【摘要】：目的：隨著腹腔鏡技術的不斷成熟,臨床經驗的不斷增加,手術器械的不斷進步,腹腔鏡手術相對于傳統開腹手術創(chuàng)傷小、恢復快的優(yōu)勢逐漸得到認可,并使腹腔鏡手術的應用不斷推廣。本研究通過比較腹腔鏡下全結腸切除術與傳統開腹手術治療家族性腺瘤性息肉病的臨床療效,探討前者的安全性、可行性和臨床應用價值。方法：回顧性分析我院2009年1月至2014年10月37例行全結腸切除術的FAP患者的臨床資料,其中腹腔鏡手術者19例,開腹手術組18例。通過SPSS 21.0統計學軟件處理患者術前、術中、術后的相關資料,分析腹腔鏡手術相對于傳統開腹手術的臨床效果,并結合文獻對此進行討論和評價。結果：腹腔鏡組和傳統開腹組均順利完成手術,腹腔鏡組無患者中轉開腹。在性別、年齡、體質指數、FAP家族史、息肉惡變、術前貧血、ASA分級無明顯差異情況下(P值0.05),腹腔鏡組相較傳統開腹組切口長度明顯縮短(5.8±0.7cm VS 19.9±1.6 cm),術中出血量明顯減少(137.9±30.1 ml VS 188.9±53.8 ml),兩組差異有顯著統計學意義(P值0.01)。手術時間腹腔鏡組相對于傳統開腹組有所延長(277.8±35.9 min VS 237.8±26.9 min),且兩組差異有顯著統計學意義(P值0.01)。而術中輸血數兩組間差異無統計學意義(P值0.05)。術后恢復中腹腔鏡組在應用鎮(zhèn)痛藥物、胃腸功能恢復時間、尿管拔除時間、腹腔3d引流量、術后進流質飲食等方面明顯較傳統開腹組有優(yōu)勢(P值0.05),特別是在下床活動時間、術后進半流質時間、術后住院日方面更為突出(P值0.01)。腹腔鏡組和傳統開腹組均有吻合口瘺等并發(fā)癥出現,兩組間術后并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率差異無統計學意義(21.1% VS 27.8% P值0.05)。兩組在隨訪時間和隨訪例數無差異情況下,復發(fā)轉移及病死情況亦無無明顯差異(P值0.05)。結論：腹腔鏡下行全結腸切除術與傳統開腹手術相比具有創(chuàng)傷小、術中出血少、術后疼痛輕、術后恢復快、住院日短等優(yōu)點,而手術并發(fā)癥、復發(fā)轉移及病死情況兩組無明顯差異,其治療家族性腺瘤性息肉病是安全的可行的,具有較高的臨床應用價值。
[Abstract]:Objective: with the development of laparoscopic technique, the increasing of clinical experience and the improvement of surgical instruments, the advantages of laparoscopic surgery with less trauma and faster recovery than traditional open surgery have been recognized. The application of laparoscopic surgery has been popularized. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic total colectomy and traditional open surgery in the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, and to explore the safety, feasibility and clinical value of the former. Methods: the clinical data of 37 patients with FAP undergoing total colectomy in our hospital from January 2009 to October 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. There were 19 cases of laparoscopic surgery and 18 cases of open operation group. The clinical results of laparoscopic surgery compared with traditional open surgery were analyzed by SPSS 21. 0 statistical software, and the results were discussed and evaluated in combination with the literature. Results: the laparoscopic group and the traditional open group successfully completed the operation, no patients in the laparoscopic group were converted to open surgery. There were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, FAP family history, polyp malignancy, preoperative anemia and ASA grade (P < 0. 05). The length of incision in the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than that in the traditional open group (5.8 鹵0.7cm VS 19.9 鹵1.6 cm),). The amount of bleeding was significantly decreased (137.9 鹵30.1 ml VS, 188.9 鹵53.8 ml),). There was significant difference between the two groups (P 0.01). The operative time in the laparoscopic group was significantly longer than that in the traditional open group (277.8 鹵35.9 min VS 237.8 鹵26.9 min), P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the number of blood transfusions between the two groups (P 0.05). The laparoscopy group was superior to the traditional laparotomy group in the application of analgesic drugs, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, the extraction time of urinary catheter, the drainage of abdominal cavity for 3 days, and the intake of fluid after operation (P 0.05). Especially in the time of getting out of bed, the time of entering half fluid after operation, the days of hospitalization after operation were more prominent (P = 0.01). The complications such as anastomotic fistula were found in the laparoscopic group and the traditional open group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (21.1% VS 27.8% P 0.05). There was no significant difference in recurrence, metastasis and death between the two groups under the condition of no difference in follow-up time and number of cases (P 0.05). Conclusion: laparoscopic total colectomy has the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, less postoperative pain, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in recurrence, metastasis and death between the two groups. It was safe and feasible to treat familial adenomatous polyposis with high clinical application value.
【學位授予單位】：重慶醫(yī)科大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：R656

