微创食管手术中食管悬吊法清扫左喉返神经旁淋巴结的临床疗效分析

目的:分析微创食管癌手术中食管悬吊法对左喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫情况、手术时间和相关并发症的影响。方法:回顾分析2015年1月-12月复旦大学附属中山医院微创手术治疗的145例食管癌患者的临床资料,其中71例术中用食管悬吊法清扫左喉返神经旁淋巴结,另74例术中用常规方法清扫左喉返神经旁淋巴结。结果:与常规方法组相比,食管悬吊组的左喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫数量显著增加[(2.55±0.20)枚 vs (1.46±0.22)枚,P<0.05],手术时间[(262.60±6.44) min vs (265.60±6.17) min]和左喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫时间[(9.90±0.34) min vs (9.6...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in中国临床医学 Vol. 23; no. 4; pp. 484 - 487
Main Author 林淼 沈亚星 汪灏 冯明祥 谭黎杰
Format Journal Article
LanguageChinese
Published 复旦大学附属中山医院胸外科,上海,200032 2016
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1008-6358
DOI10.12025/j.issn.1008-6358.2016.20160710

Cover

More Information
Summary:目的:分析微创食管癌手术中食管悬吊法对左喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫情况、手术时间和相关并发症的影响。方法:回顾分析2015年1月-12月复旦大学附属中山医院微创手术治疗的145例食管癌患者的临床资料,其中71例术中用食管悬吊法清扫左喉返神经旁淋巴结,另74例术中用常规方法清扫左喉返神经旁淋巴结。结果:与常规方法组相比,食管悬吊组的左喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫数量显著增加[(2.55±0.20)枚 vs (1.46±0.22)枚,P<0.05],手术时间[(262.60±6.44) min vs (265.60±6.17) min]和左喉返神经旁淋巴结清扫时间[(9.90±0.34) min vs (9.60±0.36) min]无明显差异,喉返神经不可逆损伤、胸导管损伤等并发症无明显差异。结论:微创食管癌根治术中采用食管悬吊法可更彻底地清扫左喉返神经旁淋巴结,且不增加手术时间和围手术期并发症。
Bibliography:31-1794/R
esophageal cancer;minimally invasive;esophageal suspension;left recurrent laryngeal nerve;lymphadenectomy;perioperative morbidity
LIN Miao, SHEN Ya-xing, WANG Hao, FENG Ming-xiang, TAN Li-jie (Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China)
Objective:To analyze effects of esophageal suspension on left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection ,operation duration ,and perioperative morbidity in minimally invasive esophageal surgery .Methods:Clinical data of 145 patients with esophageal cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery in Zhongshan Hospital ,Fudan University ,from Jan . to Dec .2015 were retrospectively analyzed ,including 71 cases of esophageal suspension in left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymphadenectomy and other 74 cases of conventional methods .Results:Compared with the conventional method group ,left laryngeal recurrent nerve lymph node dissection number of the esophageal suspension group (2 .55 ± 0 .20 vs 1 .46 ± 0 .22 , P〈 0 .05) incr
ISSN:1008-6358
DOI:10.12025/j.issn.1008-6358.2016.20160710