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) : 417 -420. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2025.04.018.

论著

头侧-中央混合入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌的临床分析
雷世杰1, 胡饶1,(), 彭鸿1, 马俊伟1, 高石亮1, 晏科金1   
  1. 1. 330001 江西南昌,联勤保障部队第九〇八医院肛肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-07-22 出版日期:2025-08-26
  • 通信作者: 胡饶
  • 基金资助:
    江西省卫生健康委员会项目(202210657)

Clinical analysis of laparoscopic radical resection via the head-side and central mixed approach for rightsided colon cancer for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer

Shijie Lei1, Rao Hu1,(), Hong Peng1, Junwei Ma1, Shiliang Gao1, Kejin Yan1   

  1. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, 908th Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force, Nanchang Jiangxi Province 330001, China
  • Received:2024-07-22 Published:2025-08-26
  • Corresponding author: Rao Hu
引用本文:

雷世杰, 胡饶, 彭鸿, 马俊伟, 高石亮, 晏科金. 头侧-中央混合入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌的临床分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 417-420.

Shijie Lei, Rao Hu, Hong Peng, Junwei Ma, Shiliang Gao, Kejin Yan. Clinical analysis of laparoscopic radical resection via the head-side and central mixed approach for rightsided colon cancer for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(04): 417-420.

目的

探讨头侧-中央混合入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌的治疗效果。

方法

回顾性收集2018年5月至2023年5月36例接受头侧-中央混合入路腹腔镜根治术治疗的右半结肠癌患者临床资料(混合组);同期收集36例接受中央入路治疗患者临床资料(对照组)。采用SPSS 25.0统计学软件分析。术前、术中指标等计量资料以()描述,行t检验;并发症等计数资料用[例(%)]描述,行χ2检验。Kaplan-Meier曲线分析生存情况。

结果

混合组术中出血量少于对照组,手术时间短于对照组(P<0.05);两组淋巴结清扫数量比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者术后首次进食、首次排气等术后指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。混合组未出现中转开腹,对照组出现1例,中转开腹率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1周,两组患者胃泌素(GAS)、胃动素(MTL)水平均下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);但组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1周,两组患者癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原199(CA199)、CA125水平均下降(P<0.05),但组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访时间为6~12个月,中位随访时间为12个月。两组患者生存情况比较差异无统计学意义(Log-Rank χ2=0.765,P=0.382)。

结论

相较于中央入路,头侧-中央混合入路治疗右半结肠癌患者可获得与其相当的远期疗效,但其能有效缩短手术时间,降低术中出血量。

Objective

To explore the therapeutic effect of laparoscopic radical resection via the head-side and central mixed approach for right-sided colon cancer.

Methods

The clinical data of 36 patients with right-sided colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical resection via the head-side and central mixed approach from May 2018 to May 2023 were retrospectively collected (mixed group). At the same time, the clinical data of 36 patients who underwent the central approach were collected (control group). The statistical software SPSS 25.0 was used for analysis. Measurement data such as preoperative and intraoperative indexes were described by (), and t test was performed; Enumeration data such as complications were described by[ cases (%)], and chi-square test was performed. The survival situation was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier curve.

Results

The intraoperative blood loss in the mixed group was less than that in the control group, and the operation time was shorter than that in the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of lymph node dissections between the two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in postoperative indexes such as the first meal intake and the first exhaust after surgery between the two groups(P>0.05). There was no conversion to open surgery in the mixed group, while there was 1 case in the control group. There was no significant difference in the conversion rate to open surgery between the two groups (P>0.05).One week after surgery, the levels of gastrin (GAS) and motilin (MTL) in both groups of patients decreased,and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). One week after surgery, the levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA),carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199), and CA125 in both groups of patients decreased (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). The follow-up period was 6 to 12 months, and the median follow-up period was 12 months. There was no significant difference in the survival situation between the two groups (Log-Rank χ2=0.765, P=0.382).

Conclusion

Compared with the central approach, the head-side and central mixed approach for patients with right-sided colon cancer can achieve a comparable long-term curative effect, but it can effectively shorten the operation time and reduce the intraoperative blood loss.

