乳腺癌改良根治术后早期功能锻炼的效果观察

目的观察乳腺癌改良根治术后早期功能锻炼的效果。方法对99例在本科实施乳腺癌改良根治术患者采用前后对照法分为对照组和试验组，试验组采用早期功能锻炼方法，对照组采用传统的功能锻炼方法。结果患侧上肢肿胀对照组18例（35．3％），试验组7例（14．6％），两组比较差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。患侧上肢恢复生活自理能力对照组45例（88．2％）；试验组47例（97．9％），两组比较差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。结论乳腺癌改良根治术后早期功能锻炼可有效防止患侧上肢肿胀。     

同期心理干预对乳腺癌改良根治术患者及其配偶心理状态的影响

目的 探讨同期心理干预对乳腺癌改良根治术后患者及配偶心理状态的影响.方法 将乳腺癌改良根治术后患者80例及配偶80名随机均分为对照组和观察组各40对,对照组予一般心理干预;观察组行同期心理干预,包括建立电子版资料信息库、个别真诚沟通、集体座谈或授课及出院后指导等.结果 干预后观察组SAS、SDS、SCL-90评分显著低于对照组(均P<0.05).结论 同期心理干预较常规护理更能有效改善乳腺癌改良根治术后患者及配偶的心理状况.     

同期心理干预对乳腺癌改良根治术患者及其配偶心理状态的影响

目的探讨同期心理干预对乳腺癌改良根治术后患者及配偶心理状态的影响。方法将乳腺癌改良根治术后患者80例及配偶80名随机均分为对照组和观察组各40对。对照组予一般心理干预;观察组行同期心理干预,包括建立电子版资料信息库、个别真诚沟通、集体座谈或授课及出院后指导等。结果干预后观察组SAS、SDS、SCL-90评分显著低于对照组（均P〈0．05）。结论同期心理干预较常规护理更能有效改善乳腺癌改良根治术后患者及配偶的心理状况。     

乳腺癌改良根治术后负压引流管的改良应用

正乳腺癌改良根治术后皮下积液为常见并发症~([1]),主要与手术范围大、切除组织多以及创面弥漫性渗血和淋巴瘘等有关。术后皮下积液较长时间不愈,会增加患者痛苦和经济负担,延误后续治疗。有效引流是防治乳腺癌改良根治术后皮下积液的关键环节之一~([2])。随着引流方法的不断改进,乳腺癌术后皮下较大范围积液以及积液较长时间不愈合明显减少~([3])。我科     

乳腺癌改良根治术后放疗时机的选择

目的：分析探讨乳腺癌改良根治术后患者采取放射治疗的时机,为临床治疗提供依据。方法筛选本院进行改良根治术后放疗的乳腺癌患者98例,随机分为治疗组对照组各49例,治疗组患者术后5周内予放射治疗;对照组患者术后13周后予放射治疗。放射治疗后,分别予随访,观察对比两组患者3年生存率、5年生存率、局部肿瘤控制率以及远处转移率。结果治疗组3年生存率为85．71％,5年生存率为75．51％。胸壁复发率为2．04％,远处转移率为12．24％,与对照组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。结论改良根治术治疗乳腺癌后的患者。放射治疗时间越早,乳腺癌术后生存率越高,复发及转移率越低,因此应当在临床上及早进行放疗。     

乳腺癌改良根治术后的心理干预及康复护理

目的:探讨总结乳腺癌改良根治术后的心理及康复的护理体会.方法:对31例乳腺癌改良根治术后的病人,做好耐心细致的心理护理,使病人顺利配合手术,指导患者进行正确的康复功能锻炼的方法,坚持不懈,取得了来能更好的效果.结果:大部分患者半年后均能正常参加工作和生活自理.结论:加强乳腺癌改良根治术后的护理,是促进乳腺癌患者康复的重要保证.     

