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 (06) : 615 -618. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2025.06.007

论著

单孔+1腹腔镜结直肠癌根治切除术的有效性及安全性临床观察
严征远, 张恒, 曹能琦, 方兴超, 陈大敏()   
  1. 211200 南京,南京市溧水区人民医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2025-02-25 出版日期:2025-12-26
  • 通信作者: 陈大敏

Clinical observation on the efficacy and safety of single-port plus one laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer

Zhengyuan Yan, Heng Zhang, Nengqi Cao, Xingchao Fang, Damin Chen()   

  1. Department of General Surgery, Lishui District People’s Hospital, Nanjing Jiangsu Province 211200, China
  • Received:2025-02-25 Published:2025-12-26
  • Corresponding author: Damin Chen
  • Supported by:
    Scientific Research Project of Health Commission of Jiangsu Province(Z2022003); 2024 Lishui People’s Hospital Special Science and Technology Fund Project for High-Quality Development in Healthcare(LWG202409)
引用本文:

严征远, 张恒, 曹能琦, 方兴超, 陈大敏. 单孔+1腹腔镜结直肠癌根治切除术的有效性及安全性临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 615-618.

Zhengyuan Yan, Heng Zhang, Nengqi Cao, Xingchao Fang, Damin Chen. Clinical observation on the efficacy and safety of single-port plus one laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(06): 615-618.

目的

探讨结直肠癌患者采取单孔+1腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术治疗的有效性和安全性。

方法

选取2021年1月至2023年12月收治的78例结直肠癌患者作为研究对象。采用随机数字表法将纳入者分为观察组(n=39,行单孔+1腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术)和对照组(n=39,行常规5孔腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术)。采用SPSS 25.0软件进行统计学分析。计数资料用百分率表示,比较采用χ2检验;符合正态分布的计量资料用(±s)表示,组间、组内比较分别行独立样本t检验、配对样本t检验;等级资料采用秩和检验。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

观察组患者切口长度、首次排气时间、下床活动时间、胃肠功能恢复时间及住院时间均明显短于对照组(P<0.05);两组患者肿瘤最大直径、肿瘤远近端切缘距离及淋巴结清扫数目比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后1d、3d视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分,观察组患者均比对照组更低(P<0.05);肿瘤坏死因子(TNF-α)、C反应蛋白(CRP)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)、白细胞介素-8(IL-8)、去甲肾上腺素(NE)、皮质醇(COR)及肾上腺素(AD)指标水平比较,观察组患者均低于对照组(P<0.05);切口感染、皮下气肿、吻合口出血、尿潴留、肠梗阻等并发症发生率比较,观察组患者低于对照组(P<0.05)。

结论

对结直肠癌患者实施单孔+1腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术可有效缩短住院时间,减轻术后疼痛、炎症反应及应激反应,肿瘤根治效果确切,且降低并发症发生率,利于术后恢复,安全性高。

Objective

To explore the efficacy and safety of single-port plus one laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 78 patients with colorectal cancer admitted from January 2021 to December 2023 were selected as the research objects. They were divided into the observation group (n=39, undergoing single-port plus one laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer) and the control group (n=39, undergoing conventional 5-port laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer) using the random number table method. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 software. Enumeration data were expressed as percentages, and comparisons were made using the χ2 test. Measurement data conforming to normal distribution were expressed as (±s); independent sample t test and paired sample t test were used for inter-group and intra-group comparisons, respectively. Rank sum test was used for ranked data. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The incision length, time to first flatus, time to ambulation, gastrointestinal function recovery time, and hospital stay in the observation group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of maximum tumor diameter, distance of proximal and distal tumor resection margins, or number of lymph nodes dissected (P>0.05). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores on the 1st and 3rd days after surgery in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), norepinephrine (NE), cortisol (COR), and adrenaline (AD) in the observation group were all lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The incidence of complications such as incision infection, subcutaneous emphysema, anastomotic bleeding, urinary retention, and intestinal obstruction in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The implementation of SILS+1 laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer in patients with colorectal cancer can effectively shorten the hospital stay, reduce postoperative pain, inflammatory response, and stress response. It achieves a definite tumor radical effect, reduces the incidence of complications, promotes postoperative recovery, and has high safety.

