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) ›› 2026, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (01) : 30 -33. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2026.01.010

论著

回字型右下入路与常规中间入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌近中期随访比较
张升涛1, 丁敬健1,(), 刘洋1, 郭永锋1, 祁亚斌1, 李亚俊2   
  1. 1710000 陕西西安,西安市第九医院普外科
    2750000 宁夏银川,宁夏医科大学总医院消化内科
  • 收稿日期:2025-02-15 出版日期:2026-02-26
  • 通信作者: 丁敬健

Comparison of short-and mid-term follow-up outcomes between laparoscopic radical resection via "Hui" -shaped inferior right approach and conventional median approach for right-sided colon cancer

Shengtao Zhang1, Jingjian Ding1,(), Yang Liu1, Yongfeng Guo1, Yabin Qi1, Yajun Li2   

  1. 1Department of General Surgery, Xi’an Ninth Hospital, Xi’an Shaanxi Province 710000, China
    2Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region 750000, China
  • Received:2025-02-15 Published:2026-02-26
  • Corresponding author: Jingjian Ding
  • Supported by:
    Ningxia Natural Science Foundation Project(2022AAC03525)
引用本文:

张升涛, 丁敬健, 刘洋, 郭永锋, 祁亚斌, 李亚俊. 回字型右下入路与常规中间入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(01): 30-33.

Shengtao Zhang, Jingjian Ding, Yang Liu, Yongfeng Guo, Yabin Qi, Yajun Li. Comparison of short-and mid-term follow-up outcomes between laparoscopic radical resection via "Hui" -shaped inferior right approach and conventional median approach for right-sided colon cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2026, 20(01): 30-33.

目的

比较回字型右下入路与常规中间入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌近、中期疗效。

方法

采集81例行腹腔镜结肠癌根治术治疗的右半结肠癌患者资料,根据手术入路分为中间入路组(n=40)和右下入路组(n=41)。利用SPSS 25.0统计学软件处理数据,围手术期指标、胃肠激素等计量资料以(±s)表示,用独立样本t检验;患者术后并发症及无病生存率等计数资料用χ2检验。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

相比于中间入路组,右下入路组术中出血量少,手术时间、首次排气时间均较短(P<0.05)。两组患者术后血清胃泌素(GAS)、胃动素(MOT)水平均较术前降低,但右下入路组高于中间入路组(P<0.05)。右下入路组、中间入路组术后并发症总发生率为4.9%、7.5%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。右下入路组、中间入路组患者术后1年、3年无病生存率分别为(92.7% vs.87.5%)、(65.9% vs. 60.0%),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

回字型右下入路及常规中间入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌均安全可行,但较后者,前者操作难度低,手术时间短、术中出血量少,术后恢复快。

Objective

To compare the short-and mid-term efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection for right-sided colon cancer via the "Hui" -shaped inferior right approach and the conventional median approach.

Methods

Clinical data of 81 patients with right-sided colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical resection for colon cancer were collected. According to the surgical approach, the patients were divided into the median approach group (n=40) and the inferior right approach group (n=41). Statistical software SPSS 25.0 was used for data analysis. Measurement data, such as perioperative indicators and gastrointestinal hormones, were expressed as (±s) and analyzed by independent samples t test; count data, including postoperative complications and disease-free survival rate, were analyzed by χ2 test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Compared with the median approach group, the inferior right approach group had less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter operation time and time to first flatus (all P<0.05). After surgery, the serum levels of gastrin (GAS) and motilin (MOT) in both groups were lower than those before surgery, while the levels in the inferior right approach group were higher than those in the median approach group (P<0.05). The total incidence of postoperative complications was 4.9% in the inferior right approach group and 7.5% in the median approach group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The 1-year and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 92.7% vs. 87.5% and 65.9% vs. 60.0% in the inferior right approach group and the median approach group, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both laparoscopic radical resection via the "Hui" -shaped inferior right approach and the conventional median approach are safe and feasible for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. However, compared with the latter, the former has lower surgical difficulty, shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, and faster postoperative recovery.

