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 ›› 2020, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (01) : 36 -40. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2020.01.008

所属专题: 文献

论著

NOSES与非NOSES腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后腹盆腔冲洗液肿瘤细胞检测及细菌培养结果的对比分析
赵磊,1, 刘建1, 黄涛1, 张伟1, 刘春庆1, 邵建平1   
  1. 1. 102600 北京市大兴区人民医院普外科胃肠组
  • 收稿日期:2019-08-28 出版日期:2020-02-20
  • 通信作者: 赵磊
  • 基金资助:
    北京市大兴区科技发展计划项目课题(No. KT20190231405)

Comparative analysis of tumor cell detection and bacterial culture results of laparoscopic flushing fluid after NOSES and non-NOSES in laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer

Lei Zhao,1, Jian Liu1, Tao Huang1, Wei Zhang1, Chunqing Liu1, Jianping Shao1   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Group General Surgery, People′s Hospital of Daxing District, Beijing 102600, China
  • Received:2019-08-28 Published:2020-02-20
  • Corresponding author: Lei Zhao
引用本文:

赵磊, 刘建, 黄涛, 张伟, 刘春庆, 邵建平. NOSES与非NOSES腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后腹盆腔冲洗液肿瘤细胞检测及细菌培养结果的对比分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2020, 09(01): 36-40.

Lei Zhao, Jian Liu, Tao Huang, Wei Zhang, Chunqing Liu, Jianping Shao. Comparative analysis of tumor cell detection and bacterial culture results of laparoscopic flushing fluid after NOSES and non-NOSES in laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2020, 09(01): 36-40.

目的

分析经自然腔道取标本手术(NOSES)与非NOSES腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后腹盆腔冲洗液肿瘤细胞检测及细菌培养结果及其临床意义。

方法

前瞻性纳入2018年6月至2019年8月在北京市大兴区人民医院普外科胃肠组行腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的患者。根据患者治疗意愿将所有患者分为NOSES组和非NOSES组,NOSES组共纳入30例患者,非NOSES组纳入50例患者。两组患者一般资料、肿瘤特点差异无统计学意义。所有患者均于气腹建立后(术前)、吻合完成后(术毕)两个时间点冲洗术区,并留取腹腔冲洗液。术前冲洗液即刻送病理科查找肿瘤细胞。术毕冲洗液分装两份,分别即刻送病理科查找肿瘤细胞和检验科行细菌培养。收集肿瘤细胞学检测及细菌培养结果的数据。

结果

NOSES组与非NOSES组患者术前腹腔冲洗液肿瘤细胞阳性例数分别为0例、1例,阳性率分别为0%(0/30)、2.0%(1/50),两组之间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术毕腹腔冲洗液肿瘤细胞阳性例数均为0例。NOSES患者与非NOSES患者术毕腹腔冲洗液细菌培养阳性分别为9例、14例,阳性率分别为30%(9/30)、28%(14/50),两组之间差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.037, P=0.848)。

结论

与非NOSES手术相比,NOSES直肠癌根治未增加腹盆腔肿瘤细胞脱落风险及细菌污染风险。值得临床推广应用。

Objective

Analysis of tumor cell detection and bacterial culture results of pelvic flushing fluid and its clinical significance after natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and non-NOSES in laparoscopic rectal cancer radical surgery.

Methods

From June 2018 to August 2019, patients accepting laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer in Department of Gastrointestinal Group General Surgery People′s Hospital of Daxing District were prospectively included into our research. All the patients were divided into NOSES group and non-NOSES group according to wish for treatment, thirty patients in NOSES group, and 50 patients in non-NOSES group. There was no significant difference in demographic and tumor characteristics between two groups. All the patients underwent rinsing of the operation area and retaining of the peritoneal flush fluid after the establishment of pneumoperitoneum (preoperative) and after completion of anastomosis (surgery completed). The flushing fluid preoperatively was immediately sent to the pathology department to find tumor cells. Flushing fluid after surgery was divided in two portions, and immediately sent to the pathology department to find tumor cells and the laboratory department for bacterial culture. Data on tumor cytology and bacterial culture results were collected.

Results

In patients accepting NOSES and non-NOSES, the peritoneal flushing fluid tumor cells preoperatively were positive in 0 case and 1 case respectively, and the positive rate were 0%(0/30) and 2.0%(1/50) respectively, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The peritoneal flushing fluid tumor cells postoperatively wasn′t found in patients accepting NOSES or non-NOSES. In patients accepting NOSES and non-NOSES, the bacterial culture of the peritoneal flushing fluid postoperatively was positive in 9 cases and 14 cases respectively, and the positive rate were 30%(9/30) and 28%(14/50) respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (χ2=0.037, P=0.848).

Conclusion

Compared with non-NOSES surgery, NOSES surgery doesn′t increase the risk of abdominal pelvic tumor cells shedding and bacterial contaminationin, which is worthy of clinical application.

