中华胃肠外科杂志
中華胃腸外科雜誌
중화위장외과잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
2011年
6期
422-424
,共3页
刘贤明%王存川%胡友主%杨景哥%黄璟%丁晖%李进义%潘运龙%沈莹莹%俞春亮%喻海波
劉賢明%王存川%鬍友主%楊景哥%黃璟%丁暉%李進義%潘運龍%瀋瑩瑩%俞春亮%喻海波
류현명%왕존천%호우주%양경가%황경%정휘%리진의%반운룡%침형형%유춘량%유해파
腹腔镜%肥胖症%胃旁路术%胃空肠吻合术
腹腔鏡%肥胖癥%胃徬路術%胃空腸吻閤術
복강경%비반증%위방로술%위공장문합술
Laparoscopy%Obesity%Gastric bypass%Gastroenteric anastomosis
目的 比较腹腔镜Roux-en-Y胃旁路术(LRYGB)治疗肥胖症术中结肠前与结肠后两种胃空肠吻合术式的疗效差异.方法 前瞻性地将2008年3月至2010年7月暨南大学附属第一医院收治的40例肥胖症患者按随机数字表法分为结肠前组(20例)和结肠后组(20例).比较两种术式术中、术后恢复情况及短期消化道症状.结果 所有病例均顺利完成手术,两组术中失血量、术后排气时间、进食半流时间及术后住院时间方面的差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);但结肠后组手术时间明显长于结肠前组[(163.4±28.1)min比(131.8±22.7)min,P<0.05].两组均未出现腹内疝及吻合口瘘等并发症;术后3个月,两组患者消化道症状的差异亦无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 尽管LRYGB结肠后胃空肠吻合更加符合生理结构,但在术后短期疗效上结肠前与结肠后吻合术相当,其远期效果有待进一步研究证实.
目的 比較腹腔鏡Roux-en-Y胃徬路術(LRYGB)治療肥胖癥術中結腸前與結腸後兩種胃空腸吻閤術式的療效差異.方法 前瞻性地將2008年3月至2010年7月暨南大學附屬第一醫院收治的40例肥胖癥患者按隨機數字錶法分為結腸前組(20例)和結腸後組(20例).比較兩種術式術中、術後恢複情況及短期消化道癥狀.結果 所有病例均順利完成手術,兩組術中失血量、術後排氣時間、進食半流時間及術後住院時間方麵的差異均無統計學意義(均P>0.05);但結腸後組手術時間明顯長于結腸前組[(163.4±28.1)min比(131.8±22.7)min,P<0.05].兩組均未齣現腹內疝及吻閤口瘺等併髮癥;術後3箇月,兩組患者消化道癥狀的差異亦無統計學意義(P>0.05).結論 儘管LRYGB結腸後胃空腸吻閤更加符閤生理結構,但在術後短期療效上結腸前與結腸後吻閤術相噹,其遠期效果有待進一步研究證實.
목적 비교복강경Roux-en-Y위방로술(LRYGB)치료비반증술중결장전여결장후량충위공장문합술식적료효차이.방법 전첨성지장2008년3월지2010년7월기남대학부속제일의원수치적40례비반증환자안수궤수자표법분위결장전조(20례)화결장후조(20례).비교량충술식술중、술후회복정황급단기소화도증상.결과 소유병례균순리완성수술,량조술중실혈량、술후배기시간、진식반류시간급술후주원시간방면적차이균무통계학의의(균P>0.05);단결장후조수술시간명현장우결장전조[(163.4±28.1)min비(131.8±22.7)min,P<0.05].량조균미출현복내산급문합구루등병발증;술후3개월,량조환자소화도증상적차이역무통계학의의(P>0.05).결론 진관LRYGB결장후위공장문합경가부합생리결구,단재술후단기료효상결장전여결장후문합술상당,기원기효과유대진일보연구증실.
Objective To compare short-term postoperative outcomes between antecolic and retrocolic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYCB). Methods Forty obesity patients were admitted into The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University from March 2008 to July 2010. All patients were randomly assigned to undergo antecolic (group A, 20 cases) and retrocolic (group B, 20 cases) gastroenteric anastomosis. Short-term outcomes were compared. Results LRYGB procedures were successfully performed in all the 40 patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in estimated blood loss during surgery, time to flatus passage, time to resumption of oral intake, or length of postoperative hospital stay. The operation time was longer in group B than that in group A[(163.4±8.1) min vs.(131.8±2.7) min, P<0.05]. There were no patients developed internal hernia or anastomotic leakage in either group. Comparison of short-term gastrointestinal symptoms after surgery showed no statistical significance.Conclusions Although retrocolic procedure may be closer to anatomical structure, antecolic and retrocolic anastomosis have comparable short-term outcomes after surgery. Further study is warranted to investigate long-term outcomes.
