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) ›› 2015, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (02) : 159 -164. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2015.02.020

循证医学

完整结肠系膜切除术与传统结肠癌根治术Meta 分析
乐正宏1, 刘牧林1,(), 姜从桥1, 郝博1, 王栓虎1, 刘瑞林1, 葛思堂1, 程强1, 方涛涛1   
  1. 1.233000 蚌埠医学院第一附属医院胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2014-11-01 出版日期:2015-04-01
  • 通信作者: 刘牧林

A meta-analysis of complete mesocolic excision versus traditional resection for colon cancer

Zhenghong Le1, Mulin Liu1,(), Congqiao Jiang1, Bo Hao1, Shuanhu, Wang1, Ruilin Liu1, Sitang Ge1, Qiang Cheng1, Taotao Fang1   

  1. 1.Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College,Bengbu 233000, China
  • Received:2014-11-01 Published:2015-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Mulin Liu
引用本文:

乐正宏, 刘牧林, 姜从桥, 郝博, 王栓虎, 刘瑞林, 葛思堂, 程强, 方涛涛. 完整结肠系膜切除术与传统结肠癌根治术Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2015, 09(02): 159-164.

Zhenghong Le, Mulin Liu, Congqiao Jiang, Bo Hao, Shuanhu, Wang, Ruilin Liu, Sitang Ge, Qiang Cheng, Taotao Fang. A meta-analysis of complete mesocolic excision versus traditional resection for colon cancer[J/OL]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2015, 09(02): 159-164.

目的

研究完整结肠系膜切除术(CME)对比传统结肠癌根治术的安全性与优越性。

方法

利用计算机检索国内外著名数据库近5 年内发表的关于CME 与传统结肠癌根治术对比研究的文献,遵循严格的筛选标准,提取高质量文献的数据资料,用Review Manager 5.3 软件进行系统评价,最后分析结果。

结果

共检索出初始文献约500 篇。 根据纳入与排除标准逐篇查阅、分析和评价,最终决定纳入10 项研究,其中5 篇为英文文献,5 篇为中文文献。 总病例1 447 例,其中CME 组733 例,传统手术组714 例。 (1)CME 组的术中出血量明显少于传统手术组[WMD=-28.17,95%CI=-52.77~-3.57,P=0.02],而两组的手术时间差异无统计学意义[WMD=3.70,95% CI= -18.25~25.66,P=0.74];(2)在术后病理标本淋巴结检出数、平均切除结肠长度和系膜面积以及营养血管长度等方面,CME 组均优于传统结肠癌手术组,P 分别小于0.01、0.01、0. 01 和0.05;(3)两组在术后首次排气时间以及住院时间方面差异均无统计学意义(P=0.45,0.08);(4)实行CME 并没有增加手术并发症发生率(P=0.89)。

结论

与传统结肠癌根治术相比,CME 更加符合外科解剖和胚胎学理念, 在未增加手术风险及术后并发症的前提下,达到了最大化的根治效果,安全、有效、可行,为结肠癌规范化的手术方式又增添了浓墨重彩的一笔。

Objective

To compare security and superiority between complete mesocolic excision(CME) and the traditional colon resection.

Methods

The literature comparing CME with traditional colon resection of the past five years were searched, following strict screening standard, to extract high quality literature data with Review Manager 5.3 software evaluating the final results.

Results

A total of ten nonrandomized clinical trials were selected out, five in English and five in Chinese. There were 1 447 cases in total, including 733 cases of CME group, and 714 cases of traditional surgery group. Meta-analysis results showed that: (1) CME group showed less blood loss than traditional surgery group [WMD=-28.17, 95% CI(-52.77, -3.57), P=0.02], but operative time difference was not statistically significant [WMD=3.70, 95% CI(-18.25, 25.66), P=0.74]. (2) As to the number of lymph node detected from postoperative pathological specimens, the average length of resected large bowel, the resected area of mesentery, and the high vascular ligation, CME group were superior to the traditional colon surgery group (P<0.01, <0.01, <0.01 and <0.05).(3) There were no significant differences in the time of first flatus and the hospital stay between two groups(P=0.45, 0.08); (4) The implementation of CME did not increase the incidence of major complications (P=0.89).

Conclusions

CME is safe,effective, feasible and in conformity with the concept of surgery, anatomy and embryology. Compared with traditional colon resection, it has not increased the risk of surgery and postoperative complications.CME is likely to become a standardized operation method for colon cancer.

