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) ›› 2017, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (05) : 327 -331. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2017.05.008

所属专题: 文献

论著

近端胃切除与全胃切除治疗贲门癌近远期疗效比较
张汉江1,()   
  1. 1. 441800 湖北省老河口市第一医院胸外科
  • 收稿日期:2016-10-19 出版日期:2017-10-01
  • 通信作者: 张汉江

Proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for cardiac carcinoma

Hanjiang Zhang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Chest Surgery, the First Hospital of Laohekou City, Laohekou 441800, China
  • Received:2016-10-19 Published:2017-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Hanjiang Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Hanjiang, Email:
引用本文:

张汉江. 近端胃切除与全胃切除治疗贲门癌近远期疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2017, 11(05): 327-331.

Hanjiang Zhang. Proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for cardiac carcinoma[J/OL]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2017, 11(05): 327-331.

目的

探讨近端胃切除与全胃切除治疗贲门癌的近期和远期临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析老河口市第一医院2009年1月至2013年1月收治的185例行根治性手术治疗的贲门癌患者,其中近端胃切除(近端组)79例,全胃切除(全胃组)106例,比较两组患者手术相关情况、远期生存和并发症。

结果

两组患者均顺利完成手术,无围手术期死亡病例。全胃组手术时间和手术出血量均高于近端组(t=5.015、3.852,均P<0.01),但两组患者的术后住院时间和围手术期并发症发生率差异并无统计学意义。随访时间6.2~71.5个月,随访率为88.6%。近端组1、3、5年总生存率为75.3%、28.4%、19.3%;全胃组1、3、5年总生存率为80.0%、46.8%、32.7%。两组之间的总生存率差异有统计学意义(P=0.010),但两组患者Ⅰ期、Ⅱ期及Ⅲ期总生存率比较,差异均无统计学意义。近端组术后吻合口狭窄发生率和术后1年胃食管反流问卷(GERD-Q)评分高于全胃组(均P<0.05),但两组吻合口溃疡、粘连性肠梗阻发生率和术后1年营养风险筛查评估表-2002(NRS-2002)评分比较,差异并无统计学意义。

结论

较近端胃切除,全胃切除术治疗贲门癌可以提高远期生存率,降低吻合口狭窄发生率,减轻反流症状。

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of proximal gastrectomy with total gastrectomy for cardia carcinoma.

Methods

The clinical data of one hundred and eighty-five patients with cardia carcinoma from January 2009 to January 2013 were reviewed, and 79 cases underwent proximal gastrectomy (proximal group), 106 cases underwent total gastrectomy (total gastrectomy group). The operation, long-term survival and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

All of the patients underwent the operation successfully. The operation time and blood loss in the total group were higher than those in the proximal group (t=5.015, 3.852, both P<0.01), but the hospital stay and incidence of perioperative complications were comparable in the two groups. The follow-up duration ranged from 6.2 to 71.5 months, and the follow-up rate was 88.6%. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rate in the proximal group was 75.3%, 28.4% and 19.3% respectively, and 80.0%, 46.8% and 32.7% respectively in the total group. There was significant difference in the overall survival between the two groups (P=0.010). But the differences in the overall survival of stage, Ⅱ and Ⅲ between the two groups were not statistically significant. The incidence of anastomotic stenosis and 1-year score of gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GERD-Q) in the proximal group were higher than those in the total group (both P<0.05), but the differences of marginal ulcer, adhesive ileus and score of nutrition risk screening 2002 (NRS-2002) between the two groups were not significant.

Conclusion

Compared with proximal gastrectomy, total gatrectomy can improve the overall survival, reduce the incidence rate of anastomotic stenosis and reflux symptoms for cardia carcinoma.

表1 两组贲门癌患者手术相关情况比较
图1 两组贲门癌患者的总生存率
图2 两组贲门癌患者的Ⅰ期总生存率
图3 两组贲门癌患者的Ⅱ期总生存率
图4 两组贲门癌患者的Ⅲ期总生存率
表2 两组患者各期无瘤生存率情况(%)
表3 两组患者术后远期并发症的比较
[1]
Rudiger SJ, Feith M, Werner M, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: results of surgical therapy based on anatomical/topographic classification in 1,002 consecutive patients[J]. Ann Surg, 2000, 232(3):353-361.
[2]
陈万青,张思维,陈志峰. 中国食管癌胃癌高发区贲门癌流行趋势分析[J]. 中国肿瘤, 2008, 17(12):998-1000.
[3]
郑斌,陈映波,胡档,等. 贲门癌患者临床病理特点及预后变化趋势分析[J]. 癌症, 2010, 29(1):94-97.
[4]
薛英威,于雪峰. 近端胃癌切除术后消化道重建方式[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2014, 17(5):424-426.
[5]
陈凛,卢灿荣. 新版日本胃癌"处理规约"和"治疗指南"之解读[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2012, 20(1):10-14.
[6]
季加孚,季鑫. 食管胃结合部腺癌的外科治疗[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2014, 13(2):81-84.
[7]
彭侠彪,陈万青,陈志峰, 等. 中国贲门癌流行概况[J/CD]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2014, 8(2):156-159.
[8]
陈凛,卫勃. 早期胃癌切除术中的消化道重建策略[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2010, 13(2):91-93.
[9]
季加孚,季鑫. 应该重视胃癌根治术后的消化道重建[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2013, 16(2):104-108.
[10]
张常华,何裕隆,詹文华,等. 贲门癌根治术后患者预后的多因素分析[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2006, 9(6):483-487.
[11]
Kim JH, Park SS, Kim J, et al. Surgical outcomes for gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach[J]. World J Surg, 2006, 30(10):1870-1876, 1877-1878.
[12]
杨宏,武爱文,李子禹,等. 胃食管结合部癌514例外科治疗结果及其预后分析[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2010, 48(17):1289-1294.
[13]
刘英俊,韩广森,王刚成,等. 近端胃切除与全胃切除对SiewertⅡ~Ⅲ型食管胃结合部癌疗效比较的Meta分析[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2014,17(4):373-377.
[1] 王杰, 袁泉, 王玥琦, 乔佳君, 谭春丽, 夏仲元, 刘守尧. 溃疡油在糖尿病足溃疡治疗中的应用效果及安全性观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(06): 480-484.
[2] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[3] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[4] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[5] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[6] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[9] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[10] 陈浩, 王萌. 胃印戒细胞癌的临床病理特征及治疗选择的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 108-111.
[11] 贺斌, 马晋峰. 胃癌脾门淋巴结转移危险因素[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 694-699.
[12] 刘见, 杨晓波, 何均健, 等. 应用电钩三孔法腹腔镜袖状胃切除术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(06): 363-364.
[13] 韩俊岭, 王刚, 马厉英, 连颖, 徐慧. 维生素D 联合匹维溴铵治疗腹泻型肠易激综合征患者疗效及对肠道屏障功能指标的影响研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 560-564.
[14] 谢浩文, 丁建英, 刘小霞, 冯毅, 姚婧. 椎旁神经阻滞对微创胃切除肥胖患者术中血流、术后应激及康复质量的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 569-573.
[15] 阳跃, 庹晓晔, 崔子豪, 欧阳四民, 林海阳, 胡景宇, 胡银, 李涛, 赵景峰, 郝岱峰, 冯光. 改良“阅读者”皮瓣修复骶尾部压疮的疗效[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 751-755.
阅读次数
全文


摘要