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 (04) : 368 -371. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2025.04.006.

论著

免充气腋窝入路与全乳晕入路腔镜下甲状腺癌根治术的临床对比
王小贝1, 吕庆福1,(), 倪婷1   
  1. 1. 215006 江苏苏州,苏州大学附属第一医院
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-27 出版日期:2025-08-26
  • 通信作者: 吕庆福
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(81974375)吴阶平医学基金会项目(320.6750.2021-11-08)

Clinical comparison of gasless axillary approach and total areola approach in endoscopic radical resection of thyroid cancer

Xiaobei Wang1, Qingfu Lv1,(), Ting Ni1   

  1. 1. First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Jiangsu Province 215006, China
  • Received:2025-03-27 Published:2025-08-26
  • Corresponding author: Qingfu Lv
引用本文:

王小贝, 吕庆福, 倪婷. 免充气腋窝入路与全乳晕入路腔镜下甲状腺癌根治术的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 368-371.

Xiaobei Wang, Qingfu Lv, Ting Ni. Clinical comparison of gasless axillary approach and total areola approach in endoscopic radical resection of thyroid cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(04): 368-371.

目的

探析甲状腺癌患者腔镜下不同入路行甲状腺癌根治术的效果。

方法

回顾性分析2021年1月至2023年12月接受腔镜下甲状腺癌根治术的115例患者资料,将57例经全乳晕入路患者纳入全乳晕组,58例经免充气腋窝入路患者纳入腋窝组。所有数据采用SPSS 25.0统计软件分析处理,偏态分布的计量资料以[M(P25, P75)]描述,不同组别的资料采用Mann-Whitney U检验,正态分布的计量资料以()表示,组间采用独立样本t检验,组内采用配对样本t检验;计数资料以[例(%)]表示,采用χ2检验,等级资料采用秩和检验。以P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

结果

两组淋巴结清扫量比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);腋窝组手术时间短于全乳晕组,术后引流量少于全乳晕组(P<0.05)。术后3d,腋窝组患者血钙、甲状旁腺素(PTH)水平高于全乳晕组,血清肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)水平低于全乳晕组(P<0.05)。腋窝组患者数字评定量表(NRS)和Vancouver瘢痕评定量表(VSS)评分均低于对照组(P<0.05)。腋窝组患者术后并发症总发生率低于全乳晕组(P<0.05),组间复发率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

相较全乳晕入路,免充气腋窝入路下甲状腺癌根治术手术时间短、术后引流量少,对甲状旁腺功能造成的刺激轻微,术后美观度更佳,且能减少并发症发生。

Objective

To explore the effects of different approaches in endoscopic radical resection of thyroid cancer for patients with thyroid cancer.

Methods

The data of 115 patients who underwent endoscopic radical resection of thyroid cancer from January 2021 to December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. 57 patients with the total areola approach were included in the total areola group, and 58 patients with the gasless axillary approach were included in the axillary group. All data were analyzed and processed using the SPSS 25.0 statistical software. Measurement data with a skewed distribution were described as[M(P25, P75)], and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for data of different groups. Measurement data with a normal distribution were expressed as (), an independent sample t test was used between groups, and a paired sample t test was used within groups; Enumeration data were expressed as[ cases (%)], and the χ2 test was used, and the Rank Sum test was used for ranked data. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the number of lymph node dissections between the two groups (P>0.05); The operation time in the axillary group was shorter than that in the total areola group, and the postoperative drainage volume was less than that in the total areola group (P<0.05).Three days after the operation, the levels of blood calcium and parathyroid hormone (PTH) in the patients of the axillary group were higher than those in the total areola group, and the levels of serum tumor necrosis factor-α(TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were lower than those in the total areola group (P<0.05). The scores of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) of the patients in the axillary group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the axillary group was lower than that in the total areola group (P<0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in the recurrence rate between the groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with the total areola approach,the gasless axillary approach in endoscopic radical resection of thyroid cancer has a shorter operation time and less postoperative drainage volume, causes mild stimulation to the function of the parathyroid gland, has better postoperative aesthetic appearance, and can reduce the occurrence of complications.