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 張連陽,劉寶華,陳金萍,文亞淵;腹腔鏡次/全結腸切除術治療結腸慢傳輸性便秘4例[J];世界華人消化雜志;2004年02期

2 張蓮春;勾玉利;;1例家族性大腸息肉病全結腸切除術的護理[J];中國實用護理雜志;2006年18期

3 余慶梅;韓淑娟;程素琴;;全結腸切除術的護理[J];河南外科學雜志;2008年05期

4 洪小芳;謝玲女;;家族性腺瘤性息肉病患者全結腸切除術后排便管理[J];護士進修雜志;2009年10期

5 周洪偉;晏才杰;郭丹;李洋;;回腸循環(huán)襻在次/全結腸切除術腸道重建中的臨床應用[J];第三軍醫(yī)大學學報;2009年21期

6 宗修錕,曲化遠,楊彬;部分回腸倒置預防全結腸切除術后嚴重腹瀉(附六例報告)[J];實用外科雜志;1989年06期

7 馬桂春;王欣;李晶華;;全結腸切除術的護理[J];中國實用護理雜志;1991年02期

8 繆剛,李大軍,譚樹平;全結腸切除術后電解質紊亂的處理(附8例)[J];現代外科;1999年03期

9 魏瓊;;全結腸切除術的配合[J];基層醫(yī)學論壇;2007年22期

10 穆玲;馬春耕;;全結腸切除術治療頑固性便秘13例[J];中國廠礦醫(yī)學;2008年02期

相關會議論文 前4條

1 張連陽;劉寶華;陳金萍;文亞淵;童衛(wèi)東;何渝軍;;全結腸切除術治療結腸慢傳輸性便秘:腹腔鏡手術和開腹手術的比較[A];科技、工程與經濟社會協調發(fā)展——中國科協第五屆青年學術年會論文集[C];2004年

2 張連陽;劉寶華;陳金萍;文亞淵;童衛(wèi)東;何渝軍;;全結腸切除術治療結腸慢傳輸型便秘腹腔鏡手術和開腹手術的比較[A];中西醫(yī)結合大腸肛門病研究新進展——第十屆中國中西醫(yī)結合學會大腸肛門病學術研討會論文集[C];2004年

3 狄鎮(zhèn)海;;雙球囊擴張術治療結直腸吻合口狹窄[A];中華醫(yī)學會第十三屆全國放射學大會論文匯編（上冊）[C];2006年

4 蓋慧玲;;就全結腸切除術談手術室訪視的重要性[A];吉林省護理學會2008學術年會暨護理技能培訓班論文匯編[C];2008年

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 雷凱;腹腔鏡與開腹全結腸切除術治療家族性腺瘤性息肉病的療效比較[D];重慶醫(yī)科大學;2015年

，

本文編號：2372219