切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华结直肠疾病电子杂志 ›› 2015, Vol. 04 ›› Issue (06) : 620 -622. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2015.06.10

所属专题: 文献

论著

左半结肠癌腹腔镜和开腹根治术临床对照研究
封益飞1, 李娟1, 张冬生1, 费强1, 王勇1, 傅赞1, 孙跃明1,()   
  1. 1. 210000 南京医科大学第一附属医院结直肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2014-11-19 出版日期:2015-12-25
  • 通信作者: 孙跃明
  • 基金资助:
    教育部基金项目(2012YQ030261); 江苏省科技厅基础研究计划(BK20131448)

Comparison study of laparoscopic vs open left hemicolectomy for descending colon cancer

Yifei Feng1, Juan Li1, Dongsheng Zhang1, Qiang Fei1, Yong Wang1, Zan Fu1, Yueming Sun1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210000, China
  • Received:2014-11-19 Published:2015-12-25
  • Corresponding author: Yueming Sun
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Sun Yueming, Email:
引用本文:

封益飞, 李娟, 张冬生, 费强, 王勇, 傅赞, 孙跃明. 左半结肠癌腹腔镜和开腹根治术临床对照研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2015, 04(06): 620-622.

Yifei Feng, Juan Li, Dongsheng Zhang, Qiang Fei, Yong Wang, Zan Fu, Yueming Sun. Comparison study of laparoscopic vs open left hemicolectomy for descending colon cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2015, 04(06): 620-622.

目的

评价腹腔镜辅助下左半结肠癌根治术与同期开腹手术在短期疗效方面的差异。

方法

回顾性分析江苏省人民医院结直肠外科2013年1月至2014年12月实施的72例左半结肠癌根治术的临床资料,其中腹腔镜组(Laparoscopic, LAP)38例,开腹组(open suryery, OS)34例,对两组患者术中、术后结果进行比较。

结果

两组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);腹腔镜组术中平均出血量(88.16±65.18)ml明显少于开腹组(132.35±82.46)ml(P<0.05);腹腔镜组淋巴结清扫数量(16.16±2.14)枚,较开腹组多(14.50±2.43)枚(P<0.01);与开腹组相比较,腹腔镜组病例术后进食时间、下床时间和平均住院天数均明显缩短(P<0.05)。两组术后并发症差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

腹腔镜辅助下左半结肠切除术技术上安全可行,与传统开腹手术相比具有出血少、术后恢复快、住院时间短等优点。

Objective

To evaluate short-time outcomes of laparoscopic (LAP) surgery vs open surgery (OS) for descending colon cancer.

Methods

Clinical data of 72 patients who received LAP or OS left hemicolectomy in our hospital from January 2013 to December 2014 were collected and analyzed. These patients were divided into LAP group (n=38) and OS group (n=34). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss and short-time outcomes were compared between two groups.

Results

There was no significant difference in operation time and complication rate between two groups. The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the LAP group than in the OS group (88.16±65.18 ml vs 132.35±82.46 ml, P<0.05). The mean postoperative exsufflation time and hospital stay time were shorter in the LAP group than in the OS group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

LAP for descending colon cancer is a technically safe and feasible procedure. Compared to OS, LAP has advantages including less intraoperative blood loss, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay.

表1 左半结肠癌腹腔镜和开腹根治术的疗效比较表
[1]
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2015.

URL    
[2]
Fitchett CW, Hoffman GC. Obstructing malignant lesions of the colon. Surg Clin North Am, 1986, 66(4): 807-820.
[3]
Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS. Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc, 1991, 1(3): 144-150.
[4]
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med, 2004, 350(20): 2050-2059.
[5]
Van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol, 2013, 14(3): 210-218.
[6]
Kearney DE, Coffey JC. A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer. N Engl J Med, 2015, 373(2): 194.
[7]
李国新,梁耀泽.腹腔镜结直肠癌手术应用及其评价.中国实用外科杂志.2010, 30(3): 186-190.
[8]
Han KS, Choi GS, Park JS, et al. Short-term Outcomes of a Laparoscopic Left Hemicolectomy for Descending Colon Cancer: Retrospective Comparison with an Open Left Hemicolectomy. J Korean Soc Coloproctol, 2010, 26(5): 347-353.
[9]
Siani LM, Ferranti F, Marzano M, et al. Five-year oncological results of laparoscopic versus open left hemicolectomy. Chir Ital, 2009, 61(5-6): 579-583.
[10]
郑民华,马君俊,陆爱国,等.腹腔镜左半结肠癌根治手术的技巧与短期疗效.中华消化外科杂志, 2007, 6(3): 171-174.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[10] 徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[11] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[12] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?