电视胸腔镜3D与2D模式下食管癌胸部手术的比较
本文选题:食管癌 + 电视胸腔镜手术 ; 参考:《中国微创外科杂志》2017年02期
【摘要】:目的 探讨电视胸腔镜3D模式与2D模式食管癌胸部手术的优缺点。方法 2013年7月~2015年5月我科53例食管癌采用3D-VATS(3D组),51例采用2D-VATS(2D组),比较手术时间、出血量、淋巴结清扫数目、术后24 h引流量、总引流量、胸腔闭式引流管带管时间及术后并发症发生情况。结果 104食管癌均在胸腔镜下完成胸部手术。3D组手术时间(63.4±3.3)min,明显短于2D组(71.7±5.1)min(t=-9.891,P=0.000);出血量(53.1±5.5)ml,明显少于2D组(66.9±9.4)ml(t=-9.180,P=0.000);淋巴结清扫数目(14.8±2.9)枚,明显多于2D组(13.1±2.0)枚(t=3.467,P=0.000)。3D组术后24 h引流量(196.2±34.2)ml,与2D组(205.0±32.4)ml差异无统计学意义(t=-1.346,P=0.181);总引流量(579.2±59.4)ml,与2D组(599.8±56.5)ml差异无统计学意义(t=-1.811,P=0.073);胸腔闭式引流管带管时间(4.7±0.6)d,与2D组(5.1±1.4)d差异无统计学意义(t=-1.906,P=0.059);2组术后心率失常、肺部感染、吻合口漏、喉返神经损伤发生率无统计学差异(P0.05)。2组1年生存率无统计学差异(log-rankχ~2=0.435,P=0.510)。结论 电视胸腔镜3D模式下食管癌胸部手在手术时间、出血量、淋巴结清扫数目较2D模式下有一定的优势,在24 h引流量、总引流量、胸腔带管时间和术后并发症上无明显差异。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of 3 D and 2 D mode thoracic surgery for esophageal carcinoma. Methods from July 2013 to May 2015, 53 cases of esophageal carcinoma in our department were treated with 3D-VATS(3D group. 51 cases were treated with 2D-VATS(2D group. The operation time, the amount of bleeding, the number of lymph node dissection, the drainage flow at 24 hours after operation and the total drainage volume were compared. Time and complications of thoracic closed drainage tube. Results all patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent thoracic surgery under thoracoscopy. The operative time was 63.4 卤3.3 min, which was significantly shorter than that in 2D group (71.7 卤5.1 min) -9.891U 0.000g, and the amount of bleeding was 53.1 卤5.5 ml, which was significantly less than that in 2D group (66.9 卤9.4 ml -9.180 min), and the number of lymph node dissection was 14.8 卤2.9%. It was significantly more than 2D group (13.1 卤2.0). There was no significant difference between 2D group and 2D group in the drainage flow rate (196.2 卤34.2 32.4)ml) at 24 hours after operation, the total drainage volume was 579.2 卤59.4ml, there was no statistical difference between 2D group and 2D group (599.8 卤599.8 卤56.5)ml); there was no statistical difference between 2D group and 2D group (4.7 卤0.6d). There was no statistical difference between 2D group and 2D group (599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤599.8 卤1.811P0.073). After operation, the heart rate was abnormal in the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of pulmonary infection, anastomotic leakage and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. Conclusion the operation time, bleeding volume and the number of lymph node dissection in the thoracic hand of esophageal carcinoma under 3D video-assisted thoracoscopy are superior to that in 2D mode, and the total drainage is 24 h. There was no significant difference in the time of thoracic canal and postoperative complications.
【作者单位】: 厦门大学附属第一医院胸外科;厦门大学附属第一医院手术室;
【相似文献】
相关会议论文 前8条
1 高小增;侯波;张胜卫;付玉东;贾国华;;不横断背阔肌的胸部后外侧切口在胸部手术中的应用[A];第七届全国胸腔镜外科学术会议论文集[C];2004年
2 陈钢;林宇;陈记财;陈晓伟;;胸部手术后呼吸道的监护与处理[A];全国中西医结合围手术期研究新进展学习班暨第三届全国中西医结合围手术期医学专题研讨会论文集[C];2008年
3 舒进;陆箴琦;张燕;华健;;全麻胸部术后早期半卧位的探讨[A];全国外科、神经内外科护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议论文汇编[C];2007年
4 阮玉琴;许士英;徐建芳;;肺癌术后不适原因调查及护理对策[A];2008年浙江省胸心外科学学术年会暨浙江省医学会胸心外科学分会体外循环学组、胸腔镜学组成立大会论文汇编[C];2008年
5 王晓梅;;胸部手术后低氧血症患者无创机械通气治疗的护理[A];全国内科护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议、全国心脏内、外科护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议论文汇编[C];2008年
6 刘志勇;艾宇航;;右旋美托咪啶在胸部手术后机械通气患者中镇静效果的观察[A];第三届重症医学大会论文汇编[C];2009年
7 李皎伦;隋一玲;吴淑丽;;肋间神经冷冻用于胸部手术止痛效果观察及护理[A];全国外科、神经内外科护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议论文汇编[C];2005年
8 涂美春;张娟;范向清;李美端;;不同护理干预对胸部手术ICU患者家属应对方式的影响[A];全国内科护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议、全国心脏内、外科护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议、全国第8届糖尿病护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议、全国第8届血液净化护理学术交流暨专题讲座会议论文汇编[C];2010年
相关重要报纸文章 前2条
1 陈建军;英海军免费整容[N];中国国防报;2005年
2 赵明;咳嗽病人护理七要点[N];医药养生保健报;2006年
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 张书新;胸部三维数字化建模的基础与临床初步应用研究[D];中国人民解放军医学院;2016年
相关硕士学位论文 前3条
1 徐湘;传统的胸部后外侧切口的改良[D];浙江大学;2013年
2 朱东山;胸部超声对术前评价胸膜粘连的意义[D];吉林大学;2009年
3 廖广园;无创正压通气预防胸部外科手术后肺并发症的前瞻性随机对照研究[D];广州医学院;2009年
,本文编号:1902168
本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/yixuelunwen/zlx/1902168.html