Lin Chen, Zhang Zaizhong, Wang Yu, Huang Sheng, Wang Lie, Wang Bing
Department of General Surgery, Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command, Fuzhou 350025, China.
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2014 May;17(5):469-72.
To compare the efficacy between continuous negative pressure-flush through extraperitoneal dual tube and conventional drainage in the treatment and prevention for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer.
Clinical data of 627 rectal cancer patients undergoing low anterior resection by the same surgical team from January 2007 to March 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Of 627 patients, 370 received self-made easy extraperitoneal dual tube which was placed in the dorsal site of an anastomosis for drainage (dual tube group), and the other 257 received conventional drainage tube from abdominal cavity (convention group) prophylactically. The incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage, reoperation rate, drainage tube indwelling duration, hospitalization duration, hospitalization expense, quality of life score, incidence of anastomotic stricture within 6 months after operation were compared between the two groups.
Anastomotic leakage after low Dixon operation was found in 25 cases (4.0%, 25/627), including 14 cases (3.8%, 14/370) in dual tube group, and 11 cases (4.3%, 11/257) in convention group, and the difference was not statistically significant. After anastomotic leakage occurrence, all the patients in dual tube group were managed by continuous negative pressure (50 mmHg)-flush through another self-made easy intra-rectal dual tube without reoperation, while 5 patients in conventional group underwent operation again because of treatment failure with continuous negative pressure-flush through intra-rectal dual tube for half a month. Drainage tube indwelling duration was (9.7±2.7) d and (16.4±3.6) d, hospitalization duration was (15.7±4.3) d and (21.5±6.4) d, hospitalization expenses was (42 470±3190) Yuan and (53 480±5630) Yuan in dual tube group and conventional group respectively, the differences were all statistically significant (all P<0.05). Quality of life on the 15th day of anastomotic leakage treatment was significantly better in dual tube group as compared to conventional group (P<0.05).
Though continuous negative pressure-flush through extraperitoneal dual tube can not decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer patients after low anterior resection, it may increase the successful rate of conservative therapy, decrease the reoperation rate, and improve the quality of life when combined with the use of an intra-rectal dual tube.
比较经腹膜外双套管持续负压冲洗与传统引流在直肠癌患者低位前切除术后吻合口漏的治疗及预防中的疗效。
回顾性分析2007年1月至2012年3月同一手术团队行低位前切除术的627例直肠癌患者的临床资料。627例患者中,370例接受自制简易腹膜外双套管置于吻合口背侧引流(双套管组),另257例预防性放置腹腔传统引流管(传统组)。比较两组术后吻合口漏发生率、再次手术率、引流管留置时间、住院时间、住院费用、生活质量评分、术后6个月内吻合口狭窄发生率。
低位Dixon术后发生吻合口漏25例(4.0%,25/627),其中双套管组14例(3.8%,14/370),传统组11例(4.3%,11/257),差异无统计学意义。吻合口漏发生后,双套管组所有患者通过另一自制简易直肠内双套管持续负压(50 mmHg)冲洗处理,无需再次手术,而传统组5例患者因经直肠内双套管持续负压冲洗半个月治疗失败而行再次手术。双套管组和传统组引流管留置时间分别为(9.7±2.7)d和(16.4±3.6)d,住院时间分别为(15.7±4.3)d和(21.5±6.4)d,住院费用分别为(42 470±3190)元和(53 480±5630)元,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。吻合口漏治疗第15天时双套管组生活质量明显优于传统组(P<0.05)。
经腹膜外双套管持续负压冲洗虽不能降低直肠癌患者低位前切除术后吻合口漏的发生率,但联合使用直肠内双套管时可提高保守治疗成功率,降低再次手术率,改善生活质量。