复旦学报(医学版)
複旦學報(醫學版)
복단학보(의학판)
FUDAN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
2010年
1期
103-105,123
,共4页
郭峰华%罗奋%茅翔%王俊%汪志明
郭峰華%囉奮%茅翔%王俊%汪誌明
곽봉화%라강%모상%왕준%왕지명
无瘤技术%胃癌根治术%全阻断技术
無瘤技術%胃癌根治術%全阻斷技術
무류기술%위암근치술%전조단기술
tumor-free technology%radical gastrectomy%complete-block technology
目的 介绍胃癌全阻断(隔)根治术技术要点及操作规范,并在手术时间、手术费用及术后并发症等方面与传统胃癌根治术比较.方法 选择符合入组标准的胃癌患者30例,随机分为两组:A组行全阻断(隔)胃癌根治术,B组行传统胃癌根治术.分析比较肿瘤部位、完成阻断所需时间、胃肠重建方式比例、手术时间、完成阻断所需耗材费用、术后病理TNM分期、住院时间、术后并发症及术后化疗方案.结果 A组除手术时间长于B组外(P<0.05),两组间其余比较指标均无显著统计学差异.结论 胃癌全阻断(隔)技术可在术中较完全阻隔肿瘤,操作简便,费用低廉,阻断后基本不影响其后的手术操作,术后并发症发生率和住院时间与传统手术无显著统计学差异.
目的 介紹胃癌全阻斷(隔)根治術技術要點及操作規範,併在手術時間、手術費用及術後併髮癥等方麵與傳統胃癌根治術比較.方法 選擇符閤入組標準的胃癌患者30例,隨機分為兩組:A組行全阻斷(隔)胃癌根治術,B組行傳統胃癌根治術.分析比較腫瘤部位、完成阻斷所需時間、胃腸重建方式比例、手術時間、完成阻斷所需耗材費用、術後病理TNM分期、住院時間、術後併髮癥及術後化療方案.結果 A組除手術時間長于B組外(P<0.05),兩組間其餘比較指標均無顯著統計學差異.結論 胃癌全阻斷(隔)技術可在術中較完全阻隔腫瘤,操作簡便,費用低廉,阻斷後基本不影響其後的手術操作,術後併髮癥髮生率和住院時間與傳統手術無顯著統計學差異.
목적 개소위암전조단(격)근치술기술요점급조작규범,병재수술시간、수술비용급술후병발증등방면여전통위암근치술비교.방법 선택부합입조표준적위암환자30례,수궤분위량조:A조행전조단(격)위암근치술,B조행전통위암근치술.분석비교종류부위、완성조단소수시간、위장중건방식비례、수술시간、완성조단소수모재비용、술후병리TNM분기、주원시간、술후병발증급술후화료방안.결과 A조제수술시간장우B조외(P<0.05),량조간기여비교지표균무현저통계학차이.결론 위암전조단(격)기술가재술중교완전조격종류,조작간편,비용저렴,조단후기본불영향기후적수술조작,술후병발증발생솔화주원시간여전통수술무현저통계학차이.
Objective To introduce the techniques and specification of complete-block radical gastrectomy, and to compare with traditional radical gastrectomy in the operative time, surgical costs and postoperative complications. Methods Thirty gastric cancer patients meet the criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A: complete-block radical gastrectomy;group B: radical gastrectomy. Analysis and comparison were made on tumor site, time consuming of block, the proportion of gastrointestinal reconstruction, operative time, cost of block, pathological TNM stage, length of stay, postoperative complications and postoperative chemotherapy. Results Group A has longer operative time than group B (P<0.05). However, there was no significant statistical difference in the other indicators between these 2 groups. Conclusions Complete-block technology can separate cancer more completely during operation with the advantage of simplicity, low-cost, little effect on the subsequent operation. The incidence of postoperative complications and length of stay with the traditional surgery there was no significant difference.