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) ›› 2024, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (05) : 578 -581. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2024.05.029

论著

早期ICC腹腔镜肝切除术不同淋巴结清扫范围的近远期效果对比研究
张金华1, 赵锁1,()   
  1. 1. 264000 山东 烟台,联勤保障部队第九七〇医院肝胆甲乳外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-03-28 出版日期:2024-10-26
  • 通信作者: 赵锁

A comparative study of the near and long term effects of early ICC laparoscopic hepatectomy in different lymph node dissection ranges

Jinhua Zhang1, Suo Zhao1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary, Breast and Breast Surgery, 97th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force, Yantai Shandong Province 264000, China
  • Received:2024-03-28 Published:2024-10-26
  • Corresponding author: Suo Zhao
引用本文:

张金华, 赵锁. 早期ICC腹腔镜肝切除术不同淋巴结清扫范围的近远期效果对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 578-581.

Jinhua Zhang, Suo Zhao. A comparative study of the near and long term effects of early ICC laparoscopic hepatectomy in different lymph node dissection ranges[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 578-581.

目的

对比分析早期ICC(肝内胆管细胞癌)腹腔镜肝切除术(LH)不同淋巴结清扫(LND)范围的近远期效果。

方法

选取于2020年1月至2022年12月于我院行LH的76例早期ICC患者为研究对象,并将患者以随机数字表法分为标准LND组和局部LND组,每组各38例。两组均行LH,标准LND组:采取标准化的LND,局部LND组:则采取局部LND。数据分析应用SPSS 25.0完成,差异有统计学意义用P<0.05表示。手术相关指标等计量资料以()表示,采用独立样本t检验;术后并发症等计数资料以[例(%)]表示,采用χ2检验;采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线并计算生存率,生存分析采用Log-Rank检验。

结果

局部LND组患者手术时间、出血量及LND枚数较标准LND组均显著降低(P<0.05),而两组患者在阳性LND枚数、术后首次排气时间、术后引流管留置时间及术后住院时间上比较差异均无显著性(P>0.05)。局部LND组患者术后并发症总发生率(10.5%)与标准LND组(18.4%)对比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访期间,通过Kaplan-Meier 生存分析显示,标准LND组和局部LND组患者累积无病生存率(78.9% vs. 73.7%)及累积总生存率(84.2% vs. 78.9%)比较,差异均无统计学意义(Log-Rankχ2=0.158、0.039,P=0.691、0.843)。

结论

与标准化LND相比,早期ICC患者在LH中行局部LND虽缩小了清扫范围,减少了LND枚数,但阳性LND枚数未见显著差异,并可有效缩短手术时间,减少术中损伤,且达到了与标准化LND相当的远期疗效。

Objective

To compare and analyze the near and long term effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for early ICC (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma) in different lymph node dissection (LND) ranges.

Methods

Seventy-six patients with early ICC who received LH in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2022 were selected as the study objects, and the patients were divided into standard LND group and local LND group by random number table method, with 38 cases in each group. LH was administered to both groups. Standard LND group: standardized LND was administered, and local LND group: local LND was administered. Data analysis was completed by SPSS 25.0, and the difference was statistically significant as P<0.05. Measurement data such as surgery-related indicators were expressed as (), and independent t test was used; The statistical data of postoperative complications were expressed as [cases (%)] and χ2 test was used. Kaplan-Meier method was used to draw the survival curve and calculate the survival rate, and Log-Rank test was used for survival analysis.

Results

The operation duration, blood loss and number of LND in local LND group were significantly reduced compared with standard LND group (P<0.05), but there were no significant differences in the number of positive LND, first postoperative exhaust time, postoperative drainage tube indwelling time and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the total incidence of postoperative complications between local LND group (10.5%) and standard LND group (18.4%) (P>0.05). During follow-up, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that cumulative disease-free survival (78.9% vs. 73.7%) and cumulative overall survival (84.2% vs. 78.9%) of patients in the standard LND group and the local LND group were compared. There was no significant difference (Log-Rankχ2=0.158, 0.039, P=0.691, 0.843).

Conclusion

Compared with standardized LND, although local LND in LH for early ICC patients can narrow the cleaning range and reduce the number of LND, there is no significant difference in the number of positive LND, and it can effectively shorten the operation time and reduce intraoperative injuries, and achieve long-term efficacy comparable to that of standardized LND.

