ObjectiveTo compare the antireflux effects of lip reinforcement, His angle reconstruction with fundoplication, and mechanical anastomosis only in mechanical anastomosis for esophageal and cardiac carcinoma. MethodsOne hundred and seventysix patients with esophageal or cardiac carcinoma admitted to this hospital between March 2008 and October 2009 were included, which were divided into mechanical anastomosis group (n=42), His angle reconstruction group(n=56), and lip reinforcement group (n=78) according to the sequence of admission. Mechanical anastomosis only, mechanical anastomosis His angle reconstruction with fundoplication, and mechanical anastomosis liptype reinforcement were performed in the corresponding group, respectively. Endoscopy and biopsy were conducted to evaluate the antireflux effects on 3 months after operation. ResultsThere were no differences on the gender, age, tumor location, anastomosis site, and incision among three groups (Pgt;0.05). The reflux rates of the mechanical anastomosis group, His angle reconstruction group, and lip reinforcement group were 69.05%, 28.57%, and 14.10%, respectively. The reflux rates in the lip reinforcement group and His angle reconstruction group were significantly lower than those in the mechanical anastomosis group (χ2=37.088, P=0.000; χ2=15.833, P=0.000), moreover, the rate in the lip reinforcement group was significantly lower than that in the His angle reconstruction group (χ2=4.241, P=0.039). There was no anastomotic leakage in the lip reinforcement group and all patients safely discharged from hospital after surgery, only 2 patients had moderately anastomotic stenosis and both of them had good recovery with endoscopic dilatationl. The reflux after operation was independent of anastomosis sites (Pgt;0.05). ConclusionBoth liptype reinforcement and His angle reconstruction can improve the ability of antireflux, liptype reinforcement is better and simple to mainpulate.
目的:探讨不同手术入路在贲门癌治疗中的临床应用。方法:回顾性分析我院2003年8月至2009年1月期间收治的153例贲门癌患者的临床资料,根据不同手术入路分为经腹组(n=74)、胸腹联合组(n=27)和经胸组(n=52),对3组患者的手术中、术后恢复情况以及随访结果进行对比分析。结果:手术切除率100%,围手术期无死亡病例。经腹组手术时间短于经胸组和胸腹联合组,术中出血量也少于经胸组和胸腹联合组,但差异无统计学意义(Pgt;0.05)。胸腹联合组和经腹组清扫的淋巴结数目明显多于经胸组,差异有统计学意义(Plt;0.05)。经腹组患者术后住院时间和术后并发症发生率明显少于胸腹联合组和经胸组,差异有统计学意义(Plt;0.05)。3组患者的术后局部复发率和远处转移率的差异均无统计学意义(Pgt;0.05),3年和5年生存率的差异也无统计学意义(Pgt;0.05)。结论:经腹贲门癌切除术是安全和有效的,配合吻合器的使用,操作也是可行的。
Abstract: Objective To Evaluate the clinical outcome of gastric tube in radical surgeries to treat esophageal and cardial carcinoma. Methods From January to October 2008, 74 patients with esophageal or cardial carcinoma in Ruijin Hospital were enrolled in our study. Based on the surgical method, they were divided into the gastric tube group and the traditional way group. The gastric tube group had 46 patients, including 36 male patients and 10 female patients, whose age averaged 59.67±9.96 years (36 to 77 years). Among them, 31 patients had esophageal carcinoma with 1 upper, 23 middle and 7 lower esophageal carcinoma, and 15 patients had cardial carcinoma. In this group, 2 patients were treated with anastomosis in the left neck, 19 with anastomosis in the upper aortic arch, 10 with anastomosis in the lower aortic arch and 15 cardial carcinoma patients underwent radical resection. In the traditional way group, there were 28 patients, 25 male patients and 3 female patients, whose age averaged 59.17±11.33 years (37 to 86 years). In these patients, 22 had esophageal carcinoma with 1 in the upper esophagus, 17 in the middle esophagus, 4 in the lower esophagus; and 6 patients had cardial carcinoma. In this group, 2 patients were treated with anastomosis in the left neck , 17 with anastomosis in the upper aortic arch, 3 with anastomosis in the lower aortic arch, and 6 cardial carcinoma patients underwent radical resection. The rate of anastomotic leakage, operation time, and length of stay in hospital of these two groups were observed. Results All surgeries in the two groups were successfully performed. There was no anastomotic leakage case in the gastric tube group, while there were 4 pulmonary infection cases and 1 death case in the traditional way group. There was no statistically difference in the operation time (180.00±10.34 min vs. 185.00±6.23 min, t=1.669, P=0.078) and length of stay in hospital (16.78±9.98 d vs. 16.89±11.53 d, t=1.665, P=0.075) between the gastric tube group and the traditional way group. Conclusion Gastric tube has a good value in clinical application with fewercomplications and without prolonging operation and hospitalization time, which can surely better quality of life of the patients.
【摘要】目的观察负压球在食管癌、贲门癌术后的临床应用价值。方法1999年2009年对观察组食管癌、贲门癌术后使用负压球细管引流,对照组术后使用传统粗胶管水封瓶闭式引流,两组均286例。结果观察组在胸腔积液、第二天镇痛剂应用、引流口感染及术后住院时间等方面与对照组相比差异有统计学意义，而术后脓胸、第一天镇痛剂应用及管腔堵塞等方面与对照组相比无差异。结论负压球细管引流用于食管癌、贲门癌术后胸腔引流,创伤小,效果确切满意。