[1]孙振普,张建生,冯福梅,等.不同入路腹腔镜胃癌根治术对胃癌患者胃肠功能障碍及肿瘤标志物水平的影响[J].医学信息,2023,36(21):110-113.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.21.025]
　SUN Zhen-pu,ZHANG Jian-sheng,FENG Fu-mei,et al.Effects of Different Approaches of Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy on Gastrointestinal Dysfunction and Tumor Markers in Patients with Gastric Cancer[J].Journal of Medical Information,2023,36(21):110-113.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.21.025]
点击复制

不同入路腹腔镜胃癌根治术对胃癌患者胃肠功能障碍及肿瘤标志物水平的影响()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
36卷
期数:
2023年21期
页码:
110-113
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2023-11-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Effects of Different Approaches of Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy on Gastrointestinal Dysfunction and Tumor Markers in Patients with Gastric Cancer
文章编号:
1006-1959（2023）21-0110-04
作者:
孙振普; 张建生; 冯福梅; 等
（天津市宝坻区人民医院胃肠外科，天津 301800）
Author(s):
SUN Zhen-pu; ZHANG Jian-sheng; FENG Fu-mei; et al.
(Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery,Tianjin Baodi District People’s Hospital,Tianjin 301800,China)
关键词:
腹腔镜胃癌根治术; 左侧后入路; 胃肠功能; 肿瘤标志物
Keywords:
Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy; Left posterior approach; Gastrointestinal function; Tumor markers
分类号:
R735.2
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2023.21.025
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 分析不同入路腹腔镜胃癌根治术（LG）对胃癌患者胃肠功能障碍及肿瘤标志物水平的影响。方法 以2020年1月-2022年6月天津市宝坻区人民医院行LG治疗的100例胃癌患者为研究对象，按照随机数字表法分为前入路组（50例）与后入路组（50例）。前入路组选择右侧前入路LG方案，后入路组则采用左侧后入路LG方案，比较两组手术指标（手术时间、术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数目）、术后胃肠恢复指标（肠鸣音恢复时间、排气时间、进食恢复时间）、胃肠功能障碍[胃肠道症状评定量表（GSRS）]、肿瘤标志物水平[癌胚抗原（CEA）、糖类抗原125（CA125）、糖类抗原19-9（CA19-9）]、术后并发症发生率。结果 前入路组手术时间短于后入路组，术中出血量少于后入路组，淋巴结清扫数目大于后入路组（P＜0.05）；前入路组肠鸣音恢复时间、排气时间、进食恢复时间短于后入路组，且术后GSRS评分低于后入路组（P＜0.05）；两组术后CEA、CA125、CA19-9水平均低于术前，且前入路组CEA、CA125、CA19-9水平低于后入路组（P＜0.05）；两组术后并发症发生率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 相较于左侧后入路，经右侧前入路行LG治疗手术时间更短、术中出血更少、淋巴清扫效果更好，可有效改善患者的胃肠功能障碍，缩短其胃肠道恢复时间，并降低其血清肿瘤标志物水平，二者手术并发症风险相似。
Abstract:
Objective To analyze the effects of different approaches of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LG) on gastrointestinal dysfunction and tumor markers in patients with gastric cancer.Methods A total of 100 patients with gastric cancer who underwent LG treatment in Tianjin Baodi District People’s Hospital from January 2020 to June 2022 were divided into anterior approach group (50 patients) and posterior approach group (50 patients) according to the random number table method. The right anterior approach LG scheme was selected in the anterior approach group, and the left posterior approach LG scheme was used in the posterior approach group. The surgical indicators (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection), postoperative gastrointestinal recovery indicators (bowel sound recovery time, exhaust time, eating recovery time), gastrointestinal dysfunction [gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS)], tumor marker levels [carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9)], and the incidence of postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results The operation time of the anterior approach group was shorter than that of the posterior approach group, the intraoperative blood loss was less than that of the posterior approach group, and the number of lymph node dissection was greater than that of the posterior approach group (P<0.05). The recovery time of bowel sounds, exhaust time and eating recovery time in the anterior approach group were shorter than those in the posterior approach group, and the postoperative GSRS score was lower than that in the posterior approach group (P<0.05). The levels of CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 in the two groups were lower than those before operation, and the levels of CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 in the anterior approach group were lower than those in the posterior approach group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with the left posterior approach, the operation time of LG via the right anterior approach is shorter, the intraoperative bleeding is less, and the lymph node dissection effect is better, which can significantly improve the gastrointestinal dysfunction of patients, shorten their gastrointestinal recovery time, and reduce their serum tumor marker levels. While, the risk of surgical complications is similar between the two approaches.

