本文選題：進(jìn)展期胃癌 + 腹腔鏡　； 參考：《皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的:胃癌是人類最常見的惡性腫瘤之一,其發(fā)病率僅次于肺癌,由于飲食習(xí)慣等原因,我國胃癌每年的新發(fā)病人數(shù)約占全球每年新發(fā)胃癌病例的42%左右。胃癌的治愈的方法主要通過手術(shù)切除的方式,主要的手術(shù)方式分為:腹腔鏡輔助胃癌根治術(shù)和常規(guī)開腹胃癌根治術(shù).本臨床研究旨在通過對搜集我院滿足要求的患者資料進(jìn)行回顧性分析研究,來探討進(jìn)展期胃癌腹腔根治術(shù)與常規(guī)胃癌根治術(shù)的圍手術(shù)期療效的對比研究。方法:對2012年6月到20013年12月間在弋饑山醫(yī)院的60例II期、III期的胃癌患者進(jìn)行分析研究,其中30例行腹腔鏡胃癌根治患者和同期30例行傳統(tǒng)胃癌根治患者進(jìn)行分析對比研究。觀察兩組病例患者圍手術(shù)相關(guān)指標(biāo),將傳統(tǒng)開腹胃癌根治術(shù)患者定為對照組,將腹腔鏡胃癌定為實(shí)驗(yàn)組,然后從幾個不同的方面對兩組的手術(shù)及術(shù)后情況進(jìn)行對比分析,對比研究內(nèi)容包括手術(shù)時間、術(shù)中出血量、清掃淋巴結(jié)的數(shù)目、肛門排氣時間、開始進(jìn)食時間、住院時間以及并發(fā)癥。結(jié)果:兩個組的手術(shù)均沒有死亡的患者。腹腔鏡組手術(shù)時間為(270.82±43.58)min,開腹組手術(shù)時間為(231.68±55.83)min],腹腔鏡組的手術(shù)時間較開腹組長(P0.05);腹腔鏡組術(shù)中出血量為(394.34±103.87)ml,開腹組為(381.12±90.45)ml,兩組手術(shù)在術(shù)中的出血量上無顯的差別(P0.05);腹腔鏡組在肛門排氣時間上(33.41±2.55)h,開腹組為(70.55±6.01)h,兩組手術(shù)主要是在肛門的排氣上存在差異(P0.05),腹腔鏡一組的肛門排氣的時間比較早;腹腔鏡組的進(jìn)食時間是(40.43±10.08)h,開腹組的進(jìn)食時間是(73.76±5.94),這兩個組的差異明顯(P0.05),這個結(jié)果表明了腹腔鏡的一組的胃腸道的功能恢復(fù)的比較迅速;腹腔鏡組住院天數(shù)為(9.15±2.10)d,開腹組為(11.26±1.38),腹腔鏡組的住院時間短并且存在差異(p0.05)。腹腔鏡的淋巴結(jié)的清掃數(shù)量是(21.27±2.88)個,開腹組的清掃數(shù)量是(24.58±3.69)個,兩個組的淋巴結(jié)清掃數(shù)目對比無明顯差異(p0.05),表明腹腔鏡胃癌根治術(shù)基本上和開腹胃癌根治術(shù)的療效相同,其中腹腔鏡組的并發(fā)癥有1個,開腹組患者有2個,術(shù)中及術(shù)后死亡患者為0,兩組的差異沒有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論:進(jìn)展期胃癌腹腔鏡根治術(shù)在圍手術(shù)期的療效上基本能達(dá)到與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)相同的效果,并且腹腔鏡胃癌根治術(shù)具有對患者創(chuàng)傷小,縮短住院時間,術(shù)后恢復(fù)快等明顯優(yōu)勢。
[Abstract]:Objective: gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in human being. The incidence of gastric cancer is second only to lung cancer. Due to eating habits, the number of new cases of gastric cancer in China accounts for about 42% of the new cases of gastric cancer every year in the world. The cure of gastric cancer is mainly by surgical resection. The main operative methods are laparoscopic assisted radical gastrectomy and conventional open radical gastrectomy. The purpose of this clinical study was to investigate the perioperative efficacy of advanced radical gastrectomy and conventional radical gastrectomy through retrospective analysis of the data of patients with advanced gastric cancer. Methods: from June 2012 to December 20013, 60 patients with stage II or stage III gastric cancer in Gigangshan Hospital were analyzed and compared. Among them, 30 cases were treated by laparoscopic radical gastrectomy and 30 cases by traditional radical gastrectomy. The perioperative indexes of patients in two groups were observed, the patients with traditional radical operation of gastric cancer were selected as control group, and the patients with laparoscopic gastric cancer were selected as experimental group. Then the operation and postoperative conditions of the two groups were compared and analyzed from several different aspects. The comparative study included operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph nodes dissected, anal exhaust time, onset of food intake, hospital stay, and complications. Results: there was no operative death in either group. The operative time of laparoscopy group was 270.82 鹵43.58 minutes, the operative time of laparotomy group was 231.68 鹵55.83)min, the operative time of laparoscopy group was higher than that of laparotomy group (P 0.05), the amount of intraoperative bleeding in laparoscope group was 394.34 鹵103.87 ml, and that in laparotomy group was 381.12 鹵90.45 ml. The anus exhaust time of the mirror group was 33.41 鹵2.55 hs, and that of the laparotomy group was 70.55 鹵6.01h.There was a significant difference between the two groups in the anus exhaust time (P 0.05). The anus exhaust time of the laparoscopy group was earlier than that of the laparoscopy group. The feeding time of laparoscopy group was 40.43 鹵10.08hand that of laparotomy group was 73.76 鹵5.940.The difference between the two groups was significant (P 0.05), which indicated that the recovery of gastrointestinal function in one group of laparoscopy was rapid. The length of stay was 9.15 鹵2.10 days in the laparoscopy group and 11.26 鹵1.38 in the open group. The length of stay in the laparoscope group was short and there was a difference between the two groups (p 0.05). The number of lymph nodes dissected by laparoscopy was 21.27 鹵2.88 and that in open group was 24.58 鹵3.69. There was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes dissected between the two groups (p 0.05), which indicated that the curative effect of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy was basically the same as that of open radical gastrectomy. There were 1 complication in laparoscopic group, 2 in open group and 0 in operative and postoperative death. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P 0.05). Conclusion: laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer can basically achieve the same effect as open radical gastrectomy in the perioperative period, and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has less trauma and shorter hospitalization time for patients with gastric cancer. There were obvious advantages such as quick recovery after operation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：R735.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 侯高生;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)患者機(jī)體恢復(fù)情況及并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率比較[J];中國現(xiàn)代醫(yī)生;2012年34期

