腹腔镜柱状APR与传统开腹APR术后疗效对比  

Comparison of Postoperative Efficacy between Cylindrical Abdominoperineal Resection by Laparoscopy and Traditional Abdominoperineal Resection

作　　者：张洪斌[1] 文政琦[1] 王志强[1] 杨军[1] 李文亮[1] 

机构地区：[1]昆明医科大学第一附属医院肿瘤科,云南昆明650032

出　　处：《昆明医科大学学报》2016年第5期60-63,共4页Journal of Kunming Medical University

基　　金：云南省科技厅-昆明医科大学应用基础研究联合专项基金资助项目(2015FB035)

摘　　要：目的评估腹腔镜柱状APR与传统开腹APR的疗效.方法回顾分析昆明医科大学第一附属医院肿瘤科2010年1月至2015年9月共计111例低位直肠癌行APR手术的患者,分为腹腔镜柱状APR组和传统开腹APR组,比较2组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后通气时间以及术后并发症发生情况.结果 2组相比,手术时间、术中出血量、术后通气时间、术后肠梗阻、肺部感染等方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);在会阴部切口感染及术中肠道穿孔率方面,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论腹腔镜柱状APR手术较传统开腹APR手术安全可靠,能有效减少患者术后切口感染及减少肿瘤肠道穿孔的发生.Objective To evaluate the efficacy between cylindrical abdominoperineal resection（CAPR） by laparoscopy and traditional abdominoperineal resection（APR）. Methods A retrospectively analysis was done in the data of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent APR in our department from January 2010 to September2015. The patients were divided into two groups,including cylindrical abdominoperineal resection by laparoscopy and traditional abdominoperineal resection. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding, the time of intestinal exhaust as well as the postoperative complications of the two groups were compared. Results There were no statistical differences in the intraoperative bleeding, operation time,the time of intestinal exhaust,postoperative intestinal obstruction and pulmonary infection between the two groups（P〉0.05）. However,the differences in the rates of perineal incision infection and tumor intestinal perforation between the two groups were statistically significant（P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion CAPR by laparoscopy is safer, more reliable than traditional APR, which can effectively reduce the rates of postoperative incision infection and tumor intestinal perforation of patients.

关 键 词：直肠肿瘤 腹腔镜手术 腹会阴联合切除术 柱状腹会阴联合切除术 

分 类 号：R735.37[医药卫生—肿瘤]