改良乳腺癌根治术后皮瓣坏死的预防

目的 探讨如何降低改良乳腺癌根治术后皮瓣坏死的发生率。方法 902例采用改良乳癌根治术患者被分为2组。1987至1995年的434例是作为对照组,而1996至2004年是作为研究组。对两组间术后皮瓣坏死情况进行对比研究。结果 对照组术后皮瓣坏死率是23．7％,而研究组是4．5％,两组之间有显著差异（P〈0．05）。结论 预防改良乳癌根治术后皮瓣坏死的关键是合理的皮瓣厚度,避免皮瓣张力,防止淋巴管漏,有效双管引流,合适包扎。     

乳腺癌改良根治术后皮下积液的预防

目的探讨乳腺癌改良根治术后皮下积液的预防措施,改善乳腺癌改良根治术的效果。方法随机将86例接受乳腺癌改良根治术的乳腺癌患者分为观察组和对照组,各43例。观察组采用皮瓣下双管负压引流及胸带加压包扎,对照组采用腋窝单管负压引流及绷带纱垫加压包扎,观察比较两组患者术后皮下积液的发生情况。结果观察组患者发生皮瓣下积液4例(9.30%),均为单处小面积积液。对照组患者发生皮瓣下积液13例(30.23%),其中3例为两处积液,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论双负压引流及胸带加压包扎,可有效预防乳腺癌改良根治术后皮下积液,而且患者痛苦小,值得进一步完善推广。     

乳腺癌改良根治术疗效观察

目的观察应用乳腺癌改良根治术治疗乳腺癌的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析对40例乳腺癌施行保留胸大小肌改良根治术并术后接受早期放化疗的综合治疗效果。结果本组40例手术时间(156.30±22.18)min,出血量(242.48±42.64)m L。术后并发症发生率12.50%(5/40),其中皮缘坏死2例,皮下积液3例,均经对症处理后痊愈。患者均获随访3~5 a,3 a生存率87.50%(35/40)。结论对乳腺癌患者实施保留胸大小肌的改良根治术,并术后早期化疗、放疗及综合治疗可以减少并发症发生率,提高近期期疗效和生存率。     

椎板后阻滞对乳腺癌改良根治术病人术后镇痛效果的影响

目的探讨椎板后阻滞(RLB)对乳腺癌改良根治术病人术后镇痛效果的影响。方法乳腺癌改良根治术病人50例,随机分为两组:椎板后阻滞组(RLB组)和对照组(C组)。RLB组病人在手术结束后行手术侧椎板后阻滞,注入0.5%罗哌卡因20 ml。两组术后均使用静脉自控镇痛(PCIA)。记录术后24小时内PCIA舒芬太尼总用量、有效按压次数及补救镇痛例数。记录术后2、4、6、12、24小时的静息视觉模拟评分(VAS)和Ramsay镇静评分及不良反应的发生情况。结果 RLB组术后24小时内PCIA舒芬太尼总用量和有效按压次数分别为(20±4)μg和(13±4)次,C组分别为(29±3)μg和(19±3)次,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组补救镇痛率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。RLB组术后4、6、12小时的静息VAS评分分别为(1.9±0.5)、(2.1±0.5)和(1.9±0.7)分,C组分别为(2.6±0.6)、(2.5±0.5)和(2.3±0.5)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组各时点Ramsay镇静评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。RLB组术后恶心、呕吐发生率为16%,低于C组的44%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组术后头晕、皮肤瘙痒和呼吸抑制等发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),RLB组未见阻滞相关并发症发生。结论椎板后阻滞能用于乳腺癌改良根治术,不仅可以减少术后阿片类药物用量,提高术后镇痛效果,还可以降低术后恶心、呕吐的发生率。     

A new method of modified radical mastectomy for breast cancer

We have developed a new type of modified radical mastectomy, the method and clinical results of which are reported herein. In this operation, axillary dissection is performed by the following two approaches. Firstly, the axillary contents are dissected from the highest possible subclavicular point to the pectoralis minor muscle, after partially cutting the sternocostal origin of the pectoralis major muscle. The second approach is from the posterior aspect of the pectoralis minor muscle to the lateral portion of the latissimus dorsi muscle. Parasternal dissection can also be performed for stage II and IIIa cancers with a central or medial tumor. After lymph node dissection, the detached edge of the sternocostal origin of the pectoralis major muscle is resutured to cover the parasternal region. Thus, complete dissection of the axillary nodes is performed whilst preserving the pectoralis major and pectoralis minor muscles. Good clinical results were achieved with respect to radicality, cosmetic effects and function in 28 patients with stage I, II and IIIa breast cancers who were followed up for between 5 to 8 years. This new operation may therefore be adopted for the majority of patients with Stage I, II, or IIIa cancers, unless massive infiltration into the pectoralis major muscle has occurred. Preservation of both the pectoralis major and pectoralis minor muscles results in a good cosmetic appearance, good functioning of the arm and easy reconstruction of the breast following mastectomy.     

