低位直肠癌保肛手术中回肠襻式造口与改良自闭式造口的对比研究

目的探讨低位直肠癌保肛手术中应用改良自闭式造口的安全性和有效性,比较采用改良自闭式造口与回肠襻式造口两种造口方式的临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析苏北人民医院胃肠外科2016年9月~2018年8月期间60例行低位直肠癌保肛手术患者的临床资料,根据预防性造口实施方式的不同分为：改良自闭式造口组25例,回肠襻式造口组35例。分析指标包括：一般资料及病理资料、术中及术后恢复情况、术后并发症及随访情况。 结果两组患者均未发生吻合口漏,改良自闭式造口组患者术后总住院时间为（8.68±0.95）天,回肠襻式造口组患者术后总住院时间为（14.46±1.20）天,两组比较差异具有统计学意义（t=13.00,P<0.01）,包括行一期造口及二期还纳手术的时间。改良自闭式造口组患者在院总花费为（59 284.52±5 712.63）元,回肠襻式造口组为（75 128.77±10 238.05）元,两组比较差异具有统计学意义（t=6.99,P<0.01）。 结论相比回肠末端襻式造口,改良自闭式造口住院时间少、住院费用低,避免了造口旁疝及造口脱垂等造口相关并发症的出现,是低位直肠癌保肛术中可供选择的预造口方式。     

预防性回肠造口术后粪水性皮炎的危险因素及护理对策

目的探讨预防性回肠造口术后粪水性皮炎发生的危险因素,提出护理对策及预防措施。 方法采取查阅病历、延续性护理记录、造口门诊就诊记录的方式,回顾性分析在中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院结直肠外科2017年10月至2018年10月间收治的直肠癌行低位前切除＋预防性回肠造口手术的患者的资料共161例,分析粪水性皮炎发生的危险因素。 结果161例研究对象中,粪水性皮炎发生43例,占26.7%。肠造口存在位置不当、周围皮肤不平整、排便出口肠黏膜低或平于皮肤的患者粪水性皮炎的发生率高于肠造口不存在这些问题的患者（P<0.01）;BMI偏高患者粪水性皮炎的发生率高于BMI正常的患者（χ²=3.938,P<0.01）;接受专科护士个性化指导的患者发生粪水性皮炎的比例明显低于未接受个性化指导的患者,差异有统计学意义（χ²=29.625,P<0.01）。 结论术前由患者和家属、肠造口专科护士及医生三方共同帮助患者选择理想的造口位置;术中医生缝合造口时,保证肠造口周围皮肤平坦,注意近端造口黏膜高于皮肤且排便开口不能偏向一侧;术后住院期间专科护士根据患者的造口特点给予个性化护理指导,帮助患者选择适合的造口用品、提高护理技能;出院后加强延续性护理,预防粪水性皮炎发生。     

使用下腹部陈旧手术切口做直肠癌标本取出和预防性造口的可行性研究

目的探讨使用下腹部陈旧手术切口做直肠癌标本取出和预防性造口的可行性。 方法回顾性分析解放军总医院第七医学中心普通外科2017年1月~2019年6月间收治的中低位直肠癌腹腔镜保肛手术后行末端回肠双腔造口的患者的临床资料,其中22例应用了既往下腹部及盆腔脏器手术切口取出标本和预防性造口（观察组）;选取同期情况相近的经左侧腹直肌切口取标本,经右下腹行预防性造口的直肠癌患者40例作为对照组。比较两组患者的一般资料和造口及造口还纳相关并发症的发生情况,疼痛情况采用视觉模拟评分法（VAS）比较,出院时采用功能状态（Karnofsky）评分评价患者功能状态。 结果两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后进食时间、造口袋首次渗漏时间、结直肠吻合口漏发生率相比较差异均无统计学意义（t=2.539、0.879、0.866、0.774,χ²=6.508;P>0.05）。观察组术后各时间点患者疼痛情况评分分值均显著低于对照组（t=5.695,7.614,6.677;P<0.05）,术后使用镇痛药物人次显著下降（χ²=5.213,P<0.05）。两组患者造口相关并发症发生率、造口还纳相关并发症的发生率相比较差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。观察组Karnofsky功能状态评分为（83.7±5.6）分,显著高于对照组（78.4±5.2）分（t=2.906,P<0.05）。 结论对于中低位直肠癌保肛手术后行末端回肠双腔造口的患者,使用下腹部陈旧手术切口做标本取出和预防性造口是安全可行的,患者术后恢复较快,值得临床应用。     