表1 两组患者基线资料对比
表2 两组患者手术相关指标对比(
表3 两组患者术后并发症发生率对比[例(%)]
图1 两组患者累积无病生存率和总生存率曲线
[1]
Qurashi MVithayathil MKhan SA. Epidemiology of cholangiocarcinoma[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol2023,9:107064.
[2]
Moris DPalta MKim C,et al. Advances in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an overview of the current and future therapeutic landscape for clinicians[J]. CA Cancer J Clin2023,73(2):198-222.
[3]
杨扬,周家华. 肝内胆管细胞癌微创治疗现状及进展[J]. 中国肿瘤外科杂志2021,13(01):1-4.
[4]
王冲,程石. 肝内胆管癌—国内外专家共识及指南解读[J]. 外科理论与实践2021,26(02):124-129.
[5]
Wang JShu MPeng H,et al. The influence of the extent of lymph node metastasis on the prognosis for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma[J]. Ann Surg Treat Res2023,104(5):258-268.
[6]
Ruzzenente AConci SViganò L,et al. Role of Lymph Node Dissection in Small(≤3 cm)Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma[J]. J Gastrointest Surg2019,23(6):1122-1129.
[7]
中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会医政医管局. 原发性肝癌诊疗规范(2019年版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志2020,36(02):277-292.
[8]
科技部传染病防治重大专项课题“病毒性肝炎相关肝癌外科综合治疗的个体化和新策略研究”专家组. 肝内胆管癌外科治疗中国专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志2021,20(01):1-15.
[9]
次仁平措,王超,何正为,等. 肝内胆管癌微创外科治疗的现状及争议[J/OL]. 腹部外科,1-6.
[10]
Li QChen CSu J,et al. Recurrence and prognosis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients with different etiology after radical resection: a multi-institutional study[J]. BMC Cancer2022,22(1):329.
[11]
徐婷,程华,张维,等. 肝内胆管癌淋巴结转移相关危险因素研究[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)2021,15(06):690-692.
[12]
周伟平,吴孟超,陈汉,等. 经腹腔镜肝叶切除术治疗肝血管瘤[J]. 中国实用外科杂志1994,(11):668.
[13]
Jinhuan YYi WYuanwen Z,et al. Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Early-Stage Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma After Mastering the Learning Curve: A Multicenter Data-Based Matched Study[J]. Front Oncol2022,11:742544.
[14]
沈锋,邹奇飞,范明明,等. 中国腹腔镜肝癌切除术20年发展、问题与对策[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)2021,15(04):369-373.
[15]
Hu HXu GDu S,et al. The role of lymph node dissection in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study[J]. BMC Surg2021,21(1):359.
[16]
Zhu JLiu CLi H,et al. Adequate lymph node dissection is essential for accurate nodal staging in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A population-based study[J]. Cancer Med2023,12(7):8184-8198.
[1] 刘炎东, 李恒宇. 新辅助化疗后乳腺癌局部区域的分期评估和治疗的降阶梯策略[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 146-151.
[2] 李朝阳, 任文琦, 侯令密, 蒋燕清, 刘沁豪, 赵永真, 张梅, 钱双强, 李金穗. T1-2N1miM0期乳腺癌患者乳房切除术后前哨淋巴结微转移的处理[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 85-92.
[3] 田文. 甲状腺癌功能性根治颈淋巴结清扫术[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 482-482.
[4] 彭程程, 张雅琪. 无充气经腋窝入路腔镜手术治疗甲状腺微小乳头状癌的临床疗效及对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 442-444.
[5] 赵淑樱, 张聃. 腹腔镜胃癌外科治疗进展与发展趋势[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 459-462.
[6] 刘炯, 彭乐, 马伟, 江斌. 鞘外解剖肝蒂技术治疗肝内胆管细胞癌的疗效评估[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 373-376.
[7] 李乐平, 肖琨, 张荣华, 商亮, 靖昌庆. 腹腔镜全胃切除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(02): 127-130.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 周福兴, 贺艳丽, 张潍. 单孔腹腔镜技术在子宫内膜癌全面分期手术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(01): 55-57.
[11] 黄俊豪, 陈宗杰, 胡添松. 血小板相关参数对肝内胆管细胞癌根治性切除患者预后预测价值[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 308-312.
[12] 潘冰, 吕少诚, 赵昕, 李立新, 郎韧, 贺强. 淋巴结清扫数目对远端胆管癌胰十二指肠切除手术疗效的影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 608-612.
[13] 谢尔盖·叶菲托夫, 曹宇, 关旭, 刘正, 波琳娜·帕诺娃, 王锡山. 单孔经腹膜后入路行保留左结肠动脉的乙状结肠癌根治术(附视频)[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 166-170.
[14] 刘强, 宣婉丽, 康媛, 李佩. 前庭大腺癌应用脱细胞真皮填充保留外阴手术一例并文献复习[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 105-108.
[15] 赵臣亮, 汪杨, 吴晗, 杨运海, 陈天翔. 单孔胸腔镜下纵隔淋巴结清扫策略[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2024, 11(02): 109-114.
阅读次数
全文


摘要