腹腔镜腹会阴上提肌直肠摘除术的远期疗效

Михаил Александрович Данилов, А. В. Леонтьев, А. Б. Байчоров, З. М. Абдулатипова, Г. Г. Саакян
{"title":"腹腔镜腹会阴上提肌直肠摘除术的远期疗效","authors":"Михаил Александрович Данилов, А. В. Леонтьев, А. Б. Байчоров, З. М. Абдулатипова, Г. Г. Саакян","doi":"10.17650/2686-9594-2020-10-3-4-34-42","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: comparative assessment of long-term oncological results of laparoscopic extralevator and traditional abdominal-perineal resection (APR).Materials and methods. The analysis of immediate and long-term oncological results of treatment of 92 patients who underwent traditional laparoscopic and extralevator APR for low rectal cancer. Inclusion criteria were tumors of the lower ampullar rectum, excluding the performance of sphincter-sparing surgical interventions, and patients’ age up to 75 years. Exclusion criteria: distant metastases, histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma. Analysis of immediate and long-term results was carried out.Results. The main group included patients who underwent extralevator APR (n = 62), patients in the control group (n = 30) underwent traditional APR. There were no significant differences in the type of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in the comparison groups (p >0.05). In the group of patients operated on in the volume of extralevator APR, 42 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus 19 patients in the group of traditional APR, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.21). In the extralevator APR group, perineal plastic surgery was performed significantly more often than in the traditional APR group (p = 0.001). When evaluating the immediate results, there was a statistically significant difference in the total number of complications between the study groups, such complications as bladder dysfunction following after surgery, inflammatory pelvic disease in the perineal wound, perineal hernia occurred significantly more often in the traditional APR group than in the extralevator APR group (p >0.05). In terms of overall and disease-free survival, the groups differed statistically significantly: 5-year overall survival in the main group was 90 % versus 62.5 % in the control group (p = 0.03), 5-year disease-free survival in the main group was 98.5 % versus 65 % in the control group, respectively (p = 0.01).Conclusions. Extralevator APR of the rectum is the most radical surgical intervention than with the traditional APR technique due to the lower risk of a positive circumferention resection margin, therefore, reducing the incidence of local recurrence, and as a result, improving overall and disease-free survival rates compared to the traditional technique.","PeriodicalId":34449,"journal":{"name":"Tazovaia khirurgiia i onkologiia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal extirpation of the rectum: long-term results\",\"authors\":\"Михаил Александрович Данилов, А. В. Леонтьев, А. Б. Байчоров, З. М. Абдулатипова, Г. Г. Саакян\",\"doi\":\"10.17650/2686-9594-2020-10-3-4-34-42\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: comparative assessment of long-term oncological results of laparoscopic extralevator and traditional abdominal-perineal resection (APR).Materials and methods. The analysis of immediate and long-term oncological results of treatment of 92 patients who underwent traditional laparoscopic and extralevator APR for low rectal cancer. Inclusion criteria were tumors of the lower ampullar rectum, excluding the performance of sphincter-sparing surgical interventions, and patients’ age up to 75 years. Exclusion criteria: distant metastases, histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma. Analysis of immediate and long-term results was carried out.Results. The main group included patients who underwent extralevator APR (n = 62), patients in the control group (n = 30) underwent traditional APR. There were no significant differences in the type of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in the comparison groups (p >0.05). In the group of patients operated on in the volume of extralevator APR, 42 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus 19 patients in the group of traditional APR, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.21). In the extralevator APR group, perineal plastic surgery was performed significantly more often than in the traditional APR group (p = 0.001). When evaluating the immediate results, there was a statistically significant difference in the total number of complications between the study