经腹直肌前后鞘乙状结肠异位造口术在直肠癌治疗中的应用观察

对60例低位直肠癌行Miles联合乙状结肠造口术。60例随机分为A、B组,各30例。A组行传统乙状结肠造口术,B组经腹直肌前后鞘行乙状结肠异位造口术。A组术后造口旁疝、造口脱垂和回缩发生率均高于B组（P〈0.05）。认为乙状结肠经腹直肌前后鞘异位造口术是一种简便、效果好、便于基层医院推广的较好方法。     

腹膜外隧道式结肠造口的观察及护理对策

目的观察腹膜外隧道式结肠造口手术与常规的腹膜内造口术后患者在肠道功能恢复方面及肠造口并发症方面的差异,并探讨护理方法。 方法将205例腹会阴联合切除术患者,按造口手术方式分为两组：治疗组隧道式结肠造口,对照组常规的腹膜内造口。观察两组患者围手术期至术后一年肠道功能恢复情况、结肠造口并发症以及排便情况。 结果围手术期两组患者肠梗阻发生率、结肠造口并发症的发生率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。术后患者腹胀症状明显、排便时间延长,治疗组高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。术后一年内自我护理造口的能力和肠梗阻的发生率两组患者差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;两组患者在术后形成规律排便习惯方面差异有统计学意义（χ²=6.616,P=0.010）。术后一年内肠造口凹陷、狭窄的发生率两组患者差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;肠造口旁疝、肠造口脱垂的发生率：治疗组明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。 结论腹膜外隧道式结肠造口患者术后近期肠道功能恢复时间长于腹膜内造口患者且腹胀症状明显。护士要加强饮食、活动指导,促进肠道功能恢复;术后远期更易形成规律的排便习惯,造口旁疝、造口脱垂的发生率明显低于腹膜内造口患者,因此对于腹膜内结肠造口患者的护理指导内容可根据其优势进行优化调整。     

预防性末端回肠造瘘在超低位直肠癌保肛手术中的应用探讨

目的探讨预防性末端回肠造瘘在超低位直肠癌保肛手术中的应用效果。方法将收治并行超低位直肠癌保肛手术治疗的72例患者随机分为观察组和对照组各36例。两组患者均施行超低位直肠癌保肛手术治疗,术中严格遵循全直肠系膜切除(TME)原则。观察组在此基础上行预防性末端回肠造瘘。比较两组患者术后排气时间、拔除引流管时间、住院时间及吻合口瘘发生率等。结果观察组术后排气时间、拔除引流管时间、住院时间均明显短于对照组(P 0. 05)。观察组术后吻合口瘘发生率低于对照组,但差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论超低位直肠癌保肛手术患者术后行预防性末端回肠造瘘可促进肠道功能早期恢复、缩短住院时间,并有降低术后吻合口瘘发生率的优势。     

互联网＋健康宣教在肠造口患者中的应用

目的探讨互联网＋健康宣教在肠造口患者中的应用效果。 方法选取2017年1月至8月在国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院结直肠外科住院的270例肠造口患者,按照宣教的时间顺序分为观察组和对照组。对照组采用常规围手术期护理模式。观察组在对照组的基础上增加互联网＋的模式,通过公众号的互动、云课堂、门诊病历互联网反馈等形式进行健康宣教,比较两组患者在出院后造口并发症的发生率及护理宣教满意度情况。 结果观察组患者在出院后1个月造口周围粪水性皮炎（χ²=5.391,P=0.02）、皮肤黏膜分离（χ²=4.014,P=0.045）均低于对照组,观察组出院3个月造口周围粪水性皮炎（χ²=5.137,P=0.023）及造口回缩的发生率（χ²=4.060,P=0.044）均低于对照组。统计观察组患者在出院后第3个月的患者满意度,其中宣教途径及方式（χ²=5.40,P=0.02）、问题反馈及时效性（χ²=5.065,P=0.024）优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论互联网＋健康宣教在肠造口患者的应用中能明显降低患者早期造口并发症的发生率,提升了患者的生活质量,增加了患者对护理宣教的满意度,值得借鉴和推广。     

