临床外科杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (8): 844-847.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2024.08.017

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

腹腔镜下胆囊切除术联合淋巴结清扫治疗老年原发性胆囊癌的临床疗效、安全性、免疫指标及生存分析

  

  1. 232000  淮南新华医疗集团新华医院胆胰外科
  • 收稿日期:2023-08-18 修回日期:2020-08-18 接受日期:2023-08-18 出版日期:2024-08-20 发布日期:2024-08-20
  • 通讯作者: 杨健康,Email:jiankangyl1215@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    安徽省自然科学基金项目(2008085QH419)

The efficacy , safety, immune indicators and survival analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with lymph node dissection in the treatment of elderly primary gallbladder cancer

  1. Department of Pancreaticobiliary Surgery,Xinhua Hospital of Huainan Xinhua Medical Group,Huainan 232000,China
  • Received:2023-08-18 Revised:2020-08-18 Accepted:2023-08-18 Online:2024-08-20 Published:2024-08-20

摘要: 目的  分析腹腔镜下胆囊切除术(LC)联合淋巴结清扫治疗老年原发性胆囊癌的疗效、安全性和生存情况。方法  选取2018年1月~2021年7月行开腹胆囊根治术联合淋巴结清扫的老年原发性胆囊癌59例为对照组,行LC联合淋巴结清扫的老年原发性胆囊癌59例为研究组,比较两组临床疗效、围手术期指标、T细胞亚群(CD3+、CD4+、CD4+/CD8+)、生活质量(SF-36)。结果  研究组近期治疗有效率和对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(94.0%vs.72.5%,χ2=0.209,P=0.648)。研究组淋巴结清扫时间为(39.27±5.63)分钟、手术所用时间为(235.16±31.37)分钟,对照组分别为(35.61±4.75)分钟、(194.59±30.82分钟,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组术中出血量为(32.63±5.42)ml,首次排气时间为(3.18±0.72)天、肠胃功能恢复时间为(3.98±1.04)天、住院时间(6.24±1.25)天,对照组分别为(61.27±7.85)ml、(4.02±0.83)天、(4.65±1.18)天、(10.41±2.18)天,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组术后CD3+、CD4+和CD4+/CD8+分别为16.52%±5.24%、15.79%±3.83%和0.47%±0.11%,对照组分别为13.74%±4.30%、10.83%±3.14%和0.29%±0.05%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组术后1个月生活质量总评分(SF-36)为(90.86±3.75)分,对照组为(86.85±3.14)分,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组并发症发生率低于对照组(7.01%vs.23.73%,χ2=4.627,P<0.05)。研究组中位生存时间为(13.8±1.50)个月,对照组为(12.5±1.25)个月,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论  LC联合淋巴结清扫治疗老年原发性胆囊癌安全有效,不影响远期预后生存。

关键词: 腹腔镜下胆囊切除术, 淋巴结清扫, 原发性胆囊癌, 安全性

Abstract: Objective  To analyze the efficacy, safety, and survival of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with lymph node dissection in the treatment of elderly primary gallbladder cancer.Methods 59 elderly patients with primary gallbladder cancer who underwent open cholecystectomy combined with lymph node dissection from January 2018 to July 2021 were selected as the control group, and 59 elderly patients with primary gallbladder cancer who underwent LC combined with lymph node dissection were selected as the study group. The clinical efficacy, perioperative indicators, and T cell subsets were compared between the two groups CD4+、CD4+/CD8+]、 Quality of life (SF-36). Results  The difference in recent treatment effectiveness between the research group and the control group is relatively small,(94.0% vs. 72.5%,χ2=0.209,P=0.648).The time required for lymph node dissection was (39.27±5.63)min and surgery time was (235.16±31.37)min in the study group,which was longer than that in the control group [(35.61±4.75)min and (194.59±30.82)min(P<0.05).In the study group,the intraoperative bleeding volume was (32.63±5.42)ml and first exhaust time was (3.18±0.72)d,gastrointestinal function recovery time was (3.98±1.04)d,and hospitalization time  was (6.24±1.25)d,which were shorter than those in the control group [(61.27±7.85)ml,(4.02±0.83)d,(4.65±1.18)d,(10.41±2.18)d,respectively,(P<0.05)].After surgery,the levels of CD3+(16.52%±5.24%),CD4+(15.79%±3.83%),and CD4+/CD8+(0.47%±0.11%) in the study group were higher than those in the control group (13.74%±4.30%,10.83%±3.14% and 0.29%±0.05%) (P<0.05).One month after surgery,the total quality of life score (SF-36) of the observation group (90.86±3.75) was higher than that of the control group (86.85±3.14) (P<0.05).The incidence of complications in the study group was lower than that in the control group (7.01% vs. 23.73%,χ2=4.627,P<0.05).The median survival time of the study group was (13.8±1.50)months,which was significantly higher than that of the control group [(12.5±1.25)months,P>0.05].Conclusion  LC combined with lymph node dissection is a safe and effective treatment for elderly primary gallbladder cancer,without affecting long-term prognosis and survival.

