切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (06) : 589 -592. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2019.06.015.

所属专题: 文献

论著

进展期胃癌患者不同术式行胃癌D2根治术氧化应激指标及炎症因子变化分析
都庆国1, 薛飞1,(), 普彦淞1, 毛智军1, 刘栋1, 刘思达1, 王建华1, 龙延滨1   
  1. 1. 710068 西安,陕西省人民医院普外二科
  • 收稿日期:2018-12-22 出版日期:2019-12-26
  • 通信作者: 薛飞

Changes of oxidative stress and inflammatory factors of patients with advanced gastric cancer undergoing D2 radical gastrectomy

Qingguo Du1, Fei Xue1,(), Yansong Pu1, Zhijun Mao1, Dong Liu1, Sida Liu1, Jianhua Wang1, Yanbin Long1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Shaanxi People’s Hospital, Shaanxi 710068, China
  • Received:2018-12-22 Published:2019-12-26
  • Corresponding author: Fei Xue
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xue Fei, Email:
  • Supported by:
    Scientific research project of Shaanxi health and Family Planning Commission(2018D022)
引用本文:

都庆国, 薛飞, 普彦淞, 毛智军, 刘栋, 刘思达, 王建华, 龙延滨. 进展期胃癌患者不同术式行胃癌D2根治术氧化应激指标及炎症因子变化分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(06): 589-592.

Qingguo Du, Fei Xue, Yansong Pu, Zhijun Mao, Dong Liu, Sida Liu, Jianhua Wang, Yanbin Long. Changes of oxidative stress and inflammatory factors of patients with advanced gastric cancer undergoing D2 radical gastrectomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(06): 589-592.

目的

比较进展期胃癌患者腹腔镜与开腹胃癌D2根治术前后氧化应激、T细胞及炎症因子变化。

方法

回顾性分析2016年3月至2017年12月92例进展期胃癌患者资料,根据不同术式分为两组,51例开腹胃癌D2根治术患者为ORG组,41例腹腔镜下行胃癌D2根治术患者为LRG组,应用SPSS18.0统计软件进行数据分析,氧化应激水平(SOD、GSH-PX、MDA、AOPP)、T细胞和炎症因子计量资料以(±s)表示,采用独立t检验;术后并发症采用χ2检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

两组患者术后SOD、GSH-PX水平较术前明显降低,MDA、AOPP水平较术前明显升高(P<0.05)。术后LRG组SOD、GSH-PX水平明显高于ORG组,MDA、AOPP水平明显低于ORG组(P<0.05)。两组术后CD4CD25、IL-6、IL-8、TNF-α水平较术前均有明显提高(P<0.05),但LRG组术后CD4CD25水平明显高于ORG组;IL-6、IL-8、TNF-α水平明显低于ORG组(P<0.05)。LRG组平均手术时间、平均出血量、淋巴结清扫数均优于ORG组(P<0.05)。ORG组并发症发生率为3.9%,LRG组为4.9%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

腹腔镜D2根治术与开腹D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌比较,前者对机体损伤小,出血少,氧化应激、炎性反应小,免疫抑制轻,更有利于患者术后恢复。

Objective

To compare the changes of oxidative stress, T cells and inflammatory factors of patients with advanced gastric cancer who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy.

Methods

From March 2016 to December 2017, clinical data of 92 patients with advanced gastric cancer were analyzed retrospectively. Fifty-one patients underwent D2 open radical gastrectomy were divided into the ORG group and 41 patients received D2 laparoscopic radical gastrectomy were divided into the LRG group. SPSS 18.0 software was used to analyze the data. Measurement data such as MDA, AOPP, T cells and the inflammatory cytokines were expressed as mean±standard deviation and were examined by independent t test. Count data such as postoperative complications were described by (n, %) and were examined by chi square test. A P value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The levels of SOD, GSH-PX decreased and MDA and AOPP increased significantly in both two groups after operation (P<0.05). The levels of SOD and GSH-PX in LRG group were significantly higher than those in the ORG group, while the levels of MDA and AOPP in the LRG group were significantly lower than those in the ORG group respectively (P<0.05). The levels of CD4+ CD25+ Tc, IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-alpha increased significantly in both two groups (P<0.05), but the levels of CD4+ CD25+ Tc in the LRG group were significantly higher than that in the ORG group, and the levels of IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-alpha in the LRG group were significantly lower than those in the ORG group respectively (P<0.05). The average operation time of the LRG group was shorter than that of the ORG group, the average amount of bleeding was less than that of the ORG group, and the number of lymph node dissection was more than that of the ORG group, with significant difference (P<0.05). The incidence of complications was 3.9% in the ORG group and 4.9% in LRG group with no significant difference (P>0.05).

Comclusion

Compared with open D2 radical operation, laparoscopic D2 radical operation has less damage, less bleeding, less oxidative stress, less inflammatory reaction and less immunosuppression, which is more conducive to the recovery of patients with advanced gastric cancer.