改良根治术治疗乳腺癌的疗效分析

目的 探讨改良乳腺癌根治术的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析281例乳腺癌（Ⅰ期87例，Ⅱ期194例）施行改良乳腺癌根治术（保留胸大、小肌）的治疗结果。结果 281例患者中术后发生皮下积液17例，切口皮缘坏死16例，上肢淋巴性水肿（轻度）12例。3年生存率为85．6％，5年生存率70．8％。结论 保留胸大、小肌，重视保护胸外侧支神经可避免胸肌挛缩导致的上肢运动障碍，重视术中创面的处理能有效地预防局部复发和转移，重视术后综合性治疗可提高远期疗效。     

保留肋间臂神经在乳腺癌改良根治术中的临床意义

目的分析保留肋间臂神经在乳腺癌改良根治术中的临床效果。方法乳腺癌患者80例,随机分为观察组与对照组,每组各40例。观察组行保留肋间臂神经手术,对照组则将肋间臂神经同时清扫,比较两组患者手术时间、清扫淋巴结数量、术中出血量以及并发症发生率。随访两组患者术后上臂感觉障碍及复发转移情况。结果两组患者手术时间、手术清扫淋巴结数量及术中出血量比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组并发症发生率为12.50%,对照组率为15.00%,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组术后1周上臂感觉障碍为10.00%,术后1个月为5.00%,术后3个月为2.50%,术后6个月为2.50%,术后12个月无。对照组分别为52.50%、47.50%、45.50%、37.50%和27.50%。观察组术后上臂感觉障碍发生率明显低于对照组(P0.05)。随访1年,两组患者均无复发及转移。结论在乳腺癌改良根治术中保留肋间臂神经可以有效地降低术后患侧上臂感觉障碍发生率。     

乳腺癌改良根治术联合化疗对患者并发症与生活质量的影响

目的探讨改良根治术联合化疗对乳腺癌患者术后并发症以及生活质量的影响。方法回顾性分析175例早期乳腺癌患者的临床资料,根据手术治疗方式的不同,分为对照组(n=100)和研究组(n=75),研究组行改良根治术,术前、术后联合化疗辅助治疗,对照组采用传统的标准根治手术,随访1~3年,比较两组复发、死亡情况以及术后并发症、生活质量的差异性。结果研究组3年随访局部及腋淋巴结复发率分别为6.7%、2.7%,远处转移率为10.7%,3年生存率为92%,与对照组比较(6%、3%、11%、91%),差异无统计学意义(P0.05);研究组术后并发症的发生率(6.7%)明显低于对照组(42%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05);并且术后生活质量大大提高,各项评分明显优于对照组(P0.05)。结论改良根治术联合化疗对于早期乳腺癌的临床治疗疗效与乳腺癌标准根治术相当,而在减少并发症、提高患者术后生活质量方面优势明显。     

Effect of fibrin glue on lymphatic drainage and on drain removal time after modified radical mastectomy: a prospective randomized study

Seroma formation is a frequently occurring complication in patients operated on because of breast cancer. This complication can be the cause of flap necrosis, can lead to infection, and can prolong the hospital stay. It can also cause a delay in chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In order to prevent seroma formation, various methods such as external compression dressings, immobilization of the arm, sclerotherapy, and suction drainage have been used, without much success. In animal models and some clinical studies, it has been stated that fibrin glue reduces seroma formation, and these statements generated high expectations. For this reason, a prospective study was planned to test this in patients who underwent modified radical mastectomy (MRM) because of breast cancer. Of the 54 patients studied, 27 patients had fibrin glue (4 ml) applied to wound surfaces and under the flap (study group); the remaining 27 patients were the control group. Daily drainage volumes, total amount of drainage, drain removal time, and seroma formation were recorded and compared between the two groups. The first-day drainage was significantly lower in the study group (p<0.05, Student's t-test). There were no significant differences in daily drainage volumes, drain removal time, seroma formation frequency, and the number of seromas between the two groups (p>0.05). In conclusion; fibrin glue application had no significant benefit on axillary lymphatic drainage, drain removal time, or seroma formation.     