管型吻合器改良腹壁通道法在腹腔镜膀胱全切-回肠膀胱术中的应用

目的 探讨管型吻合器改良腹壁通道法在腹腔镜膀胱全切-回肠膀胱术中的应用效果。方法 选取膀胱全切-回肠膀胱术患者29例,均使用改良腹壁通道法联合管型吻合器,统计手术时间、出血量,术后随访,观察造口旁疝的发生情况及其他远期并发症。结果 29例手术均顺利完成。手术时间3～9 min,平均4 min。出血量2～8 mL,平均5 mL。围手术期无死亡病例,1例肥胖并糖尿病患者出现造口感染。术后随访9～34个月,平均17个月,无造口脱垂,无造口狭窄,2例患者出现造口旁疝,1例为肥胖伴糖尿病并术后感染患者,术后11个月出现造口旁疝,联合普外科进行手术治疗。1例为高龄并长期咳嗽患者,术后14个月CT提示造口旁疝,普外科会诊后建议观察,暂不需手术治疗。结论 腹腔镜膀胱全切-回肠膀胱术中应用管型吻合器改良腹壁通道法效果较好,手术时间短,造口旁疝发生率低。     

腹膜外结肠造口在腹腔镜直肠癌Miles术中的应用

目的探讨腹膜外结肠造口在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中的应用效果。 方法回顾性分析经腹膜外造口的患者48例和经腹造口患者64例的临床资料,两组均行腹腔镜手术,比较2组术后近期及远期造口并发症发生情况。 结果术后围手术并发症、近期造口并发症发生率及术后首次排气、排便时间之间的差异均无统计学意义。两组术后住院天数的差异无统计学意义。腹膜外组比经腹腔组造口旁疝及造口脱垂发生率低,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论腹腔镜技术下经腹膜外结肠造口较经腹腔造口近期并发症发生率相似,但远期造口相关并发症发生率低,患者生活质量较高,临床值得推广。     

自闭式插管造瘘在低位直肠癌保肛手术的临床应用研究

背景低位直肠癌保肛手术在临床上越来越常见,人工造瘘术是直肠癌手术的常见辅助技术,传统人工造瘘术手术创伤较大,肠道功能恢复后需要再次手术封闭瘘口,操作繁琐且成本较高,遂对新式自闭式插管造瘘展开研究.目的观察低位直肠癌保肛手术应用自闭式插管造瘘的临床效果.方法选择2016-07/2018-07在我院消化外科行低位直肠癌保肛手术治疗的120例患者作为研究对象,按随机数表法分两组组,每组60例,均行直肠癌低位前切除术,对照组在术中行常规回肠保护性造口技术,观察组行自闭式插管造瘘技术,比较两组手术指标、并发症及生活质量.结果观察组带管时间26.59 d±3.81 d、住院时间12.01d±3.56 d相比对照组短,且造口袋更换次数1.09次/wk±0.30次/wk比对照组少(P0.05);观察组并发症6.67%相比对照组26.67%更低(P0.05);观察组术后躯体功能(92.41分±10.21分)、生理职能(76.82分±14.15分)、机体疼痛(90.11分±10.63分)等评分相比对照组高(P0.05).结论低位直肠癌保肛手术应用自闭式插管造瘘能保护吻合口,减少造口并发症,缩短造口期,减少造口袋更换次数,效果良好.     

老年人低位直肠癌前切除术后回肠置管造口与横结肠造口的对比研究

目的 对比研究回肠置管造口术与横结肠造口术对老年低位直肠癌患者施行前切除术(LAR)后发生吻合口漏的预防和治疗特点.方法 选择低位直肠癌患者施行LAR后具有发生吻合口漏高危因素的老年患者60例,随机分为横结肠造口组与回肠置管造口组.观察吻合口漏的发生率、住院时间和费用.结果 两组各发生吻合口漏1例,均经非手术治疗痊愈.住院时间和费用横结肠造口组为17 d,2.8万元;回肠置管造口组为18 d,2.9万元,两组比较差异无统计学意义(均为P＞0.05).结论 回肠置管造口术对LAR手术后发生吻合口漏的预防和治疗作用与横结肠造口术无差异,是一项简单、安全、有效的方法.     