参考文献/References:

[1]陈阿红,周小安,花睿.血清CRP与肿瘤标志物检测在消化道恶性肿瘤诊断中的价值[J].检验医学与临床,2022,19(11):1502-1504,1509.[2]代梦霜,张凤,贾婷婷,等.腹腔镜胃癌根治术对胃癌患者能量代谢外周血T细胞亚群和患者肠屏障功能机体炎性应激水平和免疫功能的影响[J].河北医学,2021,27(7):1186-1191.[3]康建文,王瑞智.腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌患者的近期疗效及对腹腔内微转移的影响[J].中国药物与临床,2020,20(15):2556-2557.[4]刘贤,胥彬,徐竹林,等.腹腔镜“三点两面法”入路对胃癌根治术患者围术期指标及术后并发症的影响[J].实用癌症杂志,2020,35(7):1126-1129.[5]刘广杰,黄凯,姜朋朋,等.网膜囊外入路全腹腔镜胃癌根治术对患者围术期指标、胃肠功能恢复及并发症的影响[J].中华保健医学杂志,2019,21(6):545-548.[6]中华医学会外科学分会腹腔镜与内镜外科学组.腹腔镜胃癌根治术手术入路选择专家共识[J].中国实用外科杂志,2017,37(4):412-414.[7]Ajani JA,D’Amico TA,Almhanna K,et al.Gastric Cancer, Version 3.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology[J].J Natl Compr Canc Netw,2016,14(10):1286-1312.[8]陈勇,马爱宁,孙力.网膜囊外入路全腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌患者的疗效观察[J].实用临床医药杂志,2019,23(13):67-70.[9]薛满,雷海锋,刘安选.腹腔镜胃癌根治术对胃癌患者血清血红素加氧酶-1和肿瘤坏死因子-α及C反应蛋白的影响[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复,2019,26(5):551-554.[10]贺志强,裴明祥,么甲超,等.腹腔镜胃癌根治术对胃癌患者术后全身与局部炎性因子变化及免疫学分析[J].实用癌症杂志,2018,33(11):1834-1837.[11]闵江,钱昆,吴晓醒,等.腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术中经右侧胰腺上方胃系膜完整切除的技巧与疗效分析[J].中华医学杂志,2018,98(42):3433-3436.[12]田浩,魏微微,张雪梅,等.腹腔镜胃癌根治术对胃癌患者机体能量代谢及胃肠激素的影响[J].实用医学杂志,2018,34(20):3426-3429.[13]张广坛,宋玉成,张学东.网膜囊外入路和内入路在手助腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术中的对比研究[J].中华普通外科杂志,2018,33(10):809-812.[14]江永强,曹辉,姜宝,等.腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术应用于进展期胃癌的疗效分析[J].中国普外基础与临床杂志,2019,26(9):1087-1092.[15]叶善翱,熊文俊,王玉颖,等.完全左侧入路腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术的临床疗效分析[J].中国普通外科杂志,2018,27(10):1320-1325.[16]梁小娥,邵燕,李娜,等.腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术不同入路方式治疗胃癌的近期疗效对比观察[J].现代消化及介入诊疗,2018,23(5):665-667.[17]刘晶晶,乔小放,徐华,等.438例以胰腺被膜为指引胰腺上区入路行腹腔镜胃癌根治术的临床疗效[J].中华消化外科杂志,2017,16(8):828-831.[18]惠广学,李辉,郝学凤.腹腔镜“三点两面法”入路在胃癌根治术中的临床应用[J].中国现代普通外科进展,2018,21(6):437-440.[19]杨建,陈小军.不同入路方案在Ⅲc期近端残胃癌患者外科手术中的应用效果[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复,2018,25(3):295-297.[20]肖毅频,熊璐琪,钟晓华,等.腹腔镜胃癌根治术对进展期胃癌患者腹腔冲洗液CEA、DDC浓度及炎性因子影响研究[J].临床和实验医学杂志,2018,17(9):986-990.

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01