表1 纳入文献的基本资料
图1 CME 组与传统手术组术中出血量的对比
图2 CME 组与传统手术组手术时间的对比
图3 CME 组与传统手术组淋巴结检出数的对比
图4 CME 组与传统手术组切除结肠长度的对比
图5 CME 组与传统手术组切除结肠系膜面积的对比
图6 CME 组与传统手术组营养血管长度的对比
图7 CME 组与传统手术组排气时间的对比
图8 CME 组与传统手术组住院时间的对比
图9 CME 组与传统手术组术后并发症的对比
1
Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery——the clue to pelvic recurrence?[J]. Br J Surg,1982, 69(10): 613-616.
2
Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, et al. Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation——technical notes and outcome[J]. Colorectal Dis, 2009, 11(4): 354-364.
3
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses[J]. Eur J Epidemiol, 2010, 25(9): 603-605.
4
Ownby RL, Croceo E, Acevedo A, et al. Depression and risk for Alzheimer disease:systematic review, meta—analysis, and metaregression analysis[J]. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2006, 63(5): 530-538.
5
陈雪秋. 完整结肠系膜切除术在结肠癌中的应用价值[J]. 中国医师进修杂志, 2013, 36(29): 9-11.
6
高志冬, 叶颖江, 王杉, 等. 完整结肠系膜切除术与传统根治术治疗结肠癌的对比研究[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2012, 15(1): 19-23.
7
雷用钊. 完整结肠系膜切除术(CME)在进展期结肠癌手术中的临床应用[J]. 实用癌症杂志, 2014, 29(7): 753-755.
8
张文斌, 李翔. 全结肠系膜切除术与传统结肠癌根治术在右半结肠癌手术中的对比研究[J]. 南昌大学学报(医学版),2013, 53(12): 47-49, 52.
9
张志强, 卢云锋. 结肠癌完整结肠系膜切除术的淋巴结清扫和短期疗效研究[J]. 河南外科学杂志, 2014, 20(1): 16-18.
10
Bertelsen CA,Bols B,Ingeholm P,et al.Can the quality of colonic surgery be improved by standardization of Surgical technique with complete mesocolic excision?[J]. Colorectal Dis, 2011, 13(10):1123-1129.
11
Cassiano A, Zurleni T, Gjoni E, et al. Improving surgical technique in colorectal surgery: Complete mesocolic excision[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2012, 38: 979.
12
West NP, Sutton KM, Ingeholm P, et al. Improving the quality of colon cancer surgery through a surgical education program[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2010, 53(12): 1594-1603.
13
West NP, Hohenberger W, Weber K, et al. Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation produces an oncologically superior specimen compared with standard surgery for carcinoma of the colon[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2010, 28(2): 272-278.
14
West NP, Kobayashi H, Takahashi K, et al. Understanding optimal colonic cancer surgery: comparison of Japanese D3 resection and European complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2012, 30(15): 1763-1769.
15
Petrovic T,Radovanovic Z, Breberina M, et al. Complete mesocolic excision with central supplying vessel ligation-new technique in colon cancer treatment[J].Arch Oncol,2010,18(3):84-85.
16
王正康, 汪亚晴, 贾振庚, 腹腔内融合筋膜与癌根治性手术[J]. 国外医学外科学分册, 1990, 17(2): 82-85.
17
Chen SL, Bilchik AJ. More extensive nodal dissection improves survival for stages Ⅰto Ⅲof colon cancer: a population-based study[J]. Ann Surg, 2006, 244(4): 602-610.
18
张忠涛, 杨盈赤. 结肠癌完整结肠系膜切除术的技术要点[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志: 电子版, 2012, 5(6): 126-131.
19
Halkic N, Abdelmoumene A, Suardet L, et al. Postoperative chylous ascites after radical gastrectomy. A case report[J]. Minerva Chir,2003, 58(3): 389-391.
[1] 吴义刚, 潘裕民, 吴姗姗, 胡梦涓, 王一为, 张劲松, 乔莉. 左西孟旦治疗肺动脉高压合并右心衰竭患者疗效分析——Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 385-391.
[2] 张秋阳, 余韶芸, 潘向滢, 金家佳, 夏桦, 赵雪红. 成年体外膜肺氧合患者出血影响因素的Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 392-398.
[3] 郭仁凯, 武慧铭, 李辉宇. 机器人辅助全系膜切除术治疗右半结肠癌有效性和安全性的Meta分析及试验序贯分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 234-240.
[4] 聂彬, 赵铁军, 于云宝, 李欢, 谢林峻. 单孔加一孔腹腔镜手术与传统腹腔镜手术治疗乙状结肠癌的疗效与分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 330-333.
[5] 张聃, 王毅, 冯文迪, 方兴中. 完整结肠系膜切除术与传统根治术治疗结肠癌对患者生存期的影响观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 279-282.
[6] 梁轩豪, 李小荣, 李亮, 林昌伟. 肠梗阻支架置入术联合新辅助化疗治疗结直肠癌急性肠梗阻的疗效及其预后的Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 472-482.
[7] 石阳, 于剑锋, 曹可, 翟志伟, 叶春祥, 王振军, 韩加刚. 可扩张金属支架置入联合新辅助化疗治疗完全梗阻性左半结肠癌围手术期并发症分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 464-471.
[8] 杨魁, 龚文斌, 余钧辉, 郑见宝, 孙学军, 赵伟. 腹部无辅助切口经阴道拖出标本的腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术一例(附视频)[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 171-176.
[9] 连彦军, 宋志岗, 范晓斌, 胡延伟, 范现英, 马竞优, 甄金朋, 杨宁豹. 肠减压后腹腔镜手术治疗右半结肠癌合并急性肠梗阻的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(02): 129-134.
[10] 王利航, 孙官文, 包呼和, 倪熙宇, 张万印, 黄斐, 杨鹏波. 三种手术方式治疗肩锁关节脱位疗效的网状Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2024, 12(04): 332-343.
[11] 刘郁, 段绍斌, 丁志翔, 史志涛. miR-34a-5p 在结肠癌患者的表达及其与临床特征及预后的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 485-490.
[12] 曹猛, 郭杰东, 朱灿, 许腾, 樊瑞智, 江涛, 宋军, 徐溢新. 完全腹腔镜右半结肠切除术中顺蠕动侧侧吻合的有效性及安全性评价[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 315-319.
[13] 赵文元, 田玉廷, 张吉海, 张军. CT肿瘤体积测量参数结合实验室指标对结肠癌术前分期预判的价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 306-309.
[14] 周庆, 杨旭. 甲胎蛋白、纤维蛋白原与前白蛋白比值、癌胚抗原、D-二聚体对结肠癌术后复发的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 301-305.
[15] 武文晓, 张大奎, 孙志刚, 韩子翰, 陈少轩, 侯智勇, 孙白龙, 介建政. pMMR/MSS型结肠癌免疫治疗效果及预后标志物研究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 41-56.
阅读次数
全文


摘要