期刊文献+

不同手术方案对Ⅱ~Ⅲ期超低位直肠癌患者疗效及安全性的影响 被引量:18

Influence of different operation scheme on clinical effects and safety of patients with ultralow rectal cancer
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探讨Miles手术、腹腔镜下双吻合器及腹腔镜拉下式前切除术对Ⅱ~Ⅲ期超低位直肠癌患者疗效及安全性的影响。方法选取该院2014年6月-2017年6月收治的Ⅱ~Ⅲ期超低位直肠癌共210例,根据手术方案不同分为A组(70例)、B组(70例)及C组(70例),分别行Miles手术、腹腔镜下双吻合器及腹腔镜拉下式前切除术治疗;比较3组手术相关临床指标水平、随访肛门功能优良率、便意感复常率及术后并发症发生率。结果 B和C组术中出血量、术中淋巴结清扫数目及住院时间均明显优于A组(P <0.05);B和C组手术操作时间明显长于A组(P <0.05);C组随访3和6个月,肛门功能优良率均明显高于B组(P <0.05);C组随访3和6个月,便意感复常率均明显高于B组(P <0.05);B和C组术后并发症发生率均明显低于A组(P <0.05);B和C组术后并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜前切除术治疗Ⅱ~Ⅲ期超低位直肠癌患者较Miles手术在降低手术创伤程度和加快康复进程方面具有优势,但可能增加操作时间;且相较于双吻合器前切除术,腹腔镜拉下式前切除术治疗Ⅱ~Ⅲ期超低位直肠癌,能够明显保护肛门功能,改善日常生活质量,且安全性值得认可。 Objective To investigate the influence of Miles operation, minimally invasive double stapler and pull down for anterior resection on clinical effects and safety of patients with ultralow rectal cancer. Methods 210 patients with ultralow rectal cancer were chosen from June 2014 to June 2017 and divided according to operation scheme into 3 groups including A group (70 patients) with Miles operation, B group (70 patients) with double stapler for anterior resection and C group (70 patients) with pull down for anterior resection;and the operation-related clinical index, good and excellent rate of anal function with follow-up, meaning sense normal rate with follow-up and postoperative complications incidence of 3 groups were compared. Results The intraoperative blood loss volume, intraoperative lymph node dissection number and hospital stay of B group and C group were significant better than that in A group (P < 0.05). The operation time of B group and C group were significant longer than that in A group (P < 0.05). The good and excellent rate of anal function in 3 months and 6 months after operation of C group were significant higher than that in B group (P < 0.05). The meaning sense normal rate in 3 months and 6 months after operation of C group were significant higher than that in B group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications incidence among the 3 groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion Minimally invasive anterior resection in treatment of patients with ultralow rectal cancer possess advantages in reducing surgical trauma degree and speeding up rehabilitation process and may increase the operation time;compared with minimally invasive double stapler, minimally invasive pull down for anterior resection in the treatment of patients with ultralow rectal cancer can efficiently protect anal function, improve the quality of daily life and the safety is worth recognition.
作者 周启军 韦向京 韦彪 Qi-jun Zhou;Xiang-jing Wei;Biao Wei(Department of General Surgery, the First People’s Hospital, Hechi, Guangxi 546300,China)
出处 《中国内镜杂志》 2019年第5期27-31,共5页 China Journal of Endoscopy
关键词 超低位直肠癌 MILES手术 腹腔镜 前切除术 ultralow rectal cancer Miles operation laparoscopy anterior resection
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献53

  • 1杜燕夫,谢德红,李敏哲,韩进,杨新庆.腹腔镜下直肠癌全直肠系膜切除手术[J].中华胃肠外科杂志,2005,8(2):141-143. 被引量:26
  • 2Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS. Minimally invasive colonresection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1991; 1:144-150 [PMID: 1688289].
  • 3Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. Acomparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomyfor colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2050-2059 [PMID:15141043 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa032651].
  • 4Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, HaglindE, Plman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy A, BonjerHJ. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery forcolon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 44-52 [PMID: 19071061 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70310-3].
  • 5Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM,Heath RM, Brown JM. Short-term endpoints of conventionalversus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectalcancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlledtrial. Lancet 2005; 365: 1718-1726 [PMID: 15894098 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66545-2].
  • 6Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, SmithAM, Heath RM, Brown JM. Randomized trial of laparoscopicassistedresection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UKMRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3061-3068[PMID: 17634484 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7758].
  • 7Denost Q, Adam JP, Pontallier A, Celerier B, Laurent C, Rullier E.Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with coloanal anastomosisfor rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2015; 261: 138-143 [PMID: 25185482DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000855].
  • 8Lujan J, Valero G, Biondo S, Espin E, Parrilla P, Ortiz H.Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: results of aprospective multicentre analysis of 4,970 patients. Surg Endosc 2013;27: 295-302 [PMID: 22736289 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2444-8].
  • 9Greenblatt DY, Rajamanickam V, Pugely AJ, Heise CP, FoleyEF, Kennedy GD. Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assistedproctectomy for rectal cancer: results from the ACS NSQIP. J AmColl Surg 2011; 212: 844-854 [PMID: 21414814 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.01.005].
  • 10Penninckx F, Kartheuser A, Van de Stadt J, Pattyn P, Mansvelt B,Bertrand C, Van Eycken E, Jegou D, Fieuws S. Outcome followinglaparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.Br J Surg 2013; 100: 1368-1375 [PMID: 23939849 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9211].

共引文献48

同被引文献173

引证文献18

二级引证文献27

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部