切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)

中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (05) : 464 -467. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2020.05.011

所属专题： 文献；

论著

机械性肠道准备在结直肠手术的临床应用价值研究
李肆柱1, 贾恒1,†(), 张溪1, 訾维1, 王文刚1, 孙鹏进1, 杨威1   
  1. 1. 710021　陕西，西安市中医医院
  • 收稿日期:2019-11-19 出版日期:2020-10-26
  • 通信作者: 贾恒

Clinical evaluation of mechanical bowel preparation in preoperative management of colorectal cancer

Sizhu Li1, Heng Jia1,†(), Xi Zhang1, Wei Zi1, Wengang Wang1, Pengjin Sun1, Wei Yang1   

  1. 1. Xi’an Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shaanxi 710021, China
  • Received:2019-11-19 Published:2020-10-26
  • Corresponding author: Heng Jia
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Jia Heng, Email:
  • Supported by:
    Key Project, of Shaanxi Provincial Social Development Program(2018SF062)
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

李肆柱, 贾恒, 张溪, 訾维, 王文刚, 孙鹏进, 杨威. 机械性肠道准备在结直肠手术的临床应用价值研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(05): 464-467.

Sizhu Li, Heng Jia, Xi Zhang, Wei Zi, Wengang Wang, Pengjin Sun, Wei Yang. Clinical evaluation of mechanical bowel preparation in preoperative management of colorectal cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(05): 464-467.

目的

探究机械性肠道准备(MBP)在结直肠手术中的临床应用价值。

方法

前瞻性选取2017年5至2019年6月104例结直肠癌手术患者进行研究。根据数字随机法将患者随机分为MBP组(术前行MBP)和非MBP组(术前不行MBP)各52例。手术操作均由同一医师团队完成，两组患者均行开腹结直肠癌根治术。采用统计软件SPSS 20.0进行分析，围术期各项指标、应激反应指标、肠道菌群变化指标等采用(±s)表示，组间行独立t检验；术后并发症行卡方检验，P<0.05为检验标准。

结果

非MBP组术后首次排气时间及住院时间优于MBP组(P<0.05)，两组术后并发症总发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；术后1 d、3 d两组Cor、hs-CRP、IL-6等应激指标水平较术前显著升高(P<0.05)，MBP组显著高于非MBP组(P<0.05)。较术前相比，术后两组均出现轻至中度肠道菌群失调，非MBP组Ⅱ、Ⅲ度菌群失调程度轻于MBP组(P＝0.011)。术后两组益生菌BL、LC计数较术前明显降低，非MBP组高于MBP组(P<0.05)；致病菌EB、SP计数较术前明显升高，非MBP组低于MBP组(P<0.05)。

结论

结直肠手术术前行MBP可加重患者应激反应及肠道菌群失调程度，不能降低术后感染及吻合口漏等并发症的发生，其整体临床应用价值呈现弊大于利，术前不建议行MBP。

关键词: 结直肠肿瘤, 结直肠外科手术, 机械性肠道准备, 应用价值
Objective

To explore the clinical value of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in preoperative management of colorectal cancer.

Methods

Prospective study were carried out from May 2017 to June 2019, including 104 patients with colorectal cancers. According to the numerical randomization method, 104 patients were randomly divided into MBP group (52 cases with preoperative MBP) and non-MBP group (52 cases without preoperative MBP). Patients in both groups underwent laparotomy for colorectal cancer by the same surgeon. Statistical analysis were performed by using SPSS 20.0 software. Measurement data such as perioperative indicators, stress response indicators and changes in intestinal flora were expressed as (±s) and were examined by using independent t test. Postoperative complications.were analyzed by using Chi-square test. A P value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The first postoperative exhaust time and hospitalization time in the non-MBP group were better than those in the MBP group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference of overall incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). Cor, hs-crp, il-6 and other stress indicators in the two groups were significantly increased on day 1 and day 3 after the operation compared with those before the operation respectively (P<0.05), however with significantly higher level in the MBP group than that in the non-MBP group (P<0.05). In both two groups postoperative mild to moderate intestinal flora imbalance were all observed, and Ⅱ, Ⅲ dysbacteriosis degree in the MBP group is lighter than that in the MBP group (P=0.011). BL and LC count of probiotics in the two groups was significantly lower than those before surgery, and that in the non-MBP group was higher than that in the MBP group (P<0.05). The number of EB and SP of pathogenic bacteria was significantly higher than those before operation, with lower level in non-MBP group than that in MBP group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

MBP before colorectal surgery could aggravate patients’ stress response and intestinal flora imbalance, however has no significant impact on reducing the incidence of postoperative infection, anastomotic fistula and other complications. Its overall clinical application value is more harmful than beneficial, and MBP before surgery is not safe and feasible.

