Suppr超能文献

在根治性结肠癌手术中,腹腔内同向蠕动端端吻合术是一种安全的手术方式吗?

Is intraperitoneal isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis a safe surgical procedure in radical colon cancer surgery.

作者信息

Wu Bin, Zhu Jing-Tao, Lin He-Xin, Dai Yu-Hua, Lin Tian-Sheng, Huang An-Le, Chen Yi-Nan, Li Yong-Wen, Wang Hai-Bin, Chen Yi-Fu, Chen Dong-Han, Yu Huang-Dao, You Jun, Hong Qing-Qi

机构信息

Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.

出版信息

World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2025 Mar 15;17(3):99124. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v17.i3.99124.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer, one of the most common malignancies, is primarily treated through surgery. With the widespread use of laparoscopy, gastrointestinal reconstruction remains a key area of research. The choice between intraperitoneal anastomosis (IA) and extraperitoneal anastomosis (EA) remains a subject of considerable debate. This study uses intraperitoneal isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis (IISSA) with hand-sewn closure of the common opening to evaluate its safety and short-term outcomes. It is hypothesized that this technique may offer better short-term outcomes than EA.

AIM

To investigate the safety and short-term outcomes of IISSA with hand-sewn closure of the common opening compared to EA.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical colon cancer surgery between January 2018 and June 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical, postoperative, and pathological features of the IA and EA groups were observed before and after propensity score matching. Patients with right-sided and left-sided colon cancer were separated, each further divided into IA and EA groups (R-IA R-EA for right-sided, L-IA L-EA for left-sided), for stratified analysis of the aforementioned indicators.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 63 pairs were matched in each group. In surgical characteristics, the IA group exhibited less blood loss and shorter incisions than the EA group. Regarding postoperative recovery, the IA group showed earlier recovery of gastrointestinal function. Pathologically, the IA group had greater lymph node clearance. Relative to the R-EA group, the R-IA group experienced reduced blood loss, shorter assisted incisions, earlier recovery of gastrointestinal functions and greater lymph node dissection. When compared to the L-EA group, the L-IA group demonstrated earlier postoperative anal exhaust and defecation, along with a reduced length of hospitalization. Regarding postoperative complications, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups either after matching or in the stratified analyses.

CONCLUSION

Compared to EA, IISSA with hand-sewn closure of the common opening is a safe and feasible option for laparoscopic radical colon cancer surgery.

摘要

背景

结直肠癌是最常见的恶性肿瘤之一,主要通过手术治疗。随着腹腔镜技术的广泛应用,胃肠道重建仍是一个关键的研究领域。腹腔内吻合(IA)和腹腔外吻合(EA)之间的选择仍然是一个备受争议的话题。本研究采用腹腔内顺蠕动侧侧吻合(IISSA)并手工缝合共同开口,以评估其安全性和短期疗效。研究假设该技术可能比EA提供更好的短期疗效。

目的

探讨与EA相比,采用手工缝合共同开口的IISSA的安全性和短期疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2018年1月至2022年6月在厦门大学附属第一医院接受腹腔镜根治性结肠癌手术的患者。在倾向评分匹配前后观察IA组和EA组的手术、术后及病理特征。将右半结肠癌和左半结肠癌患者分开,每组再分为IA组和EA组(右侧为R-IA、R-EA,左侧为L-IA、L-EA);对上述指标进行分层分析。

结果

倾向评分匹配后,每组匹配63对。在手术特征方面,IA组的失血量比EA组少,切口比EA组短。在术后恢复方面,IA组的胃肠功能恢复更早。病理方面,IA组的淋巴结清扫更彻底。相对于R-EA组,R-IA组失血量减少、辅助切口更短、胃肠功能恢复更早且淋巴结清扫更多。与L-EA组相比,L-IA组术后肛门排气和排便更早,住院时间更短。在术后并发症方面,匹配后或分层分析中,两组之间均未发现统计学上的显著差异。

结论

与EA相比,采用手工缝合共同开口的IISSA对于腹腔镜根治性结肠癌手术是一种安全可行的选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/acca/11866253/522a6f6941aa/99124-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验