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 (05) : 513 -516. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2025.05.010

所属专题: 文献

论著

不同入路腹腔镜辅助下根治性远端胃切除术治疗进展期远端胃癌的临床对比
贾宇浩1, 吕坤昱2, 刘志强2, 李保中2,()   
  1. 1471000 河南洛阳,河南科技大学临床医学院(河南科技大学第一附属医院)临床医学院
    2455000 河南安阳,安阳市肿瘤医院外一科
  • 收稿日期:2024-09-27 出版日期:2025-10-26
  • 通信作者: 李保中

Clinical comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy via different approaches for advanced distal gastric cancer

Yuhao Jia1, Kunyu Lv2, Zhiqiang Liu2, Baozhong Li2,()   

  1. 1Clinical School of Henan University of Science and Technology (First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology), Luoyang Henan Province 471000, China
    2Department of Surgery, Anyang Cancer Hospital, Anyang Henan Province 455000, China
  • Received:2024-09-27 Published:2025-10-26
  • Corresponding author: Baozhong Li
  • Supported by:
    Henan Province Science and Technology Research Fund Project(242102310187)
引用本文:

贾宇浩, 吕坤昱, 刘志强, 李保中. 不同入路腹腔镜辅助下根治性远端胃切除术治疗进展期远端胃癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 513-516.

Yuhao Jia, Kunyu Lv, Zhiqiang Liu, Baozhong Li. Clinical comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy via different approaches for advanced distal gastric cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(05): 513-516.

目的

比较不同入路腹腔镜辅助下根治性远端胃切除术治疗进展期远端胃癌的临床效果。

方法

回顾性收集2020年4月至2023年4月92例接受腹腔镜辅助下根治性远端胃切除术治疗的进展期远端胃癌患者临床资料,根据手术入路不同分为右侧组(n=47)与左侧组(n=45)。采用SPSS25.0统计软件分析数据。临床资料等计量资料用(±s)描述,行t检验;性别等计数资料用[例(%)]描述,行χ2检验。Kaplan-Meier曲线分析患者术后12个月生存情况。

结果

右侧组手术时间短于左侧组,清扫淋巴结数量多于左侧组(P<0.05);两组患者术后排气、下床活动、住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组C反应蛋白(CRP)、肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)组别、时点以及组别与时点交互效应检验,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后3d、7d右侧组CRP、TNF-α、IL-6低于左侧组(P<0.05)。术后1周两组癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原199(CA199)、CA125水平均低于术前,但组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者生存情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

左侧入路与右侧入路可获得相当的术后12月生存情况,但相较于左侧入路,右侧入路能提高腹腔镜辅助下根治性远端切除术治疗的淋巴结清扫数量,缩短手术时间,减轻围手术期炎症反应程度。

Objective

To compare the clinical effects of laparoscopic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy via different approaches in the treatment of advanced distal gastric cancer.

Methods

The clinical data of 92 patients with advanced distal gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy from April 2020 to April 2023 were retrospectively collected. According to different surgical approaches, they were divided into the right-sided group (n=47) and the left-sided group (n=45). SPSS25.0 statistical software was used for data analysis. Measurement data such as clinical data were described by (±s), and t test was performed; enumeration data such as gender were described by [cases (%)], and chi-square test was performed. The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to analyze the survival of patients 12 months after operation.

Results

the operation time of the right-sided group was shorter than that of the left-sided group, and the number of lymph nodes dissected was more than that of the left-sided group (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in postoperative exhaust, out-of-bed activity, and hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05). The tests of group, time point, and interaction effect between group and time point of C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) in the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05); CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6 in the right-sided group were lower than those in the left-sided group at 3 days and 7 days after operation (P<0.05). The levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199), and CA125 in the two groups were lower than those before operation at 1 week after operation, but there was no significant difference between the groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the survival of the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The left-sided approach and the right-sided approach can achieve comparable survival at 12 months after operation, but compared with the left-sided approach, the right-sided approach can increase the number of lymph nodes dissected in laparoscopic-assisted radical distal resection, shorten the operation time, and reduce the degree of perioperative inflammatory response.

