中国现代医生
中國現代醫生
중국현대의생
CHINA MODERN DOCTOR
2015年
12期
12-15
,共4页
腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术(TLRP)%经腹腔途径%开放性手术%并发症
腹腔鏡下前列腺癌根治術(TLRP)%經腹腔途徑%開放性手術%併髮癥
복강경하전렬선암근치술(TLRP)%경복강도경%개방성수술%병발증
Laparoscopic radical resection of prostate cancer (TLRP)%Transperitoneal%Open operation%Complications
目的：对比分析经腹腔途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术(TLRP)与开放性手术的治疗效果。方法对来我院诊治的80例前列腺癌患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析，其中腹腔镜组40例行经腹腔途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术，对照组40例行开放性前列腺癌根治术，记录并比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后肠功能恢复时间、术后住院时间及并发症情况。结果腹腔镜组手术时间为(326.9±63.5)min，显著长于对照组；腹腔镜组术中出血量达(390.2±67.8)mL，显著少于对照组(P<0.01)；腹腔镜组术后肠功能恢复时间为(3.12±0.51)d，显著短于对照组，腹腔镜组住院时间为(8.2±1.3)d，显著短于对照组，差异有显著性(P<0.05)。腹腔镜组术后并发症发生率为10.0%，显著低于对照组的25.0%，差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论经腹腔途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术(TLRP)和开放性手术均为治疗前列腺癌的有效方法，但经腹腔途径腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术(TLRP)较开放性手术更具优势，并发症少，值得广泛推广和应用。
目的：對比分析經腹腔途徑腹腔鏡下前列腺癌根治術(TLRP)與開放性手術的治療效果。方法對來我院診治的80例前列腺癌患者的臨床資料進行迴顧性分析，其中腹腔鏡組40例行經腹腔途徑腹腔鏡下前列腺癌根治術，對照組40例行開放性前列腺癌根治術，記錄併比較兩組患者的手術時間、術中齣血量、術後腸功能恢複時間、術後住院時間及併髮癥情況。結果腹腔鏡組手術時間為(326.9±63.5)min，顯著長于對照組；腹腔鏡組術中齣血量達(390.2±67.8)mL，顯著少于對照組(P<0.01)；腹腔鏡組術後腸功能恢複時間為(3.12±0.51)d，顯著短于對照組，腹腔鏡組住院時間為(8.2±1.3)d，顯著短于對照組，差異有顯著性(P<0.05)。腹腔鏡組術後併髮癥髮生率為10.0%，顯著低于對照組的25.0%，差異有顯著性(P<0.05)。結論經腹腔途徑腹腔鏡下前列腺癌根治術(TLRP)和開放性手術均為治療前列腺癌的有效方法，但經腹腔途徑腹腔鏡下前列腺癌根治術(TLRP)較開放性手術更具優勢，併髮癥少，值得廣汎推廣和應用。
목적：대비분석경복강도경복강경하전렬선암근치술(TLRP)여개방성수술적치료효과。방법대래아원진치적80례전렬선암환자적림상자료진행회고성분석，기중복강경조40례행경복강도경복강경하전렬선암근치술，대조조40례행개방성전렬선암근치술，기록병비교량조환자적수술시간、술중출혈량、술후장공능회복시간、술후주원시간급병발증정황。결과복강경조수술시간위(326.9±63.5)min，현저장우대조조；복강경조술중출혈량체(390.2±67.8)mL，현저소우대조조(P<0.01)；복강경조술후장공능회복시간위(3.12±0.51)d，현저단우대조조，복강경조주원시간위(8.2±1.3)d，현저단우대조조，차이유현저성(P<0.05)。복강경조술후병발증발생솔위10.0%，현저저우대조조적25.0%，차이유현저성(P<0.05)。결론경복강도경복강경하전렬선암근치술(TLRP)화개방성수술균위치료전렬선암적유효방법，단경복강도경복강경하전렬선암근치술(TLRP)교개방성수술경구우세，병발증소，치득엄범추엄화응용。
Objective To compare and analyze the effect of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TL RP) and open operation. Methods The clinical data of 80 cases of prostate cancer in our hospital were analyzed retrospec-tively, including 40 cases of laparoscopic group with transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, 40 cases of control group with open prostate cancer,the operation time, bleeding, the operation quantity, postoperative intestinal function recovery time, postoperative hospitalization time and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results The operation time of laparoscopic group was (326.9±63.5) min, was significantly longer than the control group; the amount of bleeding in laparoscopic operation group was reached (390.2±67.8)mL, significantly less than the control group (P<0.01); the laparoscopic group postoperative intestinal function recovery time was (3.12±0.51) days, was significantly shorter than that in the control group, the hospitalization time of laparoscopic patients (8.2±1.3) days, was significantly shorter than that in control group, com pared with control group, the difference was significant (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications of la paroscopic was 10.0%, significantly lower than the incidence of postoperative complications in 25.0% of control group, the difference was significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TLRP) and open operation are the effective methods for treating prostate cancer, but the transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TLRP) has more advantages com-pared with open operation, fewer complications, and is worthy of popularization and application.