表1 两组甲状腺癌手术患者临床资料比较
表2 两组甲状腺癌手术患者临床指标比较
表3 两组甲状腺癌手术患者甲状旁腺功能比较(
表4 两组甲状腺癌手术患者炎症因子水平比较(
表5 两组甲状腺癌手术患者术后NRS、VSS评分比较
[1]
姬秋和,王铖,周洁. 甲状腺癌的诊治:争议与共识[J]. 国际内分泌代谢杂志,2022, 42(06): 457-460, 488.
[2]
何羽. 腔镜微创手术治疗分化型甲状腺癌的研究进展[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),2024, 18(04): 456-458.
[3]
Chen D, Bai B, Liu Z, et al. Effect of gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy through an axillary approach on the recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in patients with thyroid cancer[J]. Am J Transl Res, 2022, 14(10): 7512-7519.
[4]
郑传铭,徐加杰,王佳峰,等. 无充气腋窝入路腔镜甲状腺手术的进展与展望[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志,2021, 28(10):1266-1269.
[5]
来益,沈宇玲,王家东. 不同入路腔镜甲状腺手术和传统开放甲状腺手术疗效分析[J]. 中国眼耳鼻喉科杂志,2023, 23(01):34-38.
[6]
王伟,孙瑞梅. 腔镜甲状腺手术方式研究进展[J]. 昆明医科大学学报,2024, 45(04): 184-191.
[7]
中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. 甲状腺癌诊疗规范(2018年版)[J/CD]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版),2019,13(01): 1-15.
[8]
万丽,赵晴,陈军,等. 疼痛评估量表应用的中国专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中华疼痛学杂志,2020, 16(03): 177-187.
[9]
刘海兵,唐丹,曹海燕,等. 温哥华瘢痕量表的信度研究[J].中国康复医学杂志,2006, 21(03): 240-242.
[10]
陈露阳,彭书旺,彭坷平,等. 经腋窝入路与乳晕入路腔镜甲状腺癌根治术的疗效及美学效果观察[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志,2022, 26(05): 341-346.
[11]
徐昌强,潘小明,王慧玲,等. 充气与免充气经腋窝入路腔镜甲状腺癌根治术治疗单侧甲状腺乳头状癌临床疗效的对比分析[J]. 现代生物医学进展,2022, 22(07): 1306-1309, 1323.
[12]
李红强,樊玉霞,陈亚丽,等. 单侧甲状腺微小乳头状癌腔镜手术中3种入路的临床评价[J]. 郑州大学学报(医学版),2021, 56(02): 160-163.
[13]
王松,张方洁,代文杰,等. 甲状腺全切除术后甲状旁腺激素水平变化的相关因素分析[J].现代肿瘤医学,2022, 30(12):2150-2156.
[14]
王新昇,吴世乐,贺贝贝,等. 监测血钙、血清及中央区引流液甲状旁腺激素对甲状腺切除术后评估甲状旁腺功能的临床意义[J]. 临床外科杂志,2023, 31(05): 428-431.
[15]
刘胜珊,吕俊远,周武琳,等. 慢性炎症与甲状腺癌的研究进展[J]. 癌症进展,2022, 20(05): 441-444.
[16]
费阳,李阳,陈峰,等. 完全腔镜甲状腺癌根治术对患者创伤应激与免疫的影响[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志,2022, 27(07): 483-486.
[17]
Wang S, Zhang F, Wang J, et al. A study on the safety and efficacy of endoscopic thyroidectomy via axillary approach for the treatment of thyroid cancer [J]. Medicine, 2024, 103(25): e38507.
[18]
杨体飞,杨传虎,陆振如. 改良无充气经腋窝入路全腔镜下甲状腺手术对喉返神经功能的影响研究[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 74-77.
[19]
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/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),2024, 18(04) : 442-444.
[20]
樊友本,郭伯敏,丁政,等.腔镜甲状腺癌手术后复发特点及处理[J].中国实用外科杂志,2021, 41(08): 864-868.
[1] 唐健雄, 李绍杰. 我国腹腔镜疝外科治疗现状、问题与未来[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 355-358.
[2] 田文, 杨晓冬. 我国腹腔镜疝手术治疗难点与对策[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 359-361.
[3] 李涛, 朱含放, 李世拥. 我国腹腔镜疝修补术式选择与原则[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 362-365.
[4] 李涛, 朱含放, 李世拥. 腹腔镜下经腹腹膜前右侧腹股沟疝修补术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 366-366.
[5] 李凯, 母德安, 陈淋, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创钳辅助经脐单孔腹腔镜肝右前叶切除[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 367-367.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 李雪青, 张弛, 刘小彭. 前列腺体积大小对机器人辅助腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术疗效及术后病理的影响[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 372-376.
[13] 郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜解剖性完全左半肝切除术治疗肝内胆管细胞癌[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(04): 639-639.
[14] 母德安, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 张氏超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜左三叶肝切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(04): 640-640.
[15] 焦振东, 金上博. 腹腔镜肝癌切除术治疗肝癌破裂出血[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(04): 641-641.
阅读次数
全文


摘要