首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

胸腔镜腹腔镜联合手术与开放手术治疗食管癌的同期临床对照研究
引用本文:Chen BF,Zhu CC,Wang CG,Ma DH,Lin J,Zhang B,Kong M. 胸腔镜腹腔镜联合手术与开放手术治疗食管癌的同期临床对照研究[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2010, 48(16): 1206-1209. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2010.16.002
作者姓名:Chen BF  Zhu CC  Wang CG  Ma DH  Lin J  Zhang B  Kong M
作者单位:浙江省台州医院胸外科,临海,317000
摘    要:目的 探讨和评价胸腔镜腹腔镜联合手术治疗食管癌的可行性、安全性、根治性以及近期临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2007年7月至2009年10月收治的行电视胸腔镜、腹腔镜联合食管癌根治术(即微创组67例)和常规三切口开放食管癌根治术(即开放组38例)食管癌患者临床资料.比较两组手术指标、肿瘤学指标以及近期临床疗效.结果 两组患者性别组成、年龄结构、肺功能等差异无统计学意义,临床资料具有可比性.两组总手术时间以及胸、腹部手术时间差异无统计学意义,但微创组胸部及腹部术中出血量少于开放组(胸部112.3 ml比175.3 ml,P=0.035;腹部31.4 ml比100.5 ml,P=0.026),组间差异有统计学意义.术后转入ICU例数(P=0.042)和术后第3天疼痛情况(P=0.005)组间差异均有统计学意义.术后微创组呼吸系统并发症发生率低(10.4%比26.3%,P=0.046),开放组出现不完全性肠梗阻概率较大(0比8.6%,P=0.045),差异有统计学意义.微创组平均清扫淋巴结20.9枚,转移率为26.9%,开放组平均清扫淋巴结20.1枚,转移率为47.4%,组间淋巴结清扫数量差异无统计学意义.术后平均随访(14.0±2.2)个月,微创组和开放组患者总复发率分别为7.7%和10.8%,生存率分别为89.2%和86.5%,差异均无统计学意义.结论 电视胸腔镜腹腔镜联合食管癌手术具有明显微创优势,安全可行,近期疗效可靠,符合肿瘤外科根治原则.

关 键 词:食管肿瘤  胸腔镜手术,电视辅助  腹腔镜检查

Clinical comparative study of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma
Chen Bao-fu,Zhu Cheng-chu,Wang Chun-guo,Ma De-hua,Lin Jiang,Zhang Bo,Kong Min. Clinical comparative study of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Surgery, 2010, 48(16): 1206-1209. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2010.16.002
Authors:Chen Bao-fu  Zhu Cheng-chu  Wang Chun-guo  Ma De-hua  Lin Jiang  Zhang Bo  Kong Min
Affiliation:Department of Thoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital, Linhai, China.
Abstract:Objective To explore and evaluate the feasibility, safety, radicality and the short-term outcome of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods From July 2007 to October 2009, 67 patients with esophageal cancer received minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE group), while 38 patients underwent conventional open esophagectomy (OE group: via right thorax, abdomen, left neck ). The operative procedures, clinicopathological data and short-term outcome were collected and compared between the two groups. Results The clinical datas of the two groups were comparable. No significant differences was found in demographics between the two groups. Median blood loss in MIE group was less than that in OE group (chest: 112.3 ml vs. 175.3 ml, P =0.035,abdominal: 31.4 mi vs. 100.5 mi, P = 0.026). More patients in OE group were transferred to ICU ( P =0.042) and more obvious pain ( P = 0.005 ). The rate of pulmonary infection and intestinal obstruction in OE group were higher than MIE group ( P = 0.046 and 0.045 ). There were no differences in the number of lymph node dissection for two groups, the average was 20.9 and lymph node metastasis rate was 26.9% in MIE group. Mean follow up was ( 14.0 ± 2.2) months ( range, 2 to 29 months). Recurrence rate and survival rate were no differences. Conclusion The Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is feasible, safe, and reliable short-term effect, and can achieve radical tumor resection, which may lead to better future of surgical treatment for esophageal carcinoma.
Keywords:Esophageal neoplasms  Thoracic surgery,video-assisted  Laparoscopy
本文献已被 万方数据 PubMed 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号