目的 探讨手助腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术的技术路线。方法 笔者所在科室于2011年10月17日完成1例手助腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术。术中采用术者双侧站位、左右侧对称戳孔的策略，站立于患者右侧，游离胃网膜左血管和胃左血管，包括清扫No.7、No.8和No.9淋巴结；站立于患者左侧，游离十二指肠环和清扫下腔静脉旁淋巴结。经手助切口直视下完成消化道重建。结果 上腹部正中手术切口长7cm；手术时间为420min；术中出血量约600ml。术后病理报告：送检胃、十二指肠和胰腺标本，十二指肠球部低级别神经内分泌癌，浸润至深肌层，胃及胰腺未受累；两端切缘未见癌细胞，肝十二指肠韧带淋巴结未见癌转移（0/2）；慢性胆囊炎。手术后患者生命体征平稳，术后第5天肛门排气，第7天排便。术后发生腹腔积液并感染，经保守治疗治愈。术后28d出院。结论 术者双侧站位、左右对称戳孔是手助腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术的新模式，安全、可行、微创，值得进一步探索。
【摘要】 目的 研究腹腔镜行进展期胃癌根治术较传统开腹手术在围手术期临床和生化指标的变化，进一步探讨其临床应用的优越性。 方法 采用统一入组标准、同期临床对比研究方法，对2010年1-12月腹腔镜手术组和开腹手术组完成的112例进展期胃癌根治术患者在围手术期临床指标和生化指标的比较分析，其中腹腔镜手术组59例，开腹手术组53例。 结果 腹腔镜组手术切口长度为（5.77±0.74） cm，开腹手术组为（12.05±1.30） cm，组间差异有统计学意义（t=-30.921，P=0.000）；腹腔镜组术中失血量为（107.20±27.23） mL，开腹手术组为（168.87±96.76） mL，组间差异有统计学意义（t=-4.483，P=0.000）；腹腔镜组术后住院时间为（7.19±0.97） d，开腹手术组为（8.32±1.16） d，组间差异有统计学意义（t=-5.634，P=0.000）；腹腔镜组手术时间为（202.12±15.71） min，开腹手术组为（196.32±16.73） min，组间差异无统计学意义（t=1.891，P=0.061）；腹腔镜组清扫淋巴结枚数（14.15±4.51）枚，开腹手术组（15.25±5.17）枚，组间差异无统计学意义（t=0.736，P=0.471）；腹腔镜组肠功能恢复时间为（57.88±9.70） h，开腹手术组为（59.16±10.82） h，组间差异无统计学意义（t=-0.655，P=0.514）。两组前白蛋白和血红蛋白水平差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）。 结论 进展期胃癌行腹腔镜手术与传统开腹手术比较，并不加重患者创伤反应，也不增加手术并发症，具有手术切口小、术中出血少、术后恢复快等优点。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the differences between laparoscopy and open surgery for treating advanced gastric cancer in peri-operative clinical and biochemical indexes, in order to investigate the superiority of laparoscopy in treating the disease. Methods The same including standards and double-blind randomized control study were carried out to compare the peri-operative clinical and biochemical indexes of 112 patients who underwent radical treatment for advanced gastric cancer from January to December 2010. Among them, 59 patients were included in the laparoscopic group, and 53 in the traditional open operation group. Results Compared with the open surgery group, the incision length [(5.77±0.74) cm vs. (12.05±1.30) cm; t=-30.921, P=0.000], intraoperational blood loss [(107.20±27.23) mL vs. (168.87±96.76) mL; t=-4.483, P=0.000] and hospital stay time [(7.19±0.97) days vs. (8.32±1.16) days; t=-5.634, P=0.000] were significantly shorter or lower in the laparoscopic group. However, the operation time [(202.12±15.71) minutes vs. (196.32±16.73) minutes; t=1.891, P=0.061], number of lymph nodes removed (14.15±4.51 vs. 15.25±5.17; t=0.736, P=0.471), and intestinal functioning time [(57.88±9.70) hours vs. (59.16±10.82) hours; t=-0.655, P=0.514] were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the level of prealbumin and hemoglobin. Conclusion Compared with the traditional open operation, laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer has obvious advantages including smaller incision, lower blood loss during the operation, and fast recovery, without aggravating patients′ traumatic response or increasing the incidence of operational complications.
Objective To explore the applying value of laparoscopic partial gastrectomy for gastric stromal tumors. Methods The clinical data of 22 patients with gastric stromal tumors between July 2007 and December 2009 in this hospital were analyzed retrospectively. And the laparoscopic resection was performed in all the patients. Results The laparoscopic resections were performed successfully in all the patients, and the tumors were completely resected. The length of operative incision on abdominal wall was 4－6 cm with average 5.3 cm. The mean operation time was 70 min. Postoperative recovery was smooth, no procedure related complications happened. The mean hospital stay was 7.2 d. Specimens of 20 cases were with CD117 (+), and 15 with CD34 (+) by immunohistochemistry. No recurrence or metastasis happened with average follow-up of 13 months (2－23 months). Conclusion Laparoscopic partial gastrectomy for gastric stromal tumors could be performed safely, postoperative recovery quickly and effectively with the advantage of minimal invasiveness.