2 姜洪偉;王舉;李海軍;梁越;高小平;房學(xué)東;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)的臨床對比研究[J];中國現(xiàn)代普通外科進(jìn)展;2013年12期

3 盧榜裕;陳釗德;;腹腔鏡輔助與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)的比較[J];中國微創(chuàng)外科雜志;2007年09期

4 丁祥飛;盧榜裕;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)遠(yuǎn)期療效配對的病例對照研究[J];微創(chuàng)醫(yī)學(xué);2008年05期

5 張科明;周雄;王彤;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)長期療效和安全性的比較[J];廣東醫(yī)學(xué);2012年19期

6 夏亞斌;鄭成竹;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)的療效及對患者免疫功能的影響[J];中國普通外科雜志;2013年07期

7 陳建安;王曉華;張金成;陳勇;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)的臨床對照研究[J];中國內(nèi)鏡雜志;2013年09期

8 葉進(jìn)軍;龔裕雕;瞿銳;閻玉礦;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)的前瞻性對照研究[J];中外醫(yī)療;2013年34期

9 陸日克;李國星;韋寶甘;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)遠(yuǎn)期療效和安全性的比較[J];中國普通外科雜志;2014年04期

10 張連舫;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)的臨床特征分析[J];臨床和實(shí)驗(yàn)醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2010年18期

相關(guān)會議論文 前3條

1 牟一平;陳鈳;徐曉武;張人超;;腹腔鏡輔助與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)近遠(yuǎn)期療效的配對隊(duì)列研究[A];2013年浙江省外科學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文匯編[C];2013年

2 徐宏濤;胡平;章平祿;孟春燕;闕海峰;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)術(shù)后病理的分析比較研究[A];2012浙江省微創(chuàng)外科年會論文集[C];2012年

3 徐宏濤;胡平;胡偉中;章平祿;孟春燕;闕海峰;;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)術(shù)后病理的分析比較研究[A];2012年浙江省外科學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集[C];2012年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 本報(bào)記者 唐聞佳;醫(yī)生，別被技術(shù)“挾持”[N];文匯報(bào);2014年

2 楊愛琴;三術(shù)同施治胃癌[N];健康報(bào);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張斌;腹腔鏡胃癌根治術(shù)與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)近期療效的觀察研究[D];青海大學(xué);2013年

2 章琪;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)對機(jī)體炎癥反應(yīng)影響的臨床研究[D];安徽醫(yī)科大學(xué);2014年

3 楊虎;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)患者近期療效的配對設(shè)計(jì)隊(duì)列研究比較[D];新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué);2013年

4 黃鑫;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)在疼痛和焦慮等方面的臨床對照研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

5 何平;腹腔鏡和開腹胃癌根治術(shù)淋巴結(jié)清除率的比較[D];南昌大學(xué);2011年

6 蘭倩;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)對機(jī)體應(yīng)激反應(yīng)影響的比較研究[D];山東大學(xué);2014年

7 李宗寅;進(jìn)展期胃癌腹腔鏡根治術(shù)與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)圍手術(shù)期療效的臨床研究[D];皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院;2015年

8 高福鋒;腹腔鏡與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)治療進(jìn)展期胃癌的臨床對比研究[D];山東大學(xué);2013年

9 張陽;腹腔鏡輔助與開腹胃癌根治術(shù)治療進(jìn)展期胃癌近期療效的分析[D];大連醫(yī)科大學(xué);2013年

10 魏曉磊;腹腔鏡輔助胃癌根治術(shù)臨床應(yīng)用分析[D];大連醫(yī)科大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：1797752