超声刀在乳腺癌根治术中的临床应用

目的　研究超声刀在乳腺癌改良根治术中的应用效果。方法　回顾性分析54例乳腺癌改良根治术患者的临床资料,其中30例使用超声刀,24例用电刀,比较超声刀和电刀在乳腺癌改良根治术中使用后两组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、术中副损伤率、淋巴结检出数、术后引流量、腋窝引流管留置时间、住院时间、拆线时间的不同。　结果　两组的术中副损伤、淋巴结检出数差异无显著性;两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、腋窝引流管留置时间、住院时间、拆线时间,超声刀组均优于电刀组。　结论　在乳腺癌改良根治术中应用超声刀效果较好,能够提高手术操作的效率,并可进行腋窝清扫,术后恢复时间短,有很好的应用前景。     

乳腺癌改良根治术中保留肋间臂神经的临床研究

目的 探讨乳腺癌改良根治术中保留肋间臂神经的临床价值。方法 在48例乳腺癌改良根治术中完整保留肋间臂神经32例，切除肋间臂神经16例。术后对48例患者上臂内侧感觉功能进行随访观察。结果 48例患者在随访第1、6、24个月期间局部均未发现癌肿复发、转移。保留肋间臂神经32例中术后患侧上臂内侧及腋部皮肤感觉正常28例（87．5％），感觉异常4例（12．5％）；而切除肋间臂神经的16例病人均有感觉异常。结论 在乳腺癌改良根治术中保留肋间臂神经可明显减少术后患侧上臂内侧感觉障碍的发生率，有助于提高病人的生活质量。     

保乳术与乳房改良根治术对患者肋间臂神经的影响

目的探讨保乳术与乳房改良根治术对乳腺癌的疗效及肋间臂神经的影响。方法将2010年1月至2013年1月收治的150例乳腺癌患者按照随机数字表法分为保乳组75例和根治组75例,术后两组患者随访3年,采用SPSS22.0统计学软件包对数据进行处理,手术时间、出血量、切口长度、住院时间、生活质量评分等计量资料用(x珋±s)表示,采用成组t检验;胸肌萎缩、胸壁外形改变、感觉功能障碍、复发、远处转移、生存率及并发症发生率比较采用χ2检验,以P0.05表示差异有统计学意义。结果与根治组比较,保乳组手术时间、术中出血量、手术切口长度、住院时间均显著缩短,两组间差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);保乳组胸肌萎缩、胸壁外形改变、感觉功能障碍发生率均显著低于根治组(P0.05);术后保乳组(2.6%)上肢水肿、切口感染、皮下积液等并发症发生率均显著低于根治组(44.0%)χ2=25.814,P0.05;生活质量显著高于根治组,以上指标两组间比较差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论保乳术对乳腺癌患者创伤更小,能避免对肋间臂神经的损伤,对于满足手术适应证的患者,保乳术可以作为首选治疗方案。     

Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing modified radical mastectomy and extended radical mastectomy for stage II breast cancer

A controlled cooperative study was carried out to assess the value of modified radical mastectomy for patients with stage II breast cancer. The data was analyzed from 11 institutions in the Shikoku District participating in a prospective clinical trial in which patients were randomly assigned either to a modified radical mastectomy group or an extended radical mastectomy group. These two groups of patients were similar to each other in terms of such background factors as age distribution, menopausal status, TNM classification, tumor size, location of the primary tumor, axillary nodal involvement, histological type, and estrogen receptor status. The median follow-up times in the modified and extended radical mastectomy groups were 4.7 and 4.5 years, respectively. The cumulative curves indicated no difference between the two groups in either disease-free survival or overall survival. The survival rates were classified according to the presence or absence of axillary nodal metastases. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups. These findings thus suggest that the routine removal of the grossly uninvolved major pectoral muscle and parasternal lymph nodes is not necessary in patients with stage II breast cancer.     

The acceptable delay between biopsy and radical mastectomy in breast cancer patients

The effects on the prognosis of breast cancer, of the delay between biopsy and radical mastectomy were studied in 394 patients. No delay had been experienced by 148 cases (no delay group), no biopsy had been performed in 166 cases (no biopsy group) and 80 cases had experienced a delay of 1 day or longer after having had a biopsy taken at a different institution (delay group). The recurrence rate of the no delay group was 10.8 per cent (16/148), whereas that of the delay group was 18.8 per cent (15/80). The relapse free survival rate of the no delay group was superior to that of the delay group (Kaplan Meier’s method: p<0.05). The delay group was further divided into two groups according to the duration of delay, namely: a group whose delay was less than 7 days and another whose delay was longer than 8 days. There was no significant difference between the relapse free survival rates of the no delay group and the less than 7 days group, however, a significant difference was observed between the no delay group and the longer than 8 days delay group (p<0.05). The acceptable delay between biopsy and radical mastectomy may therefore be concluded as less than 7 days.