ObjectiveTo explore the early diagnosis and treatment of acute non-tumor perforation of the back wall of ascending colon. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 17 patients with acute non-tumor perforation of the back wall of ascending colon treated between July 2007 and April 2014 in our hospital. Among them, 8 patients who underwent perforation repair combined with abdominal cavity drainage were regarded as the experimental group, and the other 9 patients who underwent operation of right hemicolectomy (or ascending colon resection) were designated as the control group. Clinical indexes and biochemical indexes of both the two groups were compared and analyzed. ResultsAll patients were cured. The operation time[(74.20±12.45), (120.23±15.20) minutes; t=-3.224, P<0.001], the intraoperative blood loss[(40.24±12.20), (80.69±18.98) mL; t=-4.114, P<0.001], the postoperative anal exhaust[(75.62±6.56), (84.54±7.82) hours; t=1.108, P=0.037], the medical expenses[(18.2±5.7) thousand yuan, (26.5±8.3) thousand yuan; t=-5.556, P<0.001], and the hypersensitive C-reaction protein on the third day after operation[(89.45±8.98), (99.85±10.78) mg/L; t=-3.004, P=0.029] in the experimental group and the control group all had significant differences. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the hospital stay time[(9.80±3.16), (9.81±3.20) days; t=1.501, P=0.080]. There was one case of incision infection in the experimental group and one case of fat liquefaction of incision in the control group, and both of them were cured after treatment. ConclusionThe early abdominal sign of perforation of the back wall of ascending colon is not obvious, which can easily lead to misdiagnosis as acute appendicitis. Early diagnosis mainly depends on the clinical symptom, vital sign, blood routine examination and CT examination. Among them, CT findings of gaseous sign behind peritoneum is a definite diagnosis, and operation should be arranged as early as possible. Perforation repair combined with abdominal cavity drainage is preferred due to its advantages of being simple, saving time, less bleeding and lighter traumatic reaction.
ObjectiveTo explore feasibility and advantages of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical resection for remnant gastric cancer. MethodsThe clinical data of 26 patients with remnant gastric cancer who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic (hand-assisted group, n=13) or open (open group, n=13) radical resection from December 2007 to May 2016 in this hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The perioperative outcomes were compared between these two groups. ResultsThere was no conversion to open surgery in the hand-assisted group. Compared with the open group, the incision length was significantly reduced (P=0.000), the intraoperative blood loss was significantly decreased (P=0.038), postoperative the first anal exhaust time was significantly shortened (P=0.025) in the hand-assisted group. The operation time, the number of lymph nodes dissection, and the incidence of postoperative complications had no statistically significant differences between these two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThe preliminary results of limited cases in this study show that hand-assisted laparoscopic radical resection for remnant gastric cancer is safe and feasible, it has several advantages including small incisions, mild intraoperative hemorrhage, rapid postoperative recovery, better recent clinical therapeutic outcome and so on as compared with open surgery.
Objective To evaluate the clinical application of hand assisted laparoscopic radical surgery for gastric cancer. Methods From June 2010 to September 2011，a series of 51 patients were undertook hand assisted laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy （hand assisted group），49 patients were undertook laparoscopic assisted D2 gastrectomy （laparoscopic group），the secure indexes of surgery effect in perioperative period were compared betwee two groups. Results The incision length was （6.82±0.33） cm and （5.74±1.11） cm （t=6.57，P=0.00），numbers of harvested lymph nodes were 16.10±5.11 and 14.16±3.60 （t=2.18，P=0.03），intraoperative bleeding was （249.40±123.40） ml and （251.00±90.40） ml （t=-0.74，P=0.94），operation time was （177.7±23.8） min and （188.1±16.9） min （t=-2.53，P=0.01），postoperative hospital stay was （11.12±5.02） d and （10.88±3.13） d （t=0.29，P=0.78） in the hand assisted group and in the laparoscopic group，respectively. One case of gastric atony happened in the hand assisted group，one case of gastric atony and incision infection happened in the laparoscopic group. No mortality case was found in two groups. Conclusions Hand assisted laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy is less difficult，and shorter operation time，and considerable treatment effection as compared with laparoscopic operation.
ObjectiveTo analyze short-term outcomes of hand assisted laparoscopic (HAL) D2 radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer and summarize clinical experiences. MethodsThe clinical data of 199 patients with gastric cancer undergoing D2 radical distal gastrectomy from December 2010 to December 2013 in this hospital were analyzed. HAL (HAL group, n=92) and traditonal open (TO group, n=107) D2 radical distal gastrectomy were performed. The operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications were compared between these two groups. ResultsThere was no residue of cancer cells at the surgical margin in the HAL group and the TO group. Compared with the TO group, the average incision length was obviously shorter (P < 0.01) and the average intraoperative blood loss was obviously less (P < 0.05) in the HAL group. The average operation time, the average number of lymph nodes harvested, and the average postoperative hospital stay had no significant differences between the HAL group and the TO group (P > 0.05). One case was died of unknown gastrointestinal bleeding in the HAL group and the TO group, respectively. The postoperative complication rate was 9.78% (9/92) in the HAL group and 11.21% (12/107) in the TO group, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). ConclusionsHAL D2 radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer don't increase operation time. It has some advantages of minimal invasion and safety as compared with traditional open surgery.