切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2010, Vol. 04 ›› Issue (05) : 471 -474. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2010.05.020

所属专题: 专题评论 文献

论著

LigasureTM血管闭合系统在胃癌根治术中的疗效评价
杨斌1, 周军1, 陈双1,(), 赖东明1, 张育超1, 江志鹏1, 褚忠华1   
  1. 1. 510120 广州,中山大学附属第二医院胃肠胰外科
  • 收稿日期:2010-03-22 出版日期:2010-10-01
  • 通信作者: 陈双

Randomized clinical trial of LigasureTM versus conventional surgery in radical resection of gastric carcinoma

Bin YANG1, Jun ZHOU1, Shuang CHEN1,(), Dong-ming LAI1, Yu-chao ZHANG1, Zhi-peng JIANG1, Zhong-hua CHU1   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China
  • Received:2010-03-22 Published:2010-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Shuang CHEN
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: CHEN Shuang, Email:
引用本文:

杨斌, 周军, 陈双, 赖东明, 张育超, 江志鹏, 褚忠华. LigasureTM血管闭合系统在胃癌根治术中的疗效评价[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2010, 04(05): 471-474.

Bin YANG, Jun ZHOU, Shuang CHEN, Dong-ming LAI, Yu-chao ZHANG, Zhi-peng JIANG, Zhong-hua CHU. Randomized clinical trial of LigasureTM versus conventional surgery in radical resection of gastric carcinoma[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2010, 04(05): 471-474.

目的

比较LigasureTM血管闭合系统和传统结扎方法在开放式胃癌D2根治术中应用的安全性和疗效。

方法

2006年6月至2008年12月间行胃癌D2根治术86例患者,随机分为LigasureTM组(45例)和传统手术组(41例),比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后疗效及并发症等临床资料。

结果

两组均无手术死亡,LigasureTM组手术时间、术中出血量显著低于常规手术组(P<0.05),术后平均淋巴结检出数、并发症发生率、肛门排气时间、术后住院日无统计学差异。LigasureTM组术后第1天腹腔引流液少于常规手术组(P<0.05),第2~5天及术后总量两组无统计学差异。

结论

LigasureTM血管闭合系统在胃癌D2根治术中安全可靠,与传统结扎手术相比术中出血减少,手术时间缩短,具良好的临床应用价值。

Objective

To evaluate the the efficacy and safety of LigasureTM Vessel Sealing System and conventional clamping method in gastric D2 lymphadenectomy.

Methods

Patients undergoing gastric D2 lymphadenectomy were randomly divided into two groups treated with LigasureTM(n=45) and conventional method (n=41), Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative courses and complications were analyzed prospectively.

Results

There were no hospital deaths. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss in LigasureTM group were significantly less than that in conventional operation (P<0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in number of lymph node removed, postoperative complications, time to pass flatus and hospital stay. The volume of intraperitoneal drainage in LigasureTM group were less than those in conventional group at the first day (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference from the 2nd to the 5th day after operation.

Conclusion

The LigasureTM Vessel Sealing System is safe and effective for use in gastric D2 lymphadenectomy, and is associated with a shorter operation time and decreased blood loss compared with conventional surgery.

表1 86例胃癌患者的临床资料(例)
表2 两组患者围术期情况比较(±s
表3 两组患者术后1~5 d腹腔引流液量[±s(ml)]
1
Lee WJ,Chen TC,Lai IR, et al. Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus conventional surgery for extended gastric cancer resection. Br J Surg, 2003, 90(12): 1493-1496.
2
Romano F,Caprotti R,Franciosi C, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy using Ligasure. Preliminary experience. Surg Endosc, 2002, 16(11): 1608-1611.
3
Horgan PG. A novel technique for parenchymal division during hepatectomy. Am J Surg, 2001, 181(3): 2362-2366.
4
Japanese Research Society for Gastric Cancer. The General Rules for Gastric Cancer Research(13th edn). Kanehara: Tokyo, 1999.
5
Gelmini R,Colombo G,Quaranta N, et al. Sutureless and stapleless laparoscopic splenectomy using radiofrequency:Ligasure device. Surg Endosc, 2006, 20(6): 991-994.
6
Carbonell AM,Joels CS,Kercher KW, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic bipolar vessel sealing devices in the hemostasis of small-, medium-, and large-sized arteries. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2003, 13(6): 377-380.
7
Matthews BD,Pratt BL,Backus CL, et al. Effectiveness of the ultrasonic coagulating shears, Ligasure vessel sealer, and surgical clipapplication in biliary surgery: a comparative analysis. Am Surg, 2001, 67(9): 901-906.
[1] 张再博, 王冰雨, 焦志凯, 檀碧波. 胃癌术后下肢深静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 475-480.
[2] 张瑜, 李冉, 彭书芳, 刘玲. 胃癌术后发生腹腔间隔室综合征并发呼吸衰竭患者救治成功一例[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(03): 453-454.
[3] 张旭, 龚航军, 韩刚. 达芬奇机器人治疗胃癌合并低位直肠癌一例[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(06): 381-384.
[4] 王甜甜, 温媛, 李振, 叶美红, 郭影, 马双. 和厚朴酚调控Nrf2/ARE通路对胃癌细胞的顺铂化疗敏感性的影响[J]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 202-209.
[5] 刘先勇. 胃Lgr5+干细胞、Mist1+干细胞和Cck2r+干细胞癌变的分子机制[J]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(03): 183-188.
[6] 韩晓娟, 徐佳倩, 朱玉兰, 王莹, 李源, 冯珺, 邵东. HHLA2过表达胃癌细胞株构建及细胞功能的初步研究[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 373-377.
[7] 钟广俊, 刘春华, 朱万森, 徐晓雷, 王兆军. MRI联合不同扫描序列在胃癌术前分期诊断及化疗效果和预后的评估[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 378-382.
[8] 孙秀艳, 徐庆蕾, 马鹏涛, 胡志元, 郭传真, 祝成红. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术中患者体温变化与压力性损伤及受压部位微环境的相关性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 480-484.
[9] 杨镠, 秦岚群, 耿茜, 李栋庆, 戚春建, 蒋华. 可溶性免疫检查点对胃癌患者免疫治疗疗效和预后的预测价值[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 305-311.
[10] 徐洪宇, 何亚爽. 羟考酮与氢吗啡酮用于胃癌根治术后镇痛的疗效[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 312-316.
[11] 盛静, 梅勇, 夏佩, 王晓林. 乌苯美司联合伊立替康二线治疗晚期胃癌的临床研究[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 317-321.
[12] 董青, 丁飞, 郭浩, 李峰. Nesfatin-1/NUCB2在幽门螺杆菌感染相关早期胃癌患者中的表达及临床意义[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 783-789.
[13] 王俐, 樊帆, 陈国栋, 刘玉兰, 张黎明. 内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗早期胃癌的疗效及预后分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 105-111.
[14] 沈燕如, 多杰太, 李磊. 西藏地区内镜检出胃癌367例临床分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(12): 1224-1228.
[15] 王佳凤, 郭锐, 陈倩倩, 李惠凯, 宁波, 袁新普, 朱华, 令狐恩强. 68Ga-NC-BCH联合PET-CT淋巴结免疫示踪对于胃癌患者术前及术后临床决策影响的初步探索研究[J]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2023, 10(04): 253-257.
阅读次数
全文


摘要