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 (05) : 537 -540. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2022.05.019

论著

不同淋巴结示踪方案在腹腔镜保留脾脏的近端胃癌脾门淋巴结清扫中的临床研究
李爱华1,(), 龚云翔1, 闫元1, 刘灿1   
  1. 1. 434200 湖北松滋,湖北省松滋市人民医院普通外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-10-12 出版日期:2022-10-26
  • 通信作者: 李爱华

Clinical study of different lymph node tracing protocols in laparoscopic splenic hilar lymph node dissection of proximal gastric cancer with splenic preservation

Aihua Li1,(), Yunxiang Gong1, Yuan Yan1, Can Liu1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Songzi City People’s Hospital, Songzi Hubei Province 434200, China
  • Received:2021-10-12 Published:2022-10-26
  • Corresponding author: Aihua Li
  • Supported by:
    Hubei Provincial Health Commission 2019 Annual General Project(WJ2019M052)
引用本文:

李爱华, 龚云翔, 闫元, 刘灿. 不同淋巴结示踪方案在腹腔镜保留脾脏的近端胃癌脾门淋巴结清扫中的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 537-540.

Aihua Li, Yunxiang Gong, Yuan Yan, Can Liu. Clinical study of different lymph node tracing protocols in laparoscopic splenic hilar lymph node dissection of proximal gastric cancer with splenic preservation[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(05): 537-540.

目的

研究不同淋巴结示踪方案在腹腔镜保留脾脏的近端胃癌脾门淋巴结清扫中的应用效果。

方法

回顾性分析2016年6月至2020年12月133例行腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术患者临床资料。根据术中使用不同淋巴结示踪方案将患者分为纳米碳组(n=91例)和ICG组(n=42例)。临床数据分析采用统计学软件SPSS 24.0。围手术期指标、淋巴结清扫情况等计量资料以(

xˉ
±s)表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验。术后并发症发生率等计数资料采用χ2检验。当P<0.05时视为组间差异有统计学意义。

结果

ICG组手术时间、脾门淋巴结清扫时间短于纳米碳组(P<0.05),两组患者术中出血量、术后排气时间及术后住院时间比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。纳米碳组及ICG组患者术后并发症发生率分别为12.1%及14.3%,组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组淋巴结示踪效果、清扫数目、淋巴结检出阳性率、脾门淋巴结清扫数目、脾门淋巴结阳性率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访截止至2021年7月,中位随访时间31个月,两组患者术后3年累积生存率比较差异无统计学意义(63.7% vs. 58.8%,P>0.05)。

结论

纳米碳及ICG两种示踪方案在腹腔镜保留脾脏的近端胃癌脾门淋巴结清扫中均有良好的应用价值,ICG的视觉效果更突出,可缩短手术时间和脾门淋巴结清扫时间,且价格低廉,具有一定的优势。

Objective

To investigate the application effect of different lymph node tracing schemes in laparoscopic splenic hilar lymph node dissection of proximal gastric cancer with splenic preservation.

Methods

The clinical data of 133 patients who underwent laparoscopic proximal radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer from June 2016 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into carbon nanoscale group(n=91)and ICG group(n=42)according to different lymph node tracing schemes used during operation. Statistical software SPSS 24.0 was used for clinical data analysis. Measurement data such as perioperative indicators and lymph node dissection were expressed as(

xˉ
±s). Independent sample t test was used for comparison between groups. The incidence of postoperative complications and other enumerative data were analyzed by using the χ2 test. When P<0.05,the difference between groups was considered statistically significant.

Results

The operation time and splenic hilar lymph node dissection time in ICG group were shorter than those in nano-carbon group(P<0.05). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss,postoperative exhaust time and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups(P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications was 12.1% in the carbon nanoscale group and 14.3% in the ICG group,and there was no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05). There were no significant differences in lymph node tracing effect,number of dissected lymph nodes,positive rate of lymph node detection,number of splenic hilar lymph nodes dissected,and positive rate of splenic hilar lymph nodes between the two groups(P>0.05). The median follow-up time was 31 months until July 2021. There was no significant difference in the 3-year cumulative survival rate between the two groups(63.7% vs. 58.8%,P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both carbon nanoparticles and ICG tracer schemes have good application value in laparoscopic splenic hilar lymph node dissection of proximal gastric cancer with splenic preservation. ICG has more prominent visual effect,can shorten the operation time and splenic hilar lymph node dissection time,and the price is low,which has certain advantages.