表1 92例进展期胃癌患者不同术式两组患者一般情况比较[(±s),例]
图1 92例进展期胃癌患者不同术式两组患者手术前后氧化应激指标比较
图2 92例进展期胃癌患者不同术式两组患者手术前、后T细胞及炎症因子水平比较
表2 92例进展期胃癌患者不同术式两组患者术中指标比较(±s)
表3 92例进展期胃癌患者不同术式两组患者手术并发症发生情况比较[%]
[1]
严平雄,王正文,崔海宁,等.腹腔镜与开腹胃癌根治术疗效对比分析[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),2018,12(4): 339-342.
[2]
汪大田,张亚铭,马军,等.腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术的技术难点[J].中华胃肠外科杂志,2015,18(2): 187-189.
[3]
李凤科,汪亦民,李春峰,等.残胃上的癌与胃癌临床病理特征和预后的比较[J].中华胃肠外科杂志,2018,21(5): 529-534.
[4]
李恒,杨晓晔.远端胃癌根治术后不同消化道重建手术对肠道菌落的影响[J].西南国防医药,2018,28(7): 640-642.
[5]
阙海峰,徐宏涛,潘爱秀,等.加速康复外科在胃癌手术中的应用及对术后胰岛素抵抗的影响[J].浙江医学,2018,40(14): 1580-1582,1588.
[6]
李洪涛,刘宏斌.残胃癌围手术期营养支持[J].肠外与肠内营养,2018,25(4): 193-196.
[7]
吴有军,秦荣,何建苗,等.白细胞减少对胃癌根治术后化疗患者无病生存期的影响[J].中华医学杂志,2018,98(24): 1919-1922.
[8]
徐泽宽,杨力.非离断式Roux-en-Y吻合用于远端胃癌根治术后消化道重建的效果[J].中华胃肠外科杂志,2016,19(2): 174-176.
[9]
黄昌明,林建贤.腹腔镜胃癌根治术淋巴结清扫手术入路的合理选择[J].中国肿瘤临床,2017,44(4): 151-154.
[10]
张传强,华浩东.腹腔镜直肠癌根治术对患者血清炎症因子及氧化应激反应的影响[J].川北医学院学报,2017,32(5): 771-774.
[11]
林杰,邱堃,吴元清,等.腹腔镜胆囊切除术对重症胆囊炎患者的临床效果及炎症因子的影响[J].现代消化及介入诊疗,2019,24(1): 53-56.
[12]
黎伟文.胸腹腔镜微创手术与传统开胸手术对食管癌术后血清CRP、WBC、IL-6、IL-8及IL-10的影响[J].现代诊断与治疗,2017,28(4): 598-599.
[13]
王文胜,马志强,李帅,等.微创食管癌根治术与开放手术对患者创伤应激反应、炎症因子及肺部并发症的影响[J].医药论坛杂志,2018,39(1): 84-87.
[14]
李冰震,王理富,马柏强,等.老年急性胆囊炎患者腹腔镜术后胃肠功能恢复、炎症因子和应激反应的变化[J].中国老年学杂志,2018,38(13): 3158-3160.
[15]
史娜,陈鹏,刘燕,等.动态监测胃癌术后感染患者T淋巴细胞亚群水平的临床价值[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2019,29(6): 884-887.
[1] 代莉, 邓恢伟, 郭华静, 黄芙蓉. 术中持续输注艾司氯胺酮对腹腔镜结直肠癌手术患者术后睡眠质量的影响[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 408-412.
[2] 李越洲, 张孔玺, 李小红, 商中华. 基于生物信息学分析胃癌中PUM的预后意义[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 426-432.
[3] 张俊, 罗再, 段茗玉, 裘正军, 黄陈. 胃癌预后预测模型的研究进展[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 456-461.
[4] 李凯, 陈淋, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种U型记忆合金线在经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 15-15.
[5] 曹迪, 张玉茹. 经腹腔镜生物补片修补直肠癌根治术后盆底疝1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 115-116.
[6] 杜晓辉, 崔建新. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术淋巴结清扫范围与策略[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 5-8.
[7] 周岩冰, 刘晓东. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术消化道吻合重建方式的选择[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 9-13.
[8] 张焱辉, 张蛟, 朱志贤. 留置肛管在中低位直肠癌新辅助放化疗后腹腔镜TME术中的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 25-28.
[9] 王春荣, 陈姜, 喻晨. 循Glisson蒂鞘外解剖、Laennec膜入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 37-40.
[10] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[11] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[12] 逄世江, 黄艳艳, 朱冠烈. 改良π形吻合在腹腔镜全胃切除消化道重建中的安全性和有效性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 66-69.
[13] 易明超, 汪鑫, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种T型记忆金属线在经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 599-599.
[14] 马涛, 叶春伟, 刘滔, 彭文希, 李志鹏. 腹腔镜与开放性离断式肾盂成形术治疗小儿肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 605-610.
[15] 刘成, 赖聪, 黄健, 王建辰, 罗茜芸, 许可慰. EDGE SP1000单孔手术机器人辅助腹腔镜下猪输尿管部分切除联合端端吻合术的可行性研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 642-646.
阅读次数
全文


摘要