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) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (02) : 214 -217. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2022.02.026

论著

腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术中以SMA与SMV为淋巴结清扫内界的对比研究
吴岑1, 俞卫卫2,()   
  1. 1. 226400 江苏南通,如东县人民医院肿瘤科
    2. 214000 江苏无锡,无锡市人民医院普通外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-04-22 出版日期:2022-04-26
  • 通信作者: 俞卫卫

Comparative study of SMA and SMV as the internal boundary of lymph node dissection in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy

Cen Wu1, Weiwei Yu2,()   

  1. 1. Rudong County People’s Hospital Oncology Department, Nantong Jiangsu Province 226400, China
    2. Wuxi People’s Hospital, Wuxi Jiangsu Province 214000, China
  • Received:2021-04-22 Published:2022-04-26
  • Corresponding author: Weiwei Yu
  • Supported by:
    Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province(1908085MB55)
引用本文:

吴岑, 俞卫卫. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术中以SMA与SMV为淋巴结清扫内界的对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 214-217.

Cen Wu, Weiwei Yu. Comparative study of SMA and SMV as the internal boundary of lymph node dissection in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(02): 214-217.

目的

对比分析腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术中以肠系膜上动脉(SMA)与肠系膜上静脉(SMV)为淋巴结清扫内界的临床效果。

方法

前瞻性纳入2014年3月至2016年3月收治的80例行腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的右半结肠癌患者的临床资料,采用随机数字表法将患者分为SMV组和SMA组,每组40例。两组均行腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术。SMV组:以SMV左侧为淋巴结清扫内界,SMA组:以SMA左侧淋巴结清扫内界。选用SPSS 22.0软件处理数据,围术期相关指标等计量资料以(

xˉ
±s)表示,行独立样本t检验;术后并发症等其他非等级计数资料行χ2检验;生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier法并行Log-rank检验。P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

结果

SMA组淋巴结清扫数目、阳性淋巴结枚数、引流管留置时间、术后引流量较SMV组显著增多,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);SMA组术后并发症的总发生率较SMV组略高(30.0% vs. 22.5%),但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者5年总生存率(77.5% vs. 90.0%)、无病生存率(72.5% vs. 87.5%)比较,差异均无统计学意义(Log Rank χ2=2.626、3.373,P=0.105、0.066)。

结论

腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术中以SMA为淋巴结清扫内界不仅使淋巴结清扫更彻底,提高了肿瘤的根治性,而且也有利于改善患者预后,同时并未使手术风险显著增加。

Objective

To compare the clinical effect of superior mesenteric artery(SMA)and superior mesenteric vein(SMV)in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy.

Methods

The clinical data of 80 patients with right colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from March 2014 to March 2016 were prospectively included. The patients were divided into SMV group and SMA group by random number table method,with 40 patients in each group. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy was performed in both groups,In SMV group,the left side of SMV was taken as the internal boundary of lymph node dissection,while in SMA group,the left side of SMA was taken as the internal boundary of lymph node dissection. SPSS 22.0 software was used to process the data. The measurement data such as perioperative related indicators were expressed by(

xˉ
±s),and independent t test was performed;Postoperative complications and other non-grade count data were tested by χ2 test. Kaplan-meier method and log-rank test were used for survival analysis. P<0.05 indicated statistically significant difference.

Results

The number of lymph node dissection,number of positive lymph nodes,indwelling time of drainage tube and postoperative drainage volume in SMA group were significantly higher than those in SMV group(P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in SMA group was slightly higher than that in SMV group(30.0% vs. 22.5%,P>0.05). During the follow-up period,the Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival rate(77.5% vs. 90.0%)and disease-free survival rate(72.5% vs. 87.5%)between the two groups(log rank χ2=2.626,3.373,P=0.105,0.066).

Conclusion

In laparoscopic right hemicolectomy,using SMA as the internal boundary of lymph node dissection not only makes lymph node dissection more thorough and improves the radical effect of tumor,but also improves the prognosis of patients,without significantly increasing the risk of operation.