表1 两组腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术患者基本资料比较
表2 两组腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术患者围手术期指标比较(±s
表3 两组腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术患者胃肠激素水平比较(ng/L,±s
[1]
Lendzion RJ, Gilmore AJ. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis and natural orifice surgery extraction/minimal extraction site surgery in the obese[J]. ANZ J Surg, 2021, 91(06): 1180-1184.
[2]
王芳红, 张辉, 储怀祝, 等. 老年Ⅲ期右半结肠癌经腹腔镜全结肠系膜切除治疗的临床效果及预后分析[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2020, 27(01): 69-74.
[3]
杨成刚, 赵丙波, 杜文峰, 等. 腹腔镜与开腹右半结肠癌根治术对老年患者肠道菌群和免疫功能的影响[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2020, 35(12): 952-955.
[4]
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.
[5]
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.
[6]
中华人民共和国卫生和计划生育委员会医政医管局, 中华医学会肿瘤学分会. 中国结直肠癌诊疗规范(2017年版)[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2018, 56(04): 241-258.
[7]
Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual [M]. New York: Springer, 2016: 203-220.
[8]
Kwak HD, Ju JK, Lee SY, et al. Comparison of right-side and left-side colon cancers following laparoscopic radical lymphadenectomy [J]. J Invest Surg, 2021, 34(02): 142-147.
[9]
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.
[10]
胡夏荣, 黄石川, 谢楚平, 等. 腹腔镜下不同入路手术治疗右半结肠癌的疗效观察[J]. 中国医刊, 2020, 55(02): 213-216.
[11]
丁辉斌, 周红飞. 经尾侧联合中线入路与中线入路在腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术中的应用效果比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2023, 31(09): 869-872.
[12]
汤思哲, 王仆, 田斐, 等. 伴血管变异的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术个体化手术入路的多学科临床探讨[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2019, 46(08): 412-415.
[13]
邹兆伟, 黄仁力, 俞金龙. 联合入路翻页式腹腔镜辅助右半结肠癌根治术[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2020, 23(05): 503-506.
[14]
鲍新民, 王日玮, 张开华, 等. 腹腔镜下头尾侧联合入路治疗右半结肠癌的疗效分析[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2020, 47(11): 856-860.
[15]
田德福, 吴宏, 祝普利. 尾侧入路与中间入路腔镜下右半结肠癌根治术对患者肿瘤转移、胃肠激素及免疫功能的影响[J]. 癌症进展, 2021, 19(12): 1261-1264.
[16]
韩栓柱, 徐毅, 白鸿太, 等. 不同入路腹腔镜手术对右半结肠癌患者肠屏障功能和红细胞免疫的影响[J]. 中国医科大学学报, 2024, 53(03): 230-234.
[1] 深圳市医学会乳腺病学分会, 深圳市医学会肿瘤学分会, 深圳市医师协会乳腺专科医师分会, 深圳市健康管理协会乳房健康与康复管理专业委员会, 深圳市抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会, 深圳市抗癌协会肿瘤放射治疗专业委员会, 深圳市中西医结合学会甲状腺乳腺病专业委员会. 乳腺癌新辅助治疗的疗效预测和疗效评价专家共识(2025版)[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 321-330.
[2] 祖力皮喀尔·图孙尼亚孜, 何荣东, 蒋铁民, 温浩. 老年单纯胆总管结石患者行腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术和内镜逆行胰胆管造影联合十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术的临床疗效与危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 325-331.
[3] 王博申, 陈超武, 刘祺. 头侧-尾侧-中间入路腹腔镜全系膜切除术治疗右半结肠癌的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(01): 26-29.
[4] 王思竣, 王琼, 李珂雨, 袁新普, 张硕珉, 马睿, 谢天宇, 张朝军. 胃上部癌新辅助化疗联合免疫治疗后实施近端胃切除术的临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 637-641.
[5] 张超, 常剑. 混合入路与中间入路行腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 685-688.
[6] 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.
[7] 刘丽辉, 白玉新, 张进, 冯巍, 黄琰琰, 邹梦斯, 刘彩红. 血清生物标志物联合检测对支气管哮喘患儿生物靶向治疗效果的预测意义[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(05): 796-801.
[8] 张宇涵, 吴添庆, 高汶卿, 郑梽楷, 贺珉睿, 周仲国. 不可切除性肝内胆管癌不同治疗方式疗效和安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 939-947.
[9] 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.
[10] 王祯延, 邢国圣, 张震, 王朝阳, 马永祥, 乌新林. 中老年直肠癌患者腹腔镜下经自然腔道取标本手术与传统腹部小切口取标本手术的短期疗效及肛门功能对比[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 436-444.
[11] 戴伟川, 郭协力, 蔡文华, 孙敏, 陈英贤, 齐震. 周围神经松解术治疗中-重型尿毒症周围神经病变的疗效评估[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2025, 11(05): 298-306.
[12] 赵雪超, 佟向阳, 刘大诚, 张强. 切开复位内固定术联合不同韧带修复方式治疗踝关节骨折合并下胫腓前韧带断裂的疗效[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(05): 309-314.
[13] 张峥祥, 高龙, 李文. 柴胡疏肝散对胃食管反流病患者的效果及细胞因子、肠道菌群水平的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(06): 590-593.
[14] 李朋娟, 李红阁, 张秦俊. 健脾化湿汤加减治疗脾胃湿热型幽门螺杆菌相关性慢性非萎缩性胃炎的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(06): 599-603.
[15] 王明辉, 李群, 李文波, 王静, 马增翼, 吴文明, 李灵敏, 张保娟, 孙奎林, 刘晓峰. 内镜下组织胶注射在食管静脉曲张喷射性出血的疗效[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(05): 499-503.
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?