Key words: laparoscopic cholecystectomy, lymph node dissection, primary gallbladder carcinoma in the elderly, security

[1] 肖兴雷 刘尚仑 曹辰 陈国庆. 智能化小夹板及高分子石膏固定治疗老年桡骨远端骨折的疗效与安全性对比[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2024, 32(8): 870-873.
[2] 于姗姗 邓经飞 韩小莉 赵晶. 周围神经阻滞会影响急性骨筋膜室综合症的诊断吗?[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2024, 32(6): 569-571.
[3] 黄涛 李万松 周桢 陈玉宝. 急性结石性胆囊炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术手术时机的对比分析 [J]. 临床外科杂志, 2024, 32(5): 494-497.
[4] 曾新宇 李源 王点石 沈楚 郭熙恺 吕剑波 陶凯雄 吴川清. 根治术后行肠造口的结直肠癌病人行腹腔热灌注化疗的可行性和安全性分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2023, 31(8): 742-746.
[5] 李晓和 杨胜富 粟业能 徐绍强 冯广革. 直肠癌会阴切口重建及肠造口关闭术中十字缝合法应用效果及安全性研究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2023, 31(6): 528-532.
[6] 司宇光 吴国庆 裴炜. 腹腔镜下直肠癌根治术中保留左结肠动脉的临床研究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2023, 31(12): 1167-1170.
[7] 周岩冰. 机器人和4K腹腔镜在胃癌根治术中淋巴结清扫的比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2022, 30(9): 819-822.
[8] 卢开进 申江峰 贾卫光. 胸腔镜改良喉返神旁经淋巴结清扫治疗食管癌的疗效及对预后的影响[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2022, 30(3): 257-260.
[9] 员海超 王燕 胡祎民 倪梁朝 杨尚琪. 负压吸引鞘碎石治疗嵌顿性输尿管结石的疗效及安全性评估[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2022, 30(2): 118-120.
[10] 万江洋 封紫玉 甄林林. 峡部扩大切除+患侧中央区淋巴结清扫术在长径≤1cm甲状腺微小乳头状癌中的应用[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2022, 30(12): 1168-1171.
[11] 吴波 李玉前 王震. 单侧双通道内镜技术治疗游离型腰椎间盘突出症疗效分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2022, 30(10): 991-993.
[12] 姜小琴 李惠珍. 经尿道膀胱肿瘤电切术同期经尿道前列腺电切术治疗非浸润性膀胱癌伴良性前列腺增生的安全性及有效性研究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(9): 872-875.
[13] 周存荣, 黄陈军, 蔡强. Flex三维胸腔镜肺叶切除及淋巴结清扫术治疗原发性肺癌的疗效及安全性分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(8): 717-720.
[14] 郑衍洪 梁柱 马炳太 黄厚沐. 左侧肺癌切除联合区域淋巴结清扫手术病人淋巴结转移与临床病理的关系分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(5): 463-465.
[15] 张豪 王自强. 直肠癌侧方清扫适应证及手术操作的要点[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(5): 495-498.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 宫念樵. 器官捐献供肾质量评估[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 729 .
[2] 邱江. 心脏死亡捐献供肾移植免疫抑制方案的选择[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 735 .
[3] 昌盛. 中国心脏死亡捐献供肾器官的维护[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 744 .
[4] 戴强;徐康;周治军;等. 湖北天门地区泌尿系结石成分及特征分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 789 .
[5] 曹志新. 基于膜解剖的胃癌D2手术[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 812 .
[6] 王维君;那光玮;何科基;等. 根治性淋巴结清扫联合脾切除在残胃癌手术中的临床意义探究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 835 .
[7] 李晓辉;金太欣;邵永胜 . 升结肠回盲部肿瘤侵犯乙状结肠22例治疗体会[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 841 .
[8] 朱旭阳;朱学锋. 乳腺癌改良根治术后负压引流管的改良应用[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 867 .
[9] 谭海洋;罗良弢;严想元. 肠内营养与肠外营养在腹腔镜胃肠道肿瘤患者术后早期应用的临床研究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(12): 910 .
[10] 徐媛;宋亚锋;许涛. 谷氨酰胺并肠外营养支持在外科术后危重患者中的应用[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(12): 914 .