表1 腹腔镜进展期远端胃癌根治性切除术两组患者一般资料比较
表2 腹腔镜进展期远端胃癌根治性切除术两组患者临床指标比较(±s
表3 腹腔镜进展期远端胃癌根治性切除术两组患者炎症因子水平比较(±s
表4 腹腔镜进展期远端胃癌根治性切除术两组患者肿瘤标志物水平比较(±s
表5 腹腔镜进展期远端胃癌根治性切除术患者COX比例风险模型分析
[1]
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel r l, et al.Global cancer statistics2020:GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J].CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249.
[2]
李元元,沈亦敏,王舟,等.腹腔镜辅助下近端胃切除术治疗胃癌合并全内脏反位1例报告[J].中国微创外科杂志2023, 23(11): 877-880.
[3]
Zhao JJ, Liu FL.Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy and lymph node resection in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction[J].Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2022, 25(2): 114-119.
[4]
Motamiez A, Maximous D, Salem AAS, et al.Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic-assisted Distal Gastrectomy Versus Totally Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy Billroth I for Gastric Cancer[J].Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2024, 34(1): 80-86.
[5]
郑民华,臧潞,马君俊,等.腹腔镜胃癌根治术手术入路选择专家共识[J].中国实用外科杂志2017, 37(04): 412-414.
[6]
国家卫生健康委员会.胃癌诊疗规范(2018年版)[J].中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版)2019, 9(03): 118-144.
[7]
Haynes S R, Lawler P G P.An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation[J]. Anaesthesia, 2010, 50(3): 195-199.
[8]
沈晓菲,刘颂,夏雪峰,等.3D腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术的学习曲线[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)2022, 16(01): 79-83.
[9]
Wang J, Tong J, Zhang Y, et al.Perioperative outcomes of da Vinci robot versus laparoscopic-assisted D2 radical resection of distal gastric cancer with Billroth II anastomosis[J]. Asian J Surg, 2024, 47(3): 1510-1512.
[10]
Aoki H, Kawada H, Hanabata Y, et al.Laparoscopic right gastroepiploic artery-sparing distal gastric tube resection with lymph node dissection for gastric tube cancer after esophagectomy:A novel surgical approach (with video) [J]. Asian J Endosc Surg, 2024, 17(4): e13359.
[11]
李晓静,姜黎黎,孙红敏,等. 腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术中十二指肠优先离断对胃癌患者应激反应、炎性因子和生活质量的影响[J].现代生物医学进展2021, 21(17): 3373-3377, 3387.
[12]
钟新强,覃吉超,肖海鹏,等. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术中胃网膜右系膜分离的体会[J].腹腔镜外科杂志2024, 29(01): 27-31.
[13]
陈柏羽,张晓雨.腹腔镜胃癌根治术不同入路方式治疗胃癌的效果比较[J].哈尔滨医科大学学报2023, 57(06): 639-643.
[14]
李子禹,张效鹏,李双喜.不断提高腹腔镜胃癌全胃切除术的规范化[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)2024, 18(02): 119-122.
[15]
Yang XY, Yang XG, Zhao PJ, et al.An experience of laparoscopic-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy with uncut Roux-en-Y anastomosis for distal gastric cancer [J].Asian J Surg, 2024, 47(1): 576-577.
[1] 洪菁, 高义, 廖桂兰, 陈晓蔚, 菅志远, 周娟娟, 黄志琼, 韦宇, 邓艳婷. 腹腔镜保留回盲部的右半结肠癌根治术在结肠肝曲和横结肠肿瘤中的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 547-550.
[2] 欧阳骏骏, 蔡宝, 徐冰. 经脐单孔及常规腹腔镜阑尾切除术对阑尾炎患儿的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 566-569.
[3] 杨春燕, 周晓苹. 机器人辅助技术在腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术中的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 584-588.
[4] 张蔚, 李运涛, 尚培中, 贾志芳, 张伟, 郭伟林. 腹腔镜根治术治疗转移性胆囊癌一例报道[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 589-590.
[5] 谢学海, 杨尹默. 我国胰头癌腹腔镜手术的现状、存在问题与展望[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 478-482.
[6] 陈华, 孙备. 我国胰头癌腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术难点与对策[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 483-486.
[7] 李金洁, 颜迪, 高德山. 改良桥式导管内引流在腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术中的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 488-491.
[8] 李福荣, 王晔飞, 白治渊, 王海霖, 贺志强, 牛福勇. 两种胰肠吻合方法在腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术中的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 492-495.
[9] 王小军, 蔡瑜, 安艳新, 刘斌, 冯永安. 完全腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术治疗局部进展期胃癌的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 509-512.
[10] 菅锎宇, 常如玉, 王达, 顼倩茹, 蒋麟, 贾宝雷, 邱宇轩, 梁峰. 进展期食管胃结合部癌不同手术方式的近期疗效研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 517-522.
[11] 孔宪诚, 沙粒, 杜磊, 刘岗. 以卫式线引导的保留邓氏筋膜全直肠系膜切除术的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 523-526.
[12] 袁德玺, 徐海霞, 华秀丽, 申青. 适形保肛术对低位直肠癌患者术后肛门功能的影响研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 527-530.
[13] 肖燕玲, 杜升兰, 杨春梅, 许政文, 王玫. 正中切口在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术预防性回肠造口中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 539-542.
[14] 吴金柱, 王锐, 朱国栋, 蔡卫华. 吲哚菁绿荧光导航腹腔镜肝右前叶切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 802-802.
[15] 蒋林哲. 腹腔镜胆囊切除+超细胆道镜经胆囊颈管胆道探查术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 803-803.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?