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 (04) : 391 -395. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2020.04.011

所属专题: 文献

论著

腹腔镜下右半结肠切除术尾侧联合中间入路与中间入路的疗效比较
蒋雪峰1, 肖宝来1,(), 孙以民1, 谢建平1, 熊派1, 胡小苗1, 向进见1   
  1. 1. 434000 荆州市第一人民医院 长江大学附属第一医院胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-09-09 出版日期:2020-08-25
  • 通信作者: 肖宝来
  • 基金资助:
    湖北省卫生和计划生育委员会医药院校科研专项立项项目(No. WJ2016-Y-26)

Study of the curative effect of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy by caudal combined intermediate approach and intermediate approach

Xuefeng Jiang1, Baolai Xiao1,(), Yimin Sun1, Jianping Xie1, Pai Xiong1, Xiaomiao Hu1, Jinjian Xiang1   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the First affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434000, China
  • Received:2019-09-09 Published:2020-08-25
  • Corresponding author: Baolai Xiao
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xiao Baolai, Email:
引用本文:

蒋雪峰, 肖宝来, 孙以民, 谢建平, 熊派, 胡小苗, 向进见. 腹腔镜下右半结肠切除术尾侧联合中间入路与中间入路的疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2020, 09(04): 391-395.

Xuefeng Jiang, Baolai Xiao, Yimin Sun, Jianping Xie, Pai Xiong, Xiaomiao Hu, Jinjian Xiang. Study of the curative effect of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy by caudal combined intermediate approach and intermediate approach[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2020, 09(04): 391-395.

目的

探讨腹腔镜下右半结肠切除术尾侧联合中间入路与中间入路的疗效比较。

方法

将2015年3月~2018年9月收治于长江大学附属第一医院拟行腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治切除的患者,按随机数字表随机分为两组,分别是尾侧联合中间入路组(观察组56例)和中间入路组(对照组53例),比较两种不同入路的手术时间、术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数目、中转开腹情况及术后肛门排气时间、进食流质时间、术后住院时间、并发症情况。

结果

尾侧联合中间入路组与中间入路组的手术时间分别为(123.5±23.2)min及(148.3±30.1)min,术中出血量分别为(32.5±23.2)mL及(61.3±27.8)mL,差异均有统计学意义(t=4.833,5.885;P<0.05);淋巴结清扫个数分别(22.3±4.60)个及(23.1±4.52)个,差异无统计学意义(t=0.915,P>0.05);两组中转开腹各1例,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.000,0.000;P>0.05);两组患者术后肛门排气时间分别为(3.59±0.66)d及(3.62±0.62)d,进食流质时间分别为(4.16±0.72)d及(4.22±0.65)d,术后住院时间分别(9.27±2.10)d及(9.73±2.40)d,差异均无统计学意义(t=1.016,0.875,0.425;P>0.05);两组患者均无围手术期死亡病例;尾侧联合中间入路组腹腔感染1例,肠梗阻1例,中间入路组切口感染1例,吻合口漏1例,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.000,P>0.05)。

结论

在腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治手术中,采用尾侧联合中间入路较中间入路可明显缩短手术时间,减少术中出血量,且手术更容易操作、安全、易配合,值得临床积极应用。

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of of two kind of approaches: caudal approach and central approach in laparoscopic radical resection of right colon cancer.

Methods

Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection of right colon cancer in the First affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University from March 2015 to September 2018 were randomly divided into two groups according to the random number table: the caudal approach group (56 patients in the observation group) compared with the intermediate approach group (53 patients in the control group). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the two different approaches.

Results

The operation time of the caudal approach group and the medial approach group were (123.5±23.2) min and (148.3±30.1) min, respectively. The intraoperative blood loss was (32.5±23.2) mL and (61.3±27.8) mL, respectively. There were statistical significance (t=4.833, 5.885; P<0.05). The number of lymph node dissection was (22.3±4.60) and (23.1±4.52), and it was not statistically significant in this index (t=0.915, P>0.05). There were one case with open surgery respectively in two groups. The difference was not statistically significant in above indexes (χ2=0.000, 0.000; P>0.05). The time of anal exhaust was (3.59±0.66) d and (3.62±0.62) d, the time of feeding fluid was (4.16±0.72) d and (4.22±0.65) d, the time of hospitalization was (9.27±2.10) d and (9.73±2.40) d, respectively. There was no significant difference (t=1.016, 0.875, 0.425; P>0.05); there was no perioperative death in the two groups; one case of abdominal infection and one case of intestinal obstruction in the caudal combined approach group; one case of incision infection and one case of anastomotic leakage in the middle approach group; the difference was not statistically significant (χ2=0.000, P>0.05).

Conclusion

The laparoscopic radical operation of right colon cancer with the use of caudal approach can significantly shorten the operation time and reduce the amount of intraoperative blood loss. It is simpler, safer and easier to cooperate. It is worthy of clinical application.

表1 两组患者一般资料比较
图6 头侧完成结肠肝曲及升结肠的游离。TRCS:横结肠后间隙,RRCS:右结肠后间隙,SMV:肠系膜上静脉,ICA:回结肠动脉,GCT:胃结肠静脉干,MCA:结肠中动脉
表2 两组患者术中情况比较(±s
表3 两组患者术后恢复情况比较
[1]
郭天安, 谢丽, 赵江, 等. 中国结直肠癌1988-2009年发病率和死亡率趋势分析[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2018, 21(1): 33-40.
[2]
Juo YY, Hyder O, Haider AH, et al. Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?: First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching[J]. JAMA Surg, 2014, 149(2): 177-184.
[3]
Li JC, Lenng KL, Ng SS, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open nesection of right-sided colonic cancer-a prospective randomized cootuolled trial[J]. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2012, 27(1): 95-102.
[4]
徐东楚, 郭云虎, 包磊, 等. 腹腔镜下右半结肠癌根治术不同于手术入路的疗效比较[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2016, 19(3): 226-228.
[5]
Zimmermann M, Benecke C, Jung C, et al. Laparoscopic resection of right colon cancer-a matched pairs analysis[J]. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2016, 31(7): 1291-1297.
[6]
中华医学会外科学分会结直肠外科学组. 结直肠癌围手术期营养治疗中国专家共识(2019版)[J].中国实用外科杂志, 2019, 39(6): 533-537.
[7]
郑波波, 王楠, 吴涛, 等. 改良式中间入路与传统中间入路在腹腔镜右半结肠切除术中的比较研究[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(8): 812-816.
[8]
何全杰, 丁克峰. 改腹腔镜结直肠癌手术的质量控制[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(8): 759-762.
[9]
池畔, 陈致奋. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术解剖学基础与规范化手术[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(1): 7-13.
[10]
郑明华. 腹腔镜手术-结肠癌根治性手术的金标准?[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2012, 32(9): 731-733.
[11]
邹瞭南, 郑蓓诗, 卢新泉, 等. 腹腔镜尾侧入路法根治性右半结肠切除术[J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2017, 6(2): 170-173.
[12]
丁海涛, 吴涛, 张策, 等. 腹腔镜下膜后筋膜间隙外科平面的解剖观察[J]. 解剖学报, 2009, 40(2): 328-331.
[13]
Zou L, Xiong W, Mo D, et al. Laparoscopic radical extended right hemicolectomy using a caudal-to-cranial approach[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2016, 23(8): 2562-2563.
[14]
肖荷芳, 陈子文, 刘红权, 等. 腹腔镜右半结肠切除尾侧入路与头侧入路的前瞻性随机对照研究[J].现代医学, 2018, 18(11): 167-332.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[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