Clinical efficacy and safety of two types of complete mesocolic excision(CME) in the treatment of right colon cancer

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2019.03.020

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of two types of complete mesocolic excision(CME) in the treatment of right colon cancer.

Methods

75 patients with right colon carcinoma were collected, and were divided into LCME group (n=36) and OCME group (n=39). Research data were analyzed by SPSS20.0 statistical software. The data during and after operation were expressed by (±s), and compared with Independent t test between the two groups, χ² test was used to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. P<0.05 was regarded to be statistically significant.

Results

No significant differences were observed in operative time, postoperative complications, and number of lymph node dissection. The amount of bleeding, the time of postoperative anal exhaust, and first time of postoperative eating in LCME group were significantly lower than those in OCME group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic CME of right colon cancer is better for postoperative recovery of patients, with safer and more effective characteristics, and can be the perfect surgical operation.

Key words: Colonic neoplasms, Laparoscopy, Treatment outcome, Safety

Yue Pu, Huiyi Wang, Liang Chen. Clinical efficacy and safety of two types of complete mesocolic excision(CME) in the treatment of right colon cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 276-278.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhpwkssxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2019.03.020

https://zhpwkssxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I03/276

Figures/Tables 3

References 11

[1]	刘晓雪，宇传华，周薇，等. 中国近30年间结直肠癌死亡趋势分析[J]. 中国癌症杂志，2018, 28(3)：177-183.
[2]	詹天成，张大奎，彭亦凡，等. 国内单中心1321例结直肠癌预后的临床分析[J]. 实用肿瘤杂志，2016, 31(4): 353-356.
[3]	李世拥，陈纲，杜峻峰，等. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的临床疗效分析[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志：电子版，2015, 9(1): 28-30.
[4]	郑民华. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志：电子版，2015，9(1): 23-23.
[5]	乐金堂，潘建斌. 腹腔镜辅助与开腹手术行右半结肠切除术的疗效比较[J]. 中国医药指南，2016, 14(16)：32-33.
[6]	高明，王存川，杨景哥，等．完全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助右半结肠切除术治疗结肠癌的临床疗效对比[J]. 中国微创外科杂志，2015, 15(4): 314-317.
[7]	Bae SU, Saklani AP, Lim DR, et al. Laparoscopic－assisted versus open complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation for right－sided colon cancer[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2014, 21(7): 2288-2294.
[8]	Han DP, Lu AG, Feng H, et al.Long－term outcome of laparoscopic－assisted right－hemicolectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy versus open surgery for colon carcinoma [J]. Surg Today, 2014, 44(5): 868-874.
[9]	姚明军，刘德忠．完整结肠系膜切除术治疗结肠癌患者疗效和预后分析[J]. 中华肿瘤防治杂志，2016, 23(23)：1572-1574.
[10]	涂建成，陶磊，张伯，等．全腹腔镜下三步法右半结肠癌根治术近期疗效观察[J]. 交通医学，2016, 30(2): 181-183.
[11]	崔勇，姚震旦，杨宏，等. 腹腔镜与开腹全结肠系膜切除术治疗右半结肠癌疗效比较[J]. 中华普通外科杂志，2016, 31(2)：155-156.

组别	例数	年龄(岁)	性别	肿瘤位置(例)	临床分期
组别	例数	年龄(岁)	男/女	盲肠/升结肠/肝曲	Ⅰ/Ⅱ/Ⅲ
LCME组	36	58.1±8.7	22/14	8/16/12	3/15/18
OCME组	39	58.9±7.0	23/16	6/20/13	5/17/17
t/χ²值	?	0.440	0.036	0.457	0.543
P值	?	0.661	0.850	0.499	0.461

组别	例数	年龄(岁)	性别	肿瘤位置(例)	临床分期
组别	例数	年龄(岁)	男/女	盲肠/升结肠/肝曲	Ⅰ/Ⅱ/Ⅲ
LCME组	36	58.1±8.7	22/14	8/16/12	3/15/18
OCME组	39	58.9±7.0	23/16	6/20/13	5/17/17
t/χ²值	?	0.440	0.036	0.457	0.543
P值	?	0.661	0.850	0.499	0.461

组别	手术时间(min)	术中出血量(ml)	清除淋巴结数(枚)	首次排气时间(d)	首次进食时间(d)
LCME组	180±32	56.1±24.1	14.3±3.9	6.2±2.0	3.0±1.2
OCME组	186±28	98.9±42.2	13.8±3.3	7.4±2.2	3.7±1.4
t值	－0.866	－5.334	0.601	－2.465	－2.316
P值	0.389	0.000	0.550	0.016	0.023

组别	手术时间(min)	术中出血量(ml)	清除淋巴结数(枚)	首次排气时间(d)	首次进食时间(d)
LCME组	180±32	56.1±24.1	14.3±3.9	6.2±2.0	3.0±1.2
OCME组	186±28	98.9±42.2	13.8±3.3	7.4±2.2	3.7±1.4
t值	－0.866	－5.334	0.601	－2.465	－2.316
P值	0.389	0.000	0.550	0.016	0.023

组别	例数	吻合口漏	骶前出血	输尿管损伤	造口坏死	总计(%)
LCME组	36	2	2	1	1	6(16.7)
OCME组	39	3	2	2	1	8(20.5)
χ²值	?	?	?	?	?	0.182
P值	?	?	?	?	?	0.669

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export