducing CRC incidence rates. Recruitment and screening are now complete in both studies and the first analysis of results on incidence rates is expected in 2004. Colonoscopy screening at 10-year intervals has recently been endorsed in the US on the basis that the reductions in incidence observed with distal CRC screening can be extrapolated to the proximal colon. However, data are lacking and a pilot study for a trial of the acceptability and efficacy of colonoscopy screening is in progress in the US. It has also been suggested that FOBT testing should be used to detect proximal CRC missed by sigmoidoscopy screening, but the small amount of published data suggest that supplementing FS with FOBT offers very little advantage over FS alone. Other forms of CRC screening are under investigation and represent exciting options for the future. Extraction of DNA from stool is now feasible and a number of research groups have shown high sensitivity for CRC using a panel of DNA markers including mutations in k-ras, APC, p53 and BAT26. Data so far indicate that, with the exception of k-ras, these markers are highly specific and therefore represent a significant improvement over FOBT. Whether these tests will replace or supplement existing methods of screening has yet to be determined. It has been suggested that BAT26, which is a marker of microsatellite instability, a feature of proximal sporadic CRC, might be a useful adjunct to sigmoidoscopy screening. Others have suggested that a test for occult blood should be included with the DNA markers to further increase sensitivity. It is not yet known how sensitive these markers are for adenomas--it is only by detecting adenomas that CRC incidence rates can be reduced. A final exciting new option for screening is virtual colonoscopy (VC), which by screening out people without neoplasia allows colonoscopy to be reserved for patients requiring a therapeutic intervention. The sensitivity of VC for large adenomas and CRC appears to be high, although results vary by centre and there is a steep learning curve. Sensitivity for small adenomas is low, but perhaps it is less essential to find such lesions. Some groups have suggested that virtual colonoscopy might be a useful option for investigating patients who test positive with stool-based screening tests. Whichever CRC screening method is finally chosen (and there is no reason why several methods should not ultimately be available), high quality endoscopy resources will always be required to investigate and treat neoplastic lesions detected.