Key words: Colorectal neoplasms, Colorectal surgery, Mechanical bowel preparation, Application value
表1 104例结直肠癌患者不同术前准备方法两组患者一般基线资料比较[(±s)，例]
组别 例数 年龄(岁) 性别 TNM分期 ASA分级
男/女 Ⅱ/Ⅲ/Ⅳ Ⅰ/Ⅱ/Ⅲ
MBP组 52 57.4±10.5 30/22 22/26/4 2/31/19
非MBP组 52 55.7±11.8 28/24 20/27/5 3/26/23
t/χ2/Z - 0.776 0.1566 -0.458 -0.113
P - 0.220 0.0693 0.647 0.910
组别 例数 肿瘤部位 吻合方式 合并症
A/B/C/D E/F/G H/I/J
MBP组 52 11/5/26/10 11/17/24 7/1/6
非MBP组 52 10/4/24/14 13/14/25 5/2/8
t/χ2/Z - 0.905 0.477 0.919
P - 0.824 0.788 0.632
表2 104例结直肠癌患者不同术前准备方法两组患者围术期指标对比(±s)
组别 术时(min) 出血量(ml) 首次排气时间(d) 住院时间(d)
MBP组 109.4±35.7 103.2±20.4 3.5±1.0 13.4±1.3
非MBP组 113.5±31.6 105.4±17.2 3.2±0.8 12.9±1.4
t 0.620 0.595 1.689 1.887
P 0.268 0.277 0.047 0.031
表3 104例结直肠癌手术患者不同术前准备方法两组术后并发症情况对比(例)
组别 例 腹泻 腹腔感染/脓肿 吻合口漏 切口感染 早期肠梗阻 总并发率
MBP组 52 4 3 1 3 0 10(19.2)
非MBP组 52 3 1 2 2 1 8(15.4)
χ2 - ? ? ? ? ? 0.269
P - ? ? ? ? ? 0.604
表4 104例结直肠癌患者不同术前准备方法两组患者手术前后应激反应指标变化情况(±s)
组别 例 时间点 Cor(μg/L) hs-CRP(mg/L) IL-6(ng/L)
MBP组 52 术前3 d 170.4±31.8 0.8±0.4 3.7±1.3
? ? 术后1 d 358.3±37.9ab 9.4±1.4ab 8.9±2.2ab
? ? 术后3 d 338.6±32.7ab 8.5±1.7ab 7.5±1.5ab
非MBP组 52 术前3 d 172.1±30.3 0.8±0.3 3.6±1.5
? ? 术后1 d 246.8±35.4a 5.8±0.8a 5.3±1.7a
? ? 术后3 d 230.4±30.2a 5.2±0.6a 5.2±1.3a
表5 104例结直肠癌患者不同术前准备方法两组患者肠道菌群失调分度情况比较(例，度)
组别 例 术前 术后
Ⅰ/Ⅱ/Ⅲ Ⅰ/Ⅱ/Ⅲ
MBP组 52 27/18/7 8/33/11
非MBP组 52 25/17/10 17/31/4
Z - -0.588 -2.541
P - 0.557 0.011
表6 104例结直肠癌患者不同术前准备方法两组患者手术前后肠道菌群计数比较[Log10n/g, (±s)]
组别 时间点 BL LC EB SP
MBP组 术前 6.4±2.8 5.9±2.6 8.4±0.8 6.7±1.1
? 术后 3.5±2.5a 2.9±2.1a 10.3±1.1a 8.1±1.1a
非MBP组 术前 6.5±2.4 5.9±2.4 8.4±0.8 6.7±1.0
? 术后 5.7±2.2 4.5±1.5 8.8±0.7 6.9±0.9
[1]
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017[J]. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2017, 67(3): 177-193.
[2]
Koller SE, Bauer KW, Egleston BL, et al. Comparative effectiveness and risks of bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery[J]. Ann surg, 2018, 267(4): 734-742.
[3]
胡艳杰，李卡，李立，等. 术前机械性肠道准备对结肠癌患者早期康复疗效的影响：随机对照试验[J]. 南方医科大学学报，2017, 37(1): 13-17.
[4]
Rollins KE, Javanmard-Emamghissi H, Lobo DN. Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2018, 24(4): 519-536.
[5]
陈佩松，马镇坚，张洪实，等．老年患者结肠镜检查肠道准备不良的影响因素分析[J]. 现代消化及介入诊疗，2017，22(3):358-360.
[6]
Ohman KA, Wan L, Guthrie T, et al. Combination of oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation reduces surgical site infection in colorectal surgery[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2017, 225(4): 465-471.
[7]
张秀荣，徐智文，王文凤，等．肠道菌群粪便涂片检査图谱[M]．北京：人民军医出版社，2000：11，14-15.
[8]
Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hanna MH, Carmichael JC, et al. Nationwide analysis of outcomes of bowel preparation in colon surgery[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2015, 220(5): 912-920.
[9]
Ji WB, Hahn KY, Kwak JM, et al. Mechanical bowel preparation does not affect clinical severity of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery[J]. World J Surg, 2017, 41(5): 1366-1374.
[10]
陈凛，陈亚进，董海龙，等．加速康复外科中国专家共识及路径管理指南(2018版)[J]．中国实用外科杂志，2018，38(1):1-20.
[11]
Alfonsi P，Slim K，Chauvin M，et al. French guidelines for enhanced recovery after elective colorectal surgery[J]. J Visc Surg, 2014, 151(1):65-79.
[12]
胡艳杰，李卡，李立，等．术前机械性肠道准备对结肠癌患者早期康复疗效的影响：随机对照试验[J]．南方医科大学学报，2017，37(1):13-17.
[13]
杨晓亮，颜璟，吴艳军，等．结直肠癌术前机械性肠道准备的可行性分析[J/CD]．中华普通外科学文献(电子版)，2018，12(5):337-341.
[14]
韦小梅，王佳姝，刘智慧，等．机械性肠道准备在择期结直肠手术中应用的Meta分析[J]．护理研究，2017，31(7):802-806.
[15]
Coskun A, Uzunkoy A，Duzgun SA，et al. Experimental sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol induce colonic tissue damage and oxidative stress[J]. Br J Surg，2001 ，88(1):85-89.
[16]
谢玲林．肠道菌群与疾病关系的研究进展[J]．基因组学与应用生物学，2017，36(11):4570-4573.
[17]
Fawley J, Koehler S, Cabrera S, et al. Intestinal alkaline phosphatase deficiency leads to dysbiosis and bacterial translocation in the newborn intestine[J]. J Surg Res, 2017, 218: 35-42.
[1] 罗青杉, 梅海涛, 郝家领, 蔡锦锋, 周润楷, 温玉刚. 连接蛋白43通过调控细胞周期抑制结直肠癌的增殖机制研究[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 344-349.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 黄海洋, 邝永龙, 陈嘉胜. 基层医院结直肠肿瘤经自然腔道取标本手术30 例分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 510-518.
[8] 张蔚林, 王哲学, 白峻阁, 黄忠诚, 肖志刚. 利用TCGA数据库构建基于miRNA的结直肠癌列线图预后模型[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 381-388.
[9] 张伟伟, 陈启, 翁和语, 黄亮. 随机森林模型预测T1 期结直肠癌淋巴结转移的初步研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 389-393.
[10] 任佳琪, 刁德昌, 何自衍, 张雪阳, 唐新, 李文娟, 李洪明, 卢新泉, 易小江. 网膜融合线导向的脾曲游离技术在左半结肠癌根治术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 362-367.
[11] 张迪, 王春霞, 张学东, 李发馨, 庞淅文, 陈一锋, 张维胜, 王涛. 梗阻性左半结直肠癌自膨式金属支架置入后行腹腔镜手术与开腹手术的短期临床疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 375-380.
[12] 季鹏程, 鄂一民, 陆晨, 喻春钊. 循环外泌体相关生物标志物在结直肠癌诊断中的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 265-273.
[13] 李佳莹, 王旭丹, 梁雪, 张雷, 李佳英. 1990~2021年中国结直肠癌死亡趋势分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 274-279.
[14] 戈伟, 陈刚. 纳米炭导航行淋巴示踪在结直肠癌TNM分期中淋巴分期价值的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 288-293.
[15] 崔精, 鲍一帆, 沈晓明, 杨增辉, 高森, 鲍传庆. 结直肠癌中circMFSD12对肿瘤细胞功能及5-FU敏感性的调控[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 294-302.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号