Virtual ileostomy following TME and primary sphincter-saving reconstruction for rectal cancer

Surgical management of rectal cancer has undergone a significant change during the past two decades. Low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME) is, at the moment, the "gold standard" for carcinoma of the mid or lower rectum. Because the most specific complication following rectal resection with anastomosis is symptomatic leakage, which is associated with 18% mortality rate, routine formation of a temporary stoma is suitable after sphincter-saving resection for anastomoses situated at or less than 5cm from the anal verge. Actually the preferred modes of fecal diversion following LAR with TME are loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy. Low anastomosis, preoperative radiation or chemoradiation, presence of intraoperative adverse events and male gender are independent risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage. A defunctioning loop ileostomy or the classical "protective" colostomy requires subsequent reconstructive surgery with a significant postoperative morbidity. For these reasons we use an alternative to protect a high risk anastomosis with fashioning a proximal intraabdominal closed loop ileostomy called "virtual ileostomy". In a seven-year period from 1999 to 2005 a total of 107 patients underwent elective anterior resection of the rectum for carcinoma, in all cases was fashioned a virtual ileostomy. The incidence of symptomatic clinically evident anastomotic leakage was 13%; in all the cases (14 pts) the closed loop ileostomy was opened with a reduction of the originally planned number of ileostomies by over 80%. The procedure is easy to perform and well accepted by the patients. It avoids a second operation.     

Use of Intracolonic Bypass Secured by a Biodegradable Anastomotic Ring to Protect the Low Rectal Anastomosis

Purpose Because of the relatively high morbidity and mortality of anastomotic leakage in patients with low rectal cancer who receive an anterior resection, many fecal diverting methods have been introduced. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass in protecting low rectal anastomosis and to compare the efficacy and complications of Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass with those of loop ileostomy. Methods From January 2002 to April 2006, 83 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective low anterior resection received intracolonic bypass or ileostomy. Demographics, clinical features, and operative data were recorded. Results Forty-four patients (53 percent) received a Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass and 39 patients (47 percent) a loop ileostomy. The demographics and clinical features of the groups were similar. None of the patients developed clinical anastomotic leakage. Longer overall postoperative hospital stay (21.3 ± 5.8 days) and higher costs incurred (3.1 ± 0.9 × $1,000 U.S. dollars) were observed in the ileostomy group than in the intracolonic bypass group (12.5 ± 6.3 days, 4.4 ± 1.2 × $1,000 U.S. dollars; P < 0.05). Stoma-related complications in the ileostomy group included dermatitis (12.8 percent), bleeding (2.6 percent), and intestinal obstruction after stoma closure (5.1 percent). No complications were observed in the intracolonic bypass group except for the Valtrac™ ring discharging en bloc, which compromised fecal evacuation in two cases (4.5 percent). Conclusions The Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass procedure is a safe, effective, but time-limited, diverting technique to protect an elective low colorectal anastomosis. Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass, in contrast to loop ileostomy, avoids stoma-related complications or readmission for closure and is associated with decreased hospital time and cost. Presented at the First National Conference on Colorectal Surgery, Zhu Hai, Guang Dong, China, November 2 to 5, 2006. Reprints are not available.     

腹腔镜腹会阴联合切除术腹膜外结肠造口对比腹膜内造口治疗直肠癌的Meta分析

目的比较直肠癌行腹腔镜腹会阴联合切除术（LAPR）腹膜外结肠造口与腹膜内结肠造口的安全性与有效性,并确定直肠癌永久性结肠造口最为合适的造口方式。 方法检索Pubmed、Embase、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网以及万方数据库等中英文数据库,收集2008年10月至2020年3月国内外公开发表的有关比较LAPR腹膜外造口与腹膜内造口治疗直肠癌的临床研究,由两位研究者按照纳入与排除标准筛选符合条件的文献,非随机对照研究采用Newcastle-Ottawa Scale（NOS）量表评价文献质量,评分>5分的研究纳入Meta分析,随机对照研究采用Jadad量表评估。提取文献基本信息及相关结局指标,数据采用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析。 结果最终纳入14篇文献,其中9篇临床对照研究,5篇随机对照研究,共计1 210例患者。其中腹膜外造口组594例,腹膜内造口组616例,Meta分析结果显示,与腹腔镜腹膜内造口相比,腹腔镜腹膜外造口组造口旁疝发生率（OR=0.14,95%CI：0.08~0.25;P<0.00001）,造口脱垂发生率（OR=0.15,95%CI：0.06~0.37;P<0.0001）,造口回缩发生率（OR=0.24,95%CI：0.09~0.63;P=0.004）均明显降低;术后住院时间缩短（MD=-0.82,95%CI：-0.97~-0.68;P<0.00001）,术后首次排气时间提前（MD=-0.71,95%CI：-0.88~-0.54;P<0.00001）,更容易获得排便感（OR=9.67,95%CI：4.40~21.23;P<0.00001）,但造口水肿发生率明显升高（OR=1.81,95%CI：1.13~2.92;P=0.01）,而两组造口狭窄发生率（OR=0.62,95%CI：0.25~1.50;P=0.29）、造口感染发生率（OR=0.57,95%CI：0.29~1.12;P=0.10）以及造口时间（MD=-0.94,95%CI：-5.69~3.81;P=0.70）的差异均无统计学意义。 结论LAPR腹膜外造口能明显降低造口相关并发症的发生率,加速患者康复,更容易获得排便感,具有一定的安全性和有效性,建议直肠癌LAPR永久性结肠造口首选腹膜外造口方式。     