表1 133例腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术中不同淋巴结示踪方案两组患者临床基线资料比较[(
xˉ
±s),例]
表2 133例腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术中不同淋巴结示踪方案两组患者围手术期指标比较(
xˉ
±s)
表3 133例腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术中不同淋巴结示踪方案两组患者术后并发症发生率比较[例(%)]
表4 133例腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术患者淋巴结清扫情况比较(
xˉ
±s)
图1 133例腹腔镜近端胃癌根治术患者术后3年累计生存曲线
[1]
Guner AHyung WJ. Advantages of Splenic Hilar Lymph Node Dissection in Proximal Gastric Cancer Surgery[J]. J Gastric Cancer202020(1):19-28.
[2]
金芝祥,王道荣. 胃上部癌根治术中脾门淋巴结清扫的现状与争议[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202014(1):106-108.
[3]
陆晓峰,刘颂,艾世超,等. 纳米碳与吲哚菁绿导航腹腔镜胃癌根治术淋巴结清扫的对比性研究[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202014(1):106-108.
[4]
中国研究型医院学会微创外科学专业委员会,《腹腔镜外科杂志》编辑部. 吲哚菁绿标记荧光腹腔镜技术在腹腔镜胃癌根治术中的应用专家共识[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志201924(5):395-400.
[5]
Sung HFerlay JSiegel R,et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020:GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin202171(3):209-249.
[6]
刘宗超,李哲轩,张阳,等. 2020全球癌症统计报告解读[J/CD].肿瘤综合治疗电子杂志20217(2):1-13.
[7]
Gertsen ECBrenkman HJFSeesing MFJ,et al. Introduction of minimally invasive surgery for distal and total gastrectomy:a population-based study[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol201945(3):403-409.
[8]
胡祥. 第6版日本《胃癌治疗指南》拔萃[J]. 中国实用外科杂志202141(10):1130-1141.
[9]
中国抗癌协会胃癌专业委员会. 胃癌诊治难点中国专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志202040(8):869-904.
[10]
Jeong OJung MRRyu SY. Clinicopathological features and prognostic impact of splenic hilar lymph node metastasis in proximal gastric carcinoma[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol201945(3):432-438.
[11]
黄昌明,林建贤. 进展期近端胃癌脾门淋巴结清扫的启示与思考[J]. 中华消化外科杂志202019(1):50-54.
[12]
Valente SAAl-Hilli ZRadford DM,et al. Near Infrared Fluorescent Lymph Node Mapping with Indocyanine Green in Breast Cancer Patients:A Prospective Trial[J]. J Am Coll Surg2019228(4):672-678.
[13]
陈保祥,江从庆,钱群. 吲哚菁绿荧光造影在结直肠外科手术中的应用进展[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202014(1):101-105.
[14]
Zhu YChen XHLi TT,et al. Method and experience of lymph node examination after gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer[J]. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi201922(8):796-800.
[15]
黄昌明,钟情,陈起跃. 吲哚菁绿示踪淋巴结清扫在胃癌根治术中应用及研究进展[J]. 中国实用外科杂志202141(3):332-336.
[16]
王震,钟如磊,邹兵兵. 纳米炭示踪剂在中上部进展期胃癌脾门淋巴结清扫术中的应用[J]. 安徽医学202142(8):868-871.
[17]
Chen QYXie JWZhong Q,et al. Safety and Efficacy of Indocyanine Green Tracer-Guided Lymph Node Dissection During Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy in Patients With Gastric Cancer:A Randomized Clinical Trial[J]. JAMA Surg2020155(4):300-311.
[1] 姚成才, 刘长春, 黄文剑, 陈明. 单孔非溶脂荧光腔镜技术在早期乳腺癌腋窝前哨淋巴结活组织检查中的应用[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 266-271.
[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] 闫笑生, 郑智, 翟育豪, 张海翘, 王鈢, 刘小野, 尹杰, 张军. Borrmann Ⅳ型胃癌临床诊断、病理特征及预后分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 346-351.
[5] 王龙彪, 刘洪, 董天雄. 中心体扩增细胞占比和C反应蛋白-白蛋白比值对胃癌根治术治疗预后的预测价值[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 352-356.
[6] 莫波, 王佩, 王恒, 何志军, 梁俊, 郝志楠. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术与改良胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的疗效[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 644-647.
[7] 陈大敏, 曹晓刚, 曹能琦. 肥胖对胃癌患者手术治疗效果的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 651-653.
[8] 张彬, 贾贵清, 吴东松, 曹绿洲, 张焰凌, 黄灏, 赵高平. 早期胃癌保功能手术治疗13例病例分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 575-579.
[9] 王鸿彬, 何晓, 吴菁宙. 腹腔镜近端胃切除术中背驮式间置空肠单通道重建术在AEG手术的安全性及抗反流效果研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 526-529.
[10] 宋钰, 赵阳, 王惠君, 廖新华. 术前BMI与可切除胃癌患者术后远期生存的关系[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 530-533.
[11] 高静, 严学倩, 及月茹, 郝淼旺, 刘苍春. 胃癌患者以慢性贫血为首发表现的高危因素Logistic分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 534-537.
[12] 李博, 胡刚, 邱文龙, 汤坚强, 王锡山. 多功能吲哚菁绿近红外荧光血管成像技术在腹腔镜直肠癌经自然腔道取标本手术(NOSES Ⅳ式)中的应用(附视频)[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 524-528.
[13] 中国医师协会结直肠肿瘤专业委员会, 中国抗癌协会大肠癌专业委员会, 北京整合医学学会结直肠肿瘤分会. 吲哚菁绿近红外荧光血管成像技术应用于腹腔镜结直肠手术中吻合口血供判断中国专家共识(2023版)[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 441-447.
[14] 卢艳军, 马健, 白鹏宇, 郭凌宏, 刘海义, 江波, 白文启, 张毅勋. 纳米碳在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中253组淋巴结清扫的临床效果[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 473-477.
[15] 李英茹, 李非, 张玉茹, 刘莉婷. 单点-点压法注射纳米碳在腹腔结肠癌根治术中应用探讨[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 414-417.
阅读次数
全文


摘要