张晖, 王圣应, 张荣新. 胃食管交界癌不同手术入路比较分析[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2008, 35(24): 1422-1424,1428.
引用本文: 张晖, 王圣应, 张荣新. 胃食管交界癌不同手术入路比较分析[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2008, 35(24): 1422-1424,1428.
ZHANG Hui, WANG Sheng-ying, ZHANG Rong-xin. Comparison and Analysis of Surgical Approaches for Gastro-esophageal Junction Carcinoma[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 35(24): 1422-1424,1428.
Citation: ZHANG Hui, WANG Sheng-ying, ZHANG Rong-xin. Comparison and Analysis of Surgical Approaches for Gastro-esophageal Junction Carcinoma[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 35(24): 1422-1424,1428.

胃食管交界癌不同手术入路比较分析

Comparison and Analysis of Surgical Approaches for Gastro-esophageal Junction Carcinoma

  • 摘要: 目的: 比较胃-食管交界癌不同入路优缺点,探讨不同手术入路的选择方法。 方法: 对蚌埠医学院第一附属医院2006年6月~2007年7月间胃-食管交界处癌95例患者临床治疗进行回顾性分析,详细记录各手术入路组0.0患06)者,的但临术床后指心标肺并,并发行症统的计几分率析低比于较另。两结种果入:路经(腹P=入0.0路61术),前上严切重缘合阳并性症者显4例著(高12于.1%经)左,高胸于组胸和腹胸联腹合联组合(组9.(5%P)=和经左胸组(0)。手术时间与经左胸径路相似,但显著低于经胸腹联合入路(P<0.001)。经左胸入路下切缘阳性率为7.3%(3/41),下纵隔淋巴结清扫与经腹入路组及经胸腹联合入路组相比有统计学差异(P<0.001),经左胸、胸腹联合及经腹入路检出下纵隔淋巴结阳性率分别为41.5%、23.8%、3.0%(P=0.001)。 结论: 对于心肺功能耐受进胸手术者,左胸入路多能满足病变切除范围及常规淋巴结清扫的需要。对于高龄、心肺功能下降患者应尽量避免胸腹联合入路。对于需行全胃切除或联合脏器切除的患者,Ⅲ型者可先进腹探查,根据探查情况选择是经腹还是经胸腹联合入路,Ⅰ、Ⅱ型者应直接使用胸腹联合入路。

     

    Abstract: Objective : To compare and analyze the advantages and shortcomings of different surgical approaches forgastroesophageal junction carcinoma and to explore the optimal surgical approach to treat gastroesophagealjunction carcinoma. Methods : We retrospectively analyzed the data of 95 cases of gastroesophageal junctioncarcinoma seen in our hospital between June 2006 and July 2007. Results : The incidence of preoperativecomplications were significantly higher in the group treated with transabdominal surgery than in the group treatedwith trans-left thoracic surgery or the group treated with thoracoabdominal surgery ( P =0.006). The incidence ofsevere postoperative complications was lower in the group treated with transabdominal surgery than in the othertwo groups ( P =0.061). There were 4 cases with positive upper incisal margin (12.1%) in the group treated withtransabdominal surgery, a higher percentage than that found in the group treated with thoracoabdominal surgery(9.5%) or the group treated with trans-left thoracic surgery (0). The surgery duration in the transabdominal ap-proach group was similar to that of the trans-left thoracic approach group, but it was shortest in the thoracoab-dominal approach group ( P <0.001). The rate of positive lower incisal margin was 7.3% in the trans-left thoracicapproach group. The rates of inferior mediastinum lymph node dissection and metastasis were significantly higherin the trans-left thoracic approach group than in the transabdominal surgery group or the thoracoabdominal surgerygroup ( P <0.001). The rates of inferior mediastinum lymph node metastasis were 41.5%, 23.8%, and 3.0% in thetrans-left thoracic approach group, the thoracoabdominal approach group and the transabdominal approach group,respectively ( P =0.001). Conclusion : For patients who can tolerate transthoracic surgery, trans-left thoracic surgerycan better achieve excision extension and lymph node dissection. The thoracoabdominal approach should beavoided for elderly patients or patients with poor cardiopulmonary function and severe preoperative conditions.Thoracoabdominal surgery should be performed for patients with type Ⅰ and Ⅱ gastroesophageal junctioncarcinoma. For type Ⅲ gastroesophageal junction carcinoma, transabdominal or thoracoabdominal surgery canbe chosen according to the results of exploratory laparotomy.

     

/

返回文章
返回