groups, such complications as bladder dysfunction following after surgery, inflammatory pelvic disease in the perineal wound, perineal hernia occurred significantly more often in the traditional APR group than in the extralevator APR group (p >0.05). In terms of overall and disease-free survival, the groups differed statistically significantly: 5-year overall survival in the main group was 90 % versus 62.5 % in the control group (p = 0.03), 5-year disease-free survival in the main group was 98.5 % versus 65 % in the control group, respectively (p = 0.01).Conclusions. Extralevator APR of the rectum is the most radical surgical intervention than with the traditional APR technique due to the lower risk of a positive circumferention resection margin, therefore, reducing the incidence of local recurrence, and as a result, improving overall and disease-free survival rates compared to the traditional technique.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tazovaia khirurgiia i onkologiia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tazovaia khirurgiia i onkologiia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17650/2686-9594-2020-10-3-4-34-42\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tazovaia khirurgiia i onkologiia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17650/2686-9594-2020-10-3-4-34-42","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较评价腹腔镜外提术与传统腹会阴切除术(APR)的远期肿瘤效果。材料和方法。92例低位直肠癌行传统腹腔镜+外提APR治疗的近期及远期肿瘤结果分析。纳入标准为下壶腹直肠肿瘤,不包括保留括约肌的手术干预,患者年龄不超过75岁。排除标准:远处转移,组织学证实的鳞状细胞癌。对近期和远期结果进行了分析。主组采用外提APR (n = 62),对照组采用传统APR (n = 30),两组在新辅助治疗方式和辅助治疗方式上差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。在容积式APR组中,42例患者接受了新辅助放化疗,而传统APR组为19例,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.21)。外提APR组会阴整形手术的发生率明显高于传统APR组(p = 0.001)。在评价即时效果时,两组间的并发症总数有统计学差异,术后膀胱功能障碍、会阴创面炎症性盆腔疾病、会阴疝等并发症在传统APR组的发生率明显高于外提APR组(p < 0.05)。在总生存率和无病生存率方面,两组间差异有统计学意义:主组5年总生存率为90%,对照组为62.5% (p = 0.03);主组5年无病生存率为98.5%,对照组为65% (p = 0.01)。与传统APR技术相比,直肠外提APR是最根治性的手术干预,因为其环周正切缘的风险较低,因此减少了局部复发率,因此,与传统技术相比,提高了总体生存率和无病生存率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal extirpation of the rectum: long-term results
Objective: comparative assessment of long-term oncological results of laparoscopic extralevator and traditional abdominal-perineal resection (APR).Materials and methods. The analysis of immediate and long-term oncological results of treatment of 92 patients who underwent traditional laparoscopic and extralevator APR for low rectal cancer. Inclusion criteria were tumors of the lower ampullar rectum, excluding the performance of sphincter-sparing surgical interventions, and patients’ age up to 75 years. Exclusion criteria: distant metastases, histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma. Analysis of immediate and long-term results was carried out.Results. The main group included patients who underwent extralevator APR (n = 62), patients in the control group (n = 30) underwent traditional APR. There were no significant differences in the type of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in the comparison groups (p >0.05). In the group of patients operated on in the volume of extralevator APR, 42 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus 19 patients in the group of traditional APR, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.21). In the extralevator APR group, perineal plastic surgery was performed significantly more often than in the traditional APR group (p = 0.001). When evaluating the immediate results, there was a statistically significant difference in the total number of complications between the study groups, such complications as bladder dysfunction following after surgery, inflammatory pelvic disease in the perineal wound, perineal hernia occurred significantly more often in the traditional APR group than in the extralevator APR group (p >0.05). In terms of overall and disease-free survival, the groups differed statistically significantly: 5-year overall survival in the main group was 90 % versus 62.5 % in the control group (p = 0.03), 5-year disease-free survival in the main group was 98.5 % versus 65 % in the control group, respectively (p = 0.01).Conclusions. Extralevator APR of the rectum is the most radical surgical intervention than with the traditional APR technique due to the lower risk of a positive circumferention resection margin, therefore, reducing the incidence of local recurrence, and as a result, improving overall and disease-free survival rates compared to the traditional technique.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信