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) : 539 -542. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2025.05.016

所属专题: 文献

论著

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
肖燕玲1, 杜升兰1, 杨春梅1, 许政文1, 王玫2,()   
  1. 1629000 四川遂宁,遂宁市中心医院结直肠外科
    2629000 四川遂宁,遂宁市中心医院呼吸科
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-19 出版日期:2025-10-26
  • 通信作者: 王玫

Application of median incision in prophylactic ileostomy for laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer

Yanling Xiao1, Shenglan Du1, Chunmei Yang1, Zhengwen Xu1, Mei Wang2,()   

  1. 1Department of Colorectal Surgery, Suining Central Hospital, Suining Sichuan Province 629000, China
    2Department of Respiratory Medicine, Suining Central Hospital, Suining Sichuan Province 629000, China
  • Received:2025-03-19 Published:2025-10-26
  • Corresponding author: Mei Wang
  • Supported by:
    Nursing Research Project of Sichuan Province(H23030)
引用本文:

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.

Yanling Xiao, Shenglan Du, Chunmei Yang, Zhengwen Xu, Mei Wang. Application of median incision in prophylactic ileostomy for laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(05): 539-542.

目的

观察正中切口行预防性回肠造口对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术患者术后恢复及并发症发生率的影响。

方法

回顾性分析2022年6月至2024年6月接受腹腔镜直肠癌根治术患者的临床资料,将接受正中切口行预防性回肠造口患者纳入观察组,接受传统切口行预防性回肠造口患者纳入对照组。将两组资料经倾向性评分匹配法进行1:1匹配,共有54对基线资料差异无统计学意义的患者纳入研究。用SPSS24.0软件分析数据。计量资料以(±s)表示,行独立样本t检验和配对样本t检验;计数资料以百分比表示,行Fisher精确概率检验或χ2检验;等级资料比较用秩和检验。P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

结果

观察组造口还纳手术时间间隔明显短于对照组(P<0.05),但还纳手术时间和术中出血量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后72h,两组患者疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分均低于术后24h,且观察组明显低于对照组(P<0.05);术后24h,两组患者血清C反应蛋白(CRP)、降钙素原(PCT)、肿瘤坏死因子α(TNF-α)、谷丙转氨酶(ALT)、谷草转氨酶(AST)水平均升高,但观察组血清CRP、PCT、TNF-α水平均低于对照组(P<0.05);观察组患者并发症总发生率明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。

结论

正中切口行预防性回肠造口相较于传统切口行回肠造口更有利于患者术后恢复,能减轻患者术后疼痛,降低术后并发症的发生率,对于造口还纳手术时间和术中出血量影响不显著,临床应根据患者需求和实际情况选择适宜的造口方式。

Objective

To observe the impact of prophylactic ileostomy via median incision on postoperative recovery and complication incidence in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer from June 2022 to June 2024. Patients receiving prophylactic ileostomy via median incision were enrolled in the observation group, and those receiving prophylactic ileostomy via traditional incision were included in the control group. Propensity score matching was used for 1:1 matching of the two groups, with 54 pairs of patients showing no significant baseline differences included in the study. Data were analyzed using SPSS24.0 software. Measurement data were expressed as (±s), and independent sample t tests and paired sample t tests were performed; enumeration data were expressed as percentages, and Fisher’s exact probability test or χ2 test was applied; Rank Sum test was used for ordinal data comparison. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The interval between stoma reversal surgeries in the observation group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (P<0.05), but there were no significant differences in reversal surgery time or intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P>0.05). At 72 hours postoperatively, the visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores in both groups were lower than those at 24 hours postoperatively, and the observation group had significantly lower scores than the control group (P<0.05). At 24 hours postoperatively, serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increased in both groups, but the observation group had lower serum CRP, PCT, and TNF-α levels than the control group (P<0.05). The total incidence of complications in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Prophylactic ileostomy via median incision is more conducive to postoperative recovery, alleviates postoperative pain, and reduces the incidence of postoperative complications compared with ileostomy via traditional incision, with no significant impact on stoma reversal surgery time or intraoperative blood loss. Clinically, the appropriate stoma method should be selected based on patients’ needs and actual conditions.