表1 两组结直肠癌患者一般资料比较
表2 两组结直肠癌患者手术相关指标比较(±s
表3 两组结直肠癌患者肿瘤相关指标及术后疼痛比较(±s
表4 两组结直肠癌患者炎性因子指标水平比较(±s
[1]
胡阿云, 董洪芳, 孙文君. KAP护理模式应用于结直肠癌患者中的干预效果及对其知信行水平的影响[J]. 中外医学研究, 2024, 22(34): 83-88.
[2]
郑民华, 马君俊, 赵轩. 中国腹腔镜直肠癌根治术式选择原则与规范化[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 5-8.
[3]
刘坤. 单孔腹腔镜结直肠手术专家共识(2019版) [J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2019, 8(04): 343-348.
[4]
晁祥嵩, 王强, 陈秉魁. 重叠式三角吻合技术在单孔腹腔镜直肠前切除术治疗直肠癌的应用价值[J]. 吉林医学, 2022, 43(09): 2346-2349.
[5]
雷跃华, 陈文兴, 王邓超. 单孔加一孔与传统多孔腹腔镜用于右半结肠癌根治术的中远期随访比较[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 99-102.
[6]
陈功, 邱萌, 张俊. 结直肠癌规范化诊疗[M]. 湖南, 中南大学出版社, 2015.
[7]
谢伟, 汪想忠, 崔苏阳. 经自然腔道腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术对患者术后疼痛、炎症反应、肠道屏障功能影响及卫生经济学评价[J]. 中国医药导报, 2022, 19(20): 96-99.
[8]
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: Globo-can estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185countries [J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249.
[9]
张晓, 余先昊. 腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术对老年结直肠癌患者术后胃肠功能恢复的影响[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2021, 41(11): 2283-2286.
[10]
马博, 周军, 李建刚, 等. 单孔+1孔腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术的安全性评价[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 653-656.
[11]
Moschovas MC, Seetharam Bhat KR, Onol FF, et al. Single-port technique evolution and current practice in urologic procedures [J]. Asian J Urol, 2021, 8(1): 100-104.
[12]
胡滨, 储诚浩, 胡霜久, 等. 单孔加一孔腹腔镜结直肠癌根治性切除术的疗效及安全性分析[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(02): 124-129.
[13]
韦承德, 韦逸琛, 覃泽奔. 减孔腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠癌的疗效及对患者围术期指标、免疫炎症反应的影响[J/CD]. 现代医学与健康研究电子杂志, 2023, 7(19): 10-12.
[14]
臧卫东, 马君俊, 臧潞, 等. 单孔腹腔镜胃肠恶性肿瘤手术操作中国专家共识(2024版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2024, 44(05): 490-496, 511.
[15]
姜卫生, 张振豪, 汪长青. 减孔腹腔镜手术治疗对结直肠癌患者免疫功能、氧化应激反应的影响[J]. 中国临床医生杂志, 2022, 50(04): 450-452.
[1] 向涵, 母德安, 王强, 黄英杰, 张伟. 3D荧光反染超微创单孔腹腔镜Ⅵ段、Ⅴ段背侧段解剖性肝切除[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 610-610.
[2] 燕速, 梁浩, 黄涛. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌扩大切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 609-609.
[3] 高加勒, 张忠涛. 结直肠癌外科领域最新进展与热点[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 595-599.
[4] 杜晓辉, 谢天宇, 晏阳. 我国腹腔镜结直肠癌外科治疗现状、问题与未来[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 600-604.
[5] 张建锋, 田若曦, 李保坤, 马洪庆, 胡旭华, 曹龙飞, 王贵英. 我国腹腔镜右半结肠癌的手术难点及对策[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 605-608.
[6] 陈朝乾, 赵宗贤, 徐顺, 姚远, 孙杰. 腹腔镜Dixon术中保留左结肠动脉对老年低位直肠癌患者的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 611-614.
[7] 孙丕绛, 崔上, 杨永君, 冉超, 王槐志. 腹腔镜下肠系膜上动脉优先入路联合门静脉切除重建扩大清扫胰十二指肠切除术(en-bolc)[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 487-487.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 唐玥, 陈家璐, 覃德龙, 李宗龙, 汤朝晖, 全志伟. 腹腔镜肝切除治疗复发性肝癌的焦点与难点问题探讨[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 667-672.
[13] 袁文康, 张冲, 张超. 肝脏外科治疗理念的变迁与技术进步[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 673-679.
[14] 黄洁. 腹腔镜肝后上段切除术中的技术挑战与策略思考[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 680-686.
[15] 郑哲宇, 张磊, 张大伟, 潘卫东, 黄晓明. 全腹腔镜下ALPPS治疗结直肠癌肝转移的安全性和疗效[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 748-753.
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?