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection is effective treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse

PURPOSE: The study was undertaken to evaluate the role of laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection as a safe and effective treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse. METHOD: Data were prospectively collected and analyzed on 25 patients who underwent laparoscopic rectopexy without resection for full-thickness rectal prolapse between October 1994 and July 1998. Four patients had conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery. Two patients had recurrent prolapse previously managed by Delorme's procedure. Another two patients had solitary rectal ulcer syndrome associated with their full-thickness rectal prolapse. There were a total of three males. Mean age was 72 (range, 37–89) years. The preoperative and postoperative course of each patient was followed up, with attention paid to first bowel movement, hospital stay, duration of surgery, fecal incontinence, constipation, recurrent prolapse, morbidity, and mortality. Follow-up was made by clinic appointments and, if necessary, by telephone review. RESULTS: Median follow-up period was 26 (range, 1–41) months. Mean duration of surgery was 96 (range, 50–150) minutes. Postoperatively, the median time for first bowel movement was four (range, 2–10) days. Median hospital stay was seven (range, 3–23) days. Overall, 15 patients (60 percent) either improved or remained unchanged with respect to continence. There was an improvement in 10 of 20 patients (50 percent) among those with continence Grade 2 or more (P<0.05). Seven patients (28 percent) remained incontinent. No patient became more incontinent after surgery. Constipation, which was present in 9 patients (36 percent) preoperatively, affected 11 patients (44 percent) after rectopexy (P>0.05; not significant). Postoperative morbidity included a port site hernia and deep venous thrombosis in one patient, a repaired rectal perforation, a retroperitoneal hematoma with prolonged ileus (1 case), and a superficial wound infection (1 case). One patient with solitary rectal ulcer syndrome in the laparoscopic surgery group remained unhealed despite resolution of the rectal prolapse after rectopexy and required abdominoperineal resection. Two patients (laparoscopic surgery = 1 and open surgery = 1) had severe constipation after surgery and both required loop colostomies. There were no cases of operative mortality or recurrent prolapse. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection is both safe and effective in this frequently frail population and offers a minimally invasive approach that may have potential advantages for selected groups of patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse.Mr. Hartley was supported by an education grant from Autosuture UK.Presented in part to the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, Brighton, United Kingdom, May 4 to 7 1999.     

The efficacy of loop colostomy for complete fecal diversion

In an attempt to evaluate the real efficacy of loop colostomy for fecal diversion, the authors studied 62 patients previously colostomized under emergency conditions. Radiologic series of the abdomen were taken after 200 gm of barium meal. The results showed that the colostomy provided complete diversion of the radiologic contrast in 53 patients (85 percent) and incomplete diversion in nine patients (15 percent). Analysis of the results revealed that incomplete fecal diversion was: 1) observed as of the 86th postoperative day, with a significantly higher frequency following the 10th postoperative month, and 2) significantly correlated with either colostomy retraction or prolapse. The authors present a diagram showing a possible interaction of factors responsible for incomplete fecal diversion in loop colostomy and conclude that: 1) retraction is probably the basic contributing factor for colostomy failure; 2) the prolapse, once reduced, propitiates sinking of the stoma, facilitating colostomy failure; 3) the common assumption that loop colostomy eventually fails to provide complete fecal diversion is further supported; 4) loop colostomy assures, over its usual duration, a satisfactory defunctionalization of the colon; and 5) use of improved techniques of colostomy construction may prolong complete fecal diversion.