表1 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术两组患者一般资料比较
表2 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术两组患者术中指标比较(
表3 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术两组患者术后指标比较(
表4 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术两组患者胃肠激素水平比较(
表5 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术两组患者肿瘤标志物水平比较(
表6 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术两组患者并发症比较[例(%)]
图1 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术两组患者生存情况比较
[1]
冯波, 钟昊, 张森, 等. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术切除范围争议与共识[J]. 中国实用外科杂志,2023, 43(10): 1144-1146.
[2]
刘壮壮, 高进, 朱汉建, 等. 腹腔镜与开腹手术在T4a期结肠癌治疗中的临床疗效观察[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(05): 525-527.
[3]
洪伟, 王治伟. 腹腔镜中线入路右半结肠完整系膜切除术治疗右半结肠癌患者的临床效果观察[J]. 贵州医药, 2022, 46(03):374-376.
[4]
刘江, 李彦卿. 腹腔镜下中间尾侧入路在右半结肠全系膜切除术的临床疗效及安全性分析[J]. 生命科学仪器, 2022, 20(03): 69-69.
[5]
王晓岐, 万莹. 头侧-中央混合入路方式行腹腔镜下右半结肠癌根治术对患者血清P1k-1、TSGF水平及预后的影响[J]. 医学临床研究, 2023, 40(03): 396-399.
[6]
顾晋, 汪建平, 孙燕, 等. 中国结直肠癌诊疗规范(2017年版)[J].中华临床医师杂志(电子版),2018, 12(01): 3-23.
[7]
Haynes SR,Lawler PGP. An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation[J]. Anaesthesia, 2010,50(3): 195-199.
[8]
张连阳, 王子卫, 周洪伟, 等. 腹腔镜结直肠癌手术规范(草案)[J]. 重庆医学, 2005, 34(08): 1254-1255.
[9]
田传鑫, 赵磊. 结直肠癌及结直肠癌肝转移流行病学特点[J].中华肿瘤防治杂志, 2021, 28(13): 1033-1038.
[10]
周海茸, 王巍巍, 罗鹏飞, 等. 1990—2019年中国结直肠癌疾病负担变化趋势分析[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2024, 51(02): 115-120.
[11]
杨晓晔, 车向明, 豆发福, 等. 腹腔镜下不同入路途径在右半结肠癌根治术中的应用比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(05):482-484.
[12]
周文广, 史进. 腹腔镜下回字型右下入路手术与尾侧联合内侧入路手术治疗右半结肠癌的疗效对比[J]. 长春中医药大学学报, 2024, 40(01): 75-78.
[13]
于鹏, 段绍斌. 三种不同手术入路在腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术中的应用[J]. 现代消化及介入诊疗, 2022, 27(06): 692-696.
[14]
梁明, 张亦磊, 刘晓晨, 等. 不同入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌的临床效果及血清指标观察[J]. 实用医院临床杂志,2021, 18(01): 68-71.
[15]
韦斌, 黄俏莹. 三种入路方式治疗右半结肠癌的近, 中期随访比较[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(05):581-583.
[16]
刘郁, 段绍斌. 腹腔镜下头尾结合入路与完全头侧入路手术治疗右半结肠癌的临床疗效对比[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2021,30(04): 488-492.
[17]
苏石, 何志鹏, 梅相煌, 等. 头侧混合入路与尾侧入路腹腔镜右半结肠切除术围术期指标的观察[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志,2024, 29(04): 257-261.
[1] 郭仁凯, 武慧铭, 李辉宇. 机器人辅助全系膜切除术治疗右半结肠癌有效性和安全性的Meta分析及试验序贯分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 234-240.
[2] 孙然, 陈明, 陈云. 不同内侧界右半结肠癌D3淋巴结清扫前瞻性对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 59-62.
[3] 徐伯群, 单留群, 高志慧. 进展期右半结肠癌CME+D3根治术中不同淋巴结清扫范围的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 309-312.
[4] 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/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 5-8.
[5] 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/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 1-4.
[6] 徐靖. 腹腔镜下右半结肠切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 494-494.
[7] 张一楠, 步召德. 腹腔镜辅助中央入路根治性右半结肠切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 493-493.
[8] 王润之, 孙强. 不同入路右半结肠癌扩大根治术治疗结肠肝曲癌配对研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(04): 426-429.
[9] 刘见, 张恩霖, 杨晓波, 吴淼. 从上到下"翻页式"3D腹腔镜右半结肠癌手术扶镜体会[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(05): 303-306.
[10] 杨魁, 龚文斌, 余钧辉, 郑见宝, 孙学军, 赵伟. 腹部无辅助切口经阴道拖出标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术一例(附视频)[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 171-176.
[11] 连彦军, 宋志岗, 范晓斌, 胡延伟, 范现英, 马竞优, 甄金朋, 杨宁豹. 肠减压后腹腔镜手术治疗右半结肠癌合并急性肠梗阻的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 129-134.
[12] 闫顺笠, 孙慧敏, 郑朝旭, 刘正, 陈海鹏, 关旭, 周思成, 周海涛, 梁建伟, 裴炜, 王锡山. 腹部无辅助切口经直肠切口取标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术(CRC-NOSES-Ⅷ式B法)近期疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2022, 11(03): 212-219.
[13] 宁英泽, 刘军广, 蔡云龙, 饶小龙, 戎龙, 汤坚强. 改良内镜辅助经横结肠腔道取标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治NOSES术(改良CRC-NOSES-Ⅷ式C法)[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(05): 547-549.
[14] 陈佳楠, 陈海鹏, 王玲玲, 刘正, 刘骞. 首荟通便胶囊在右半结肠切除手术肠道准备中的作用研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(05): 476-481.
[15] 程玉, 顾晋. ST6GAL2 表达下调促进结肠癌细胞生长和转移的多维度研究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(11): 1019-1029.
阅读次数
全文


摘要