CAJ | 학술논문

目的：对比不同手术方式治疗食道癌的效果及卫生经济学情况。方法选择食道癌患者50例，根据随机抽签原则分为治疗组与对照组各25例。治疗组采用胸腔镜辅助食管癌根治术，对照组选择传统三切口食管癌根治术。结果所有患者都顺利完成手术，治疗组的手术时间、术中出血量与术后住院时间少于对照组，而住院费用与对照组对比差异无统计学意义。结论相对于常规三切口食管癌根治术，胸腔镜辅助食管癌根治术具有更好的微创特点，同时并不增加住院费用。
목적：대비불동수술방식치료식도암적효과급위생경제학정황。방법선택식도암환자50례，근거수궤추첨원칙분위치료조여대조조각25례。치료조채용흉강경보조식관암근치술，대조조선택전통삼절구식관암근치술。결과소유환자도순리완성수술，치료조적수술시간、술중출혈량여술후주원시간소우대조조，이주원비용여대조조대비차이무통계학의의。결론상대우상규삼절구식관암근치술，흉강경보조식관암근치술구유경호적미창특점，동시병불증가주원비용。
Objective To compare health economics and the effect of different operation mode in treatment of esophageal cancer.Methods50 cases of esophageal cancer patients were divided randomly into treatment group and control group, 25 cases each. Treatment group adopted thoracos copic esophageal cancer resection,control group received traditional three-incision esophageal carcinoma radical resection. ResultsOperation time, intraoperative bleeding volume and postoperative hospitalization time in treatment group were obviously less than those of control group, there had no statistical signiifcance in hospitalization expenses compared with control group.Conclusion Thoracoscopic esophageal cancer resection has better minimally invasive characteristics,and it didn’t increase hospitalization expenses. It’s worth popularizing and applying.