表1 患者一般情况及肿瘤特点(例)
表2 术前冲洗液癌细胞学检查(例)
表3 术后冲洗液细菌学检测(例)
[1]
中国NOSES联盟, 中国医师协会结直肠肿瘤专业委员会NOSES专委会. 结直肠肿瘤经自然腔道取标本手术专家共识[J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2017, 6(4):266-272.
[2]
王锡山. 结直肠肿瘤类-NOTES术之现状及展望[J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2015, 4(4): 11-16.
[3]
潘华峰,江志伟. NOSES在腹腔镜结直肠手术中的应用进展[J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2019, 8(4): 395-397.
[4]
王锡山. 中国NOSES面临的挑战与展望[J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2018, 7(1): 2-7.
[5]
蔡宁,闵泽. 腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术与开腹结直肠癌根治术治疗不同分期结直肠癌效果对比[J].医学理论与实践, 2019, 32(16): 2582-2584.
[6]
任镜清,刘建伟,刘少杰, 等. 腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术与开腹手术近远期疗效的比较[J/CD]. 中华普通外科学文献:电子版, 2012, 6(2): 108-113.
[7]
彭健,丁成明,贾泽民, 等. NOSES结直肠癌根治术后腹腔冲洗液肿瘤细胞学检测及细菌培养结果分析[J/CD].中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2018, 7(4): 342-346.
[8]
Altomare DF, Tedeschi M, Rotelli MT, et al. Lack of prognostic role of pre-and postoperative peritoneal cytology and cytokeratin PCR-expression on local recurrence after curative anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer [J]. Updates in Surgery, 2011, 63(2): 109-113.
[9]
Lloyd JM, Mciver CM, Stephenson SA, et al. Identification of early-stage colorectal cancer patients at risk of relapse post-resection by immunobead reverse transcription-PCR analysis of peritoneal lavage fluid for malignant cells [J]. Clinical Cancer Research, 2006, 12(2): 417-423.
[10]
Nikai H, Koyama M, Morohashi H, et al. Retrospective study of the usefulness of peritoneal lavage cytology in patients with curative resection for colorectal cancer [J]. Journal of the Japanese Practical Surgeon Society, 2015, 76(3): 466-471.
[11]
陈荣,蔡景理,刘长宝,等. 结直肠癌患者手术前后腹腔脱落肿瘤细胞检测的临床意义[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2005, 8(2):174-175.
[12]
Ngu J, Wong AS. Transanal natural orifice specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: bacteriological and oncological concerns[J]. Anz Journal of Surgery, 2016, 86(4): 299-302.
[13]
魏雪, 潘莹, 刘庆, 等. 结直肠手术不同手术方式术后引流液分离阳性率与SSIs相关性分析[C]. 2014, 广州: 年广东省药师周大会论文集: 103-109.
[1] 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.
[2] 吴晖, 佴永军, 施雪松, 魏晓为. 两种解剖入路下行直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 40-43.
[3] 周世振, 朱兴亚, 袁庆港, 刘理想, 王凯, 缪骥, 丁超, 汪灏, 管文贤. 吲哚菁绿荧光成像技术在腹腔镜直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫中的应用效果分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 44-47.
[4] 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.
[5] 李代勤, 刘佩杰. 动态增强磁共振评估中晚期低位直肠癌同步放化疗后疗效及预后的价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 100-103.
[6] 郑民华, 蒋天宇, 赵轩, 马君俊. 中国腹腔镜直肠癌根治术30年发展历程与未来[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 591-595.
[7] 池畔, 黄胜辉. 中国腹腔镜直肠癌根治术30年来的巨大进步[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 596-600.
[8] 李明, 屠松, 闫鹏, 钱军, 高鹏程, 许文山, 杨发英, 胡振涛, 单永玮. 应用前列腺电切镜引导置管治疗直肠低位吻合口漏研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 603-606.
[9] 李玲, 刘亚, 李培玲, 张秀敏, 李萍. 直肠癌患者术后肠道菌群的变化与抑郁症相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 607-610.
[10] 赵梓竣, 兰运升. 改良一针法末端回肠造口术对低位直肠癌保肛术后应激反应及安全性的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 611-614.
[11] 吴胜伟, 王志伟, 陈贵进, 刘序, 吴晓翔. 系膜肥厚低位直肠癌患者改良NOSES Ⅰ式手术的临床效果评价[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 615-618.
[12] 韩加刚, 王振军. 梗阻性左半结肠癌的治疗策略[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 450-458.
[13] 梁轩豪, 李小荣, 李亮, 林昌伟. 肠梗阻支架置入术联合新辅助化疗治疗结直肠癌急性肠梗阻的疗效及其预后的Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 472-482.
[14] 严虹霞, 王晓娟, 张毅勋. 2 型糖尿病对结直肠癌患者肿瘤标记物、临床病理及预后的影响[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 483-487.
[15] 赵磊, 刘文志, 林峰, 于剑, 孙铭骏, 崔佑刚, 张旭, 衣宇鹏, 于宝胜, 冯宁. 深部热疗在改善结直肠癌术后辅助化疗副反应及生活质量中的作用研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 488-493.
阅读次数
全文
2
HTML PDF
最新录用 在线预览 正式出版 最新录用 在线预览 正式出版
0 0 0 0 0 2

  来源 其他网站
  次数 2
  比例 100%

摘要
70
最新录用 在线预览 正式出版
0 0 70
  来源 本网站 其他网站
  次数 26 44
  比例 37% 63%