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) ›› 2025, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (03) : 305 -308. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2025.03.020.

论著

腹腔镜超低位直肠癌ISR手术难度的骨盆影像解剖学研究
陈亮亮1,(), 郭磊1, 刘文思1, 金从稳2   
  1. 1. 237000 安徽六安,皖西卫生职业学院附属医院CT室
    2. 237000 安徽六安,皖西卫生职业学院附属医院普外一科
  • 收稿日期:2024-06-26 出版日期:2025-06-26
  • 通信作者: 陈亮亮
  • 基金资助:
    2022年度安徽省卫生健康科研项目立项项目(AHWJ2022c034)

Pelvic imaging anatomy study on the difficulty of laparoscopic ISR surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer

Liangliang Chen1,(), Lei Guo1, Wensi Liu1, Congwen Jin2   

  1. 1. CT Room,Affiliated Hospital of West Anhui Health Vocational College,Liuan Aanhui Province 237000,China
    2. Department 1 of General Surgery,Affiliated Hospital of West Anhui Health Vocational College,Liuan Aanhui Province 237000,China
  • Received:2024-06-26 Published:2025-06-26
  • Corresponding author: Liangliang Chen
引用本文:

陈亮亮, 郭磊, 刘文思, 金从稳. 腹腔镜超低位直肠癌ISR手术难度的骨盆影像解剖学研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 305-308.

Liangliang Chen, Lei Guo, Wensi Liu, Congwen Jin. Pelvic imaging anatomy study on the difficulty of laparoscopic ISR surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(03): 305-308.

目的

研究腹腔镜超低位直肠癌括约肌间超低位直肠切除术(ISR)难度的骨盆影像解剖学。

方法

回顾性分析2019年12月至2024年1月行腹腔镜下ISR的101例超低位直肠癌患者资料。根据手术难度评分,分为高难度组41例,低难度组60例。SPSS 22.0分析数据。围手术期各项指标、骨盆测量数据等计量资料以(±s)表示,行独立样本t检验。淋巴结清扫数目用中位数(四分位间距)表示。合并基础病等计数资料采用χ2检验;Logistics回归分析影响手术难度的因素。P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

结果

两组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、并发症分级上差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);高难度组较低难度组在骶尾弧长SL(t=9.832,P=0.000)、骨盆出口前后径ADPO(t=-4.470,P=0.000)、骨盆入口前后径ADPE(t=-3.095,P=0.030)、中骨盆前后径ADMP(t=-3.442,P=0.000)、耻骨联合上下径SPD(t=-4.156,P=0.000)、坐骨结节间径IID(t=-2.043,P=0.044)指标比较上,均具有统计学意义。经 Logistic 回归分析显示,中骨盆前后径ADMP,坐骨结节间径IID为腹腔镜超低位直肠癌ISR的独立保护因素;骶尾弧长SL,男性骨盆特征为腹腔镜超低位直肠癌ISR的独立危险因素(P<0.05)。

结论

CT三维重建骨盆测量可预测手术难度,其中中骨盆前后径、坐骨结节间径越短,骶尾弧长越长,超低位直肠癌ISR手术难度越高。

Objective

To study the imaging anatomy of the pelvis during laparoscopic ultra low rectal resection (ISR).

Methods

Data of 101 patients with ultra-low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic ISR from December 2019 to January 2024 were retrospectively analyzed.According to the surgical difficulty score,41 cases were divided into high difficulty group and 60 cases were divided into low difficulty group.SPSS 22.0 analyzed the data.Perioperative indicators,pelvimetry data and other measurement data were expressed as(±s),and independent sample t test was performed.The number of lymph node dissection was expressed as the median (interquartile).χ2 test was used for counting data combined with basic diseases.Logistics regression analysis of the factors affecting the difficulty of surgery.P<0.05 indicated that the difference was statistically significant.

Results

There were significant differences in operation time,intraoperative blood loss,hospital stay and complication grade between the two groups (P<0.05).Sacrococcygeal arc length SL (t=9.832,P=0.000),anteroposterior diameter of pelvic outlet ADPO (t=-4.470,P=0.000),anteroposterior diameter of pelvic entrance ADPE (t=-3.095,P=0.030),anteroposterior diameter of middle pelvis ADMP (t=-3.442,P=0.000),and anteroposterior diameter of pelvic outlet ADPO (t=-4.470,P=0.000) were observed in the advanced difficulty group.P=0.000),upper and lower diameter SPD of symphysis pubis (t=-4.156,P=0.000),intertubercular diameter IID (t=-2.043,P=0.044) were statistically significant.Logistic regression analysis showed that the anterior and posterior diameter of the middle pelvis and the interischial diameter IID were independent protective factors for ISR of laparoscopic ultra-low rectal cancer.Sacrococcygeal arc length SL and male pelvic characteristics were independent risk factors for ISR of laparoscopic ultra-low rectal cancer (P<0.05).

Conclusion

CT three-dimensional reconstructed pelviometry can predict the difficulty of surgery.The shorter the anteroposterior diameter of the middle pelvis and the diameter between the ischial tubercle,the longer the sacrococcygeal arc length,and the more difficult the operation of ISR for ultra-low rectal cancer.