表1 80例腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术不同淋巴结清扫方法两组患者一般资料[(
xˉ
±s),例]
表2 80例腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术患者不同淋巴结清扫方法两组围术期相关指标比较(
xˉ
±s
表3 80例腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术不同淋巴结清扫方法两组患者术后并发症情况[例,(%)]
图1 80例腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术不同淋巴结清扫方法两组患者5年总生存和无病生存曲线
[1]
Siegel RL,,Miller KD,,Fuchs HE,et al. Cancer Statistics,2021[J]. CA Cancer J Clin202171(1):7-33.
[2]
吴春晓,顾凯,龚杨明,等. 2015年中国结直肠癌发病和死亡情况分析[J]. 中国癌症杂志202030(4):241-245.
[3]
中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. 中国结直肠癌诊疗规范(2020年版)[J]. 中华外科杂志202058(8):561-585.
[4]
孙跃明,封益飞,唐俊伟,等. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的争议和手术技巧[J]. 中华消化外科杂志201918(5):426-429.
[5]
Matsuda T,,Yamashita K,,Hasegawa H,et al. Current status and trend of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer[J]. Ann Gastroenterol Surg20204(5):521-527.
[6]
杜峻峰,李世拥. 中国腹腔镜直肠癌手术30年历程与成就[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202115(1):20-23.
[7]
Zurleni T,,Cassiano A,,Gjoni E,et al. Surgical and oncological outcomes after complete mesocolic excision in right-sided colon cancer compared with conventional surgery:a retrospective,single-institution study[J]. Int J Colorectal Dis201833(1):1-8.
[8]
初祯. 左右半结肠癌患者临床病理特征分析[J]. 中国癌症防治杂志201810(3):238-240.
[9]
Vajda K,,Horti I,,Cserni G,et al. Laparoscopic and open complete mesocolic excision in right-sided colon cancer compared with open and laparoscopic surgery[J]. Magy Seb202073(1):23-28.
[10]
Feo CF,,Paliogiannis P,,Fancellu A,et al. Laparoscopic versus Open Transverse-Incision Approach for Right Hemicolectomy:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Medicina(Kaunas)202157(1):80.
[11]
杜晓辉,杨华夏. 中国腹腔镜直肠癌手术30年术式变迁与发展[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202115(1):10-13.
[12]
Bai J,,Liu X,,Cai M,et al. Technical standardization of laparoscopic left hemicolectomy-a video vignette[J]. Colorectal Dis201820(3):264.
[13]
王颢,赵权权. 腹腔镜辅助右半结肠癌扩大根治术关键血管评估及处理[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志201821(3):267-271.
[14]
Hagihara K,,Takahashi H,,Miyoshi N,et al. Case of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for ascending colon cancer after aortic graft replacement and revascularization of the superior mesenteric artery:Colon cancer,revascularization[J]. Asian J Endosc Surg201811(3):266-269.
[15]
Nesgaard JM,,Stimec BV,,Soulie P,et al. Defining minimal clearances for adequate lymphatic resection relevant to right colectomy for cancer:a post-mortem study[J]. Surg Endosc201832(9):3806-3812.
[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] 姚宏伟, 魏鹏宇, 高加勒, 张忠涛. 不断提高腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术的规范化[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 1-4.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 燕速, 霍博文, 徐惠宁. 4K荧光腹腔镜扩大右半结肠CME+D3根治术及No.206、No.204组淋巴结清扫术[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 14-14.
[12] 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.
[13] 刘跃刚, 薛振峰. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝日间手术在老年患者中的安全性分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-714.
[14] 田静, 方秀春. 超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞在儿童腹股沟疝手术的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 740-744.
[15] 李雪, 刘文婷, 窦丽婷, 刘叶红. 联合护理在腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补中的应用效果分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 750-754.
阅读次数
全文


摘要