表1 两组直肠癌手术患者一般资料比较
表2 两组直肠癌手术患者造口还纳手术指标比较(±s
表3 两组直肠癌手术患者炎症因子指标比较(±s
表4 两组直肠癌手术患者生化指标比较(U/L,±s
[1]
薛峰,费兴林,孙晶,等. 1991-2020年浙江省嘉善县结直肠癌生存分析[J]. 中国肿瘤, 2025, 34(01): 32-36.
[2]
卢婷,王媛媛,周凤瑜,等. 影像学评估局部进展期结直肠癌新辅助治疗后肿瘤退缩分级的研究进展[J]. 磁共振成像, 2024, 15(05): 209-215, 221.
[3]
魏明天,王自强. 腹腔镜低位直肠癌精准筋膜解剖根治术[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 19.
[4]
顾晋. 腹腔镜直肠癌外科临床诊治中的问题与对策[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022,16(01):9-12.
[5]
赵梓竣,兰运升. 改良一针法末端回肠造口术对低位直肠癌保肛术后应激反应及安全性的影响[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 611-614.
[6]
姚豪杰,王家淳,余锋. 正中标本提取切口行预防性回肠造口对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术患者胃肠功能、炎症水平及吻合口瘘的影响[J]. 河北医科大学学报, 2024, 45(09): 1063-1067.
[7]
赵鹏跃,李松岩,杨星朋,等. 术前谷草转氨酶、谷丙转氨酶及二者比值与直肠癌不良预后关系研究[J]. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2020, 29(11): 1234-1238.
[8]
中国抗癌协会,中国抗癌协会大肠癌专业委员会. 中国恶性肿瘤整合诊治指南-直肠癌部分[J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2022, 11(02): 89-103.
[9]
耿冲,林鹏辉,周纷,等. 超声下腹横肌平面阻滞对直肠癌根治术患者镇痛及不良反应的影响[J]. 癌症进展, 2021, 19(08): 833-836, 851.
[10]
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249.
[11]
李戟玭,张文凯,庄乐怡,等. 基于ADC诊断局部晚期直肠癌新辅助治疗后完全缓解准确性的Meta分析[J]. 磁共振成像, 2022, 13(08): 36-42, 54.
[12]
杨斌,张志平,殷永芳,等. 采用预防性回肠造口的结直肠癌根治术后吻合口良性狭窄的临床分析[J]. 浙江医学, 2022, 44(10): 1104-1106, 1109,后插3.
[13]
谢兴旺,柯超,周红见,等. 腹腔镜直肠癌根治术对凝血纤溶系统、血管内皮功能及炎性因子水平的影响[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(12): 1155-1159.
[14]
宋正明,庆华,朱渊东,等. 结直肠癌腹腔镜根治术后感染患者机体应激反应及UGT1A1*28位点基因多态性变化[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2020, 30(12): 1875-1879.
[15]
张超,柏祥云,薛凤华. AST/ALT、白蛋白与肝癌患者病理特征及TACE治疗预后的关系[J]. 分子诊断与治疗杂志, 2024, 16(05): 930-934.
[16]
赵鹏跃,李松岩,杨星朋,等. 术前谷草转氨酶、谷丙转氨酶及二者比值与直肠癌不良预后关系研究[J]. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2020, 29(11): 1234-1238.
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 杨敏, 辛林璞, 杜峻峰. 三精准管理方案对直肠癌造口术后造口并发症的预防效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 531-534.
[10] 吴少锋, 王茂, 马海龙, 史英, 代引海. 新辅助治疗后肿瘤退缩分级对局部进展期直肠癌患者全直肠系膜切除术效果的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 535-538.
[11] 徐其银, 韩尚志. 术前结合术后营养支持对直肠癌患者康复的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 543-546.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] 邓吟咏, 钟洁, 蒋理立, 杨婕. 结直肠肿瘤手术后并发症的预测与预防:基于临床研究的最新进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 579-583.
[15] 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.
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?