表1 两组腹腔镜超低位直肠癌手术患者一般资料比较
图1 骨盆三维重建图
表2 两组腹腔镜超低位直肠癌手术患者围手术期指标比较
表3 两组腹腔镜超低位直肠癌手术患者骨盆数据测量比较(mm,±s
表4 两组腹腔镜超低位直肠癌患者ISR影响因素Logistic 分析
[1]
Xia C,Dong X,Li H,et al.Cancer statistics in China and United States,2022: profiles,trends,and determinants[J].Chin Med J(Engl),2022,135(5):584-590.
[2]
Ding H,Li J,Yang Z,et al.Clinical efficacy of laparoscopic modified Parks operation on the ultra-low rectal cancer[J].Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban,2021,46(2):121-126.English,Chinese.
[3]
Sharma A,Mohan A,Jajoo B,et al.Laparoscopic versus robotic intersphincteric resection: technical aspects[J].Colorectal Dis,2023,25(4): 826.
[4]
Tschann P,Brock T,Weigl MP,et al.Tumour,narrow pelvis and surgery specific factors for total mesorectal excision quality and morbidity following rectal cancer resection[J].BJS Open,2023,7(6): zrad114.
[5]
Lee CM,Liu RW.Comparison of pelvic incidence measurement using lateral x-ray,standard ct versus ct with 3d reconstruction[J].Eur Spine J,2022,31(2): 241-247.
[6]
Kojima T,Hino H,Shiomi A,et al.Comparison between roboticassisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultralow rectal cancer[J].Ann Gastroenterol Surg,2022,6(5): 643-650.
[7]
Escal L,Nougaret S,Guiu B,et al.MRI-based score to predict surgical difficulty in patients with rectal cance[rJ].Br J Surg,2018,105(1): 140-146.
[8]
马玉萍,朱建国,雍千叶,等.增强CT影像组学联合临床指标预测结直肠癌壁外血管侵犯[J/OL].中国医学影像技术,2024,40(07): 1041-1046.
[9]
Piozzi GN,Kim SH.Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative,Oncological,and Functional Outcomes[J].Ann Coloproctol,2021,37(6): 351-367.
[10]
Montoya JC,Zhang C,Li Y,et al.Reconstruction of threedimensional tomographic patient models for radiation dose modulation in CT from two scout views using deep learning[J].Med Phys,2022,49(2): 901-916.
[11]
吴晗,周英军,张婷,等.中低位直肠癌腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术难易程度的骨盆MRI分析[J].腹腔镜外科杂志,2023,28(07): 519-523.
[12]
李明晋,王召辉,何金洲.螺纹扩肛器应用于自然腔道取标本手术治疗超低位直肠癌的安全性及优势[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),2022,16(01): 32-35.
[13]
Yoshida M,Cesmecioglu E,Firat C,et al.Pathological Evaluation of Rectal Cancer Specimens Using Micro-Computed Tomography[J].Diagnostics (Basel),202,12(4): 984.
[14]
Niu JW,Ning W,Liu ZZ,et al.Prognosis Comparisons of Laparoscopy versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: A Meta-Analysis[J].Oncol Res Treat,2021,44(5): 261-268.
[15]
Jomoto W,Kimura K,Kiriki M,et al.Delineation of the internal iliac vein using MRI with true FISP sequence in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer: A pilot study using CT/MRI fusion[J].Magn Reson Imaging,2024,111: 9-14.
[1] 沈锋, 王葵, 刘建伟. 我国腹腔镜肝癌手术治疗现状、问题与发展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 237-240.
[2] 蔡建强, 毕新宇, 徐博文. 我国腹腔镜肝癌手术的难点与对策[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 241-244.
[3] 卢超, 陈波, 邢志祥, 周鹏, 王帅. 不同入路下腹腔镜解剖性肝脏切除术治疗肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 254-257.
[4] 张小松, 马俊永, 李锡锋, 施乐华, 沈锋. 腹腔镜鞘内解剖性右半肝切除联合区域淋巴结清扫[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 245-245.
[5] 母德安, 张志远, 张伟. 提线木偶单孔腹腔镜下胆囊切除[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 246-246.
[6] 盛海涛, 窦明睿, 王俊杰, 修小龙, 杨建茂, 董长城. 基于CT三维可视化技术的个体化肝分段在解剖性肝切除术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 258-261.
[7] 汪志翔, 何战洋. 不同淋巴结清扫术在No.16淋巴结局限性转移的局部进展期胃癌中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 266-269.
[8] 申昌军, 刘文奇. 不同食管空肠重建方法在胃癌患者TLTG术食管空肠吻合术中的应用对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 270-273.
[9] 马海龙, 吴少锋, 王茂, 陈学锋, 代引海. 腹腔镜近端胃切除不同消化道重建围手术期安全性及抗反流效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 274-277.
[10] 刘伟博, 李林, 张玉斌. ERAS理念下的经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术对患者术后恢复的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 278-281.
[11] 杜升兰, 张刘平, 肖燕玲. 三种手术策略在结直肠癌并肠梗阻中的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 294-297.
[12] 殷萍, 钟文涛, 张杰, 苏惠, 李娜, 王筱君, 杜峻峰, 郝雪梅. 机器人辅助腹腔镜联合胃镜胃间质瘤切除术的手术中管理[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 302-304.
[13] 张海雄, 吴显博, 罗发. 腹腔镜荧光正染S7段肝切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 508-508.
[14] . 腹腔镜左半肝切除+胆囊切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 509-509.
[15] 曾勇超, 唐荣, 李启进, 张震生. 腹腔镜保留十二指肠胰头次全切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 510-510.
阅读次数
全文


摘要