腹腔镜保留与不保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术治疗胰体尾病变的效果分析

目的:对比腹腔镜保留脾脏(LSPDP)与不保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术(LDPS)治疗胰体尾病变的临床效果。方法:分析2011年3月至2018年6月行腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的31例胰体尾占位患者的临床资料。按手术方式将患者分为保留脾脏的胰体尾切除组(LSPDP组,n=14)与脾脏切除组(LDPS组,n=17),对比两组患者围手术期及随访结果。结果:两组均无围手术期死亡病例。LSPDP组肛门排气时间、术后住院时间优于LDPS组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术中出血量、手术时间、胰瘘发生率、门静脉血栓发生率、腹腔积液发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。31例患者术后随访6～81个月,平均(28.26±19.21)个月,无肿瘤复发转移。结论:由经验丰富的腹腔镜外科医生有选择性地行腹腔镜保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术治疗胰腺良性或交界性肿瘤是安全、可行的。     

腹腔镜保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术和腹腔镜胰体尾联合脾脏切除术治疗胰体尾部占位性病变的疗效比较

目的探讨腹腔镜保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术(laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy,LSPDP)在治疗胰体尾部占位性病变中的安全性及优势。方法回顾性分析笔者所在医院2010年6月至2014年8月期间收治的97例胰体尾部占位性病变患者的临床资料,根据术式将其分为LSPDP组60例与腹腔镜胰体尾联合脾脏切除术(laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy,LDPS)组37例,比较2组患者的临床疗效。结果 97例患者均顺利完成腹腔镜下胰体尾切除术,无围手术期死亡。LSPDP组患者的手术时间短于LDPS组〔(190.83±66.39)min比(224.46±83.23)min,P=0.030〕,但2组患者的术中出血量〔45.35 m L比54.92 m L〕、术后住院时间〔(8.38±4.06)d比(9.76±4.54)d〕、总并发症发生率〔23.33%(14/60)比13.51%(5/37)〕及并发症分级比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.050)。术后86例患者获访,随访时间3~54个月,中位数为18个月。随访期间,2组肿瘤患者均无肿瘤复发、转移及死亡,其他良性疾病患者的预后良好。结论对胰体尾部占位性病变,LSPDP是安全可行的。     

腹腔镜下胰体尾切除术治疗胰腺良性与交界性肿瘤的临床效果

目的:探讨腹腔镜下保脾胰体尾切除术(LSPDP)治疗胰腺良性与交界性肿瘤的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析2014年8月—2018年8月间收治的21例良性与交界性胰体尾肿瘤患者临床资料,其中12例行LSPDP,9例行脾切除的腹腔镜胰体尾整块切除术(LDPS)。比较两组患者相关临床指标。结果:两组患者的手术时间、术中出血、住院时间、术中输血率差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05);两组患者术后1、7d的白细胞数量与中性粒细胞比例以及术后1、3d的腹水淀粉酶水平差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05),但LDPS组术后2周及3个月的血小板水平明显高于LSPDP组(均P0.05);两组患者术后并发症的发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:LDPS和LSPDP均可用于良性及交界性胰体尾肿瘤,相对于LDPS,LSPDP在稳定血小板方面有一定优势。     

腹腔镜胰体尾切除术49例报告

目的:探讨腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的可行性及临床应用价值。方法:回顾分析2014年6月至2018年6月行腹腔镜胰体尾切除术49例患者的临床资料,其中男13例,女36例;25～72岁,平均(44.7±15.3)岁。结果:37例行腹腔镜胰体尾联合脾脏切除术,肿瘤直径(44.6±20.3)mm;12例采用Kimura法行腹腔镜保留脾脏胰体尾切除术(LSPDP),肿瘤直径平均(29.5±20.2)mm。21例良性、交界性及低度恶性肿瘤行腹腔镜胰体尾联合脾脏切除术,肿瘤直径平均(47.5±21.2)mm,其中8例肿瘤直径≤40 mm,13例>40 mm;10例良性、交界性及低度恶性肿瘤患者行LSPDP,肿瘤直径平均(45.8±16.3)mm,其中8例肿瘤直径≤40 mm,2例>40 mm。两组患者肿瘤直径差异无统计学意义,良性、交界性及低度恶性胰腺肿瘤患者,肿瘤直径>40 mm时,多与脾脏动静脉关系密切,不宜实施Kimura法保留脾血管LSPDP(χ~2=4.763,P=0.029)。49例腹腔镜胰体尾切除术患者中46例发生生化漏,3例B级胰瘘,无C级胰瘘发生,腹腔镜胰体尾切除术不增加手术并发症的发生风险。37例腹腔镜胰体尾联合脾脏切除术患者术后肛门排气时间平均(3.4±0.8)d,术后平均住院(11.6±2.8)d;12例LSPDP患者术后肛门排气时间平均(3.3±0.8)d,术后平均住院(10.2±2.0)d。两组患者术后肛门排气时间、住院时间差异无统计学意义(t=0.51,P=0.61;t=1.68,P=0.10)。结论:对于胰体尾良性、交界性或低度恶性肿瘤,选择腹腔镜胰体尾切除术是安全、可靠的,患者创伤小,术后康复快。     

腹腔镜下保脾胰体尾切除术治疗胰体尾部肿瘤疗效的Meta分析

目的:系统性评价腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术在胰体尾部肿瘤治疗中的临床疗效。方法:检索多个国内外文献数据库,根据纳入排除标准,筛选出符合要求的文献,提取数据并进行文献质量评价,应用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入13篇文献,总计814例患者,其中行腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术399例,行腹腔镜下胰体尾联合脾脏切除术415例。Meta分析结果显示,腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术患者的手术时间(SMD=-0.79,95%CI=-1.55~-0.03,P=0.04)、术中失血量(SMD=-1.00,95%CI=-1.76~-0.24,P=0.01)及住院时间(SMD=-0.77,95%CI=-1.34~-0.21,P=0.008)均明显少于腹腔镜下胰体尾联合脾脏切除术患者;两组患者术后并发症发生率(OR=0.83,95%CI=0.63~1.10,P=0.19)及再次手术治疗率(OR=1.54,95%CI=0.52~4.59,P=0.44)差异均无统计学意义。结论:腹腔镜下保脾胰体尾切除术治疗胰体尾部肿瘤有较好的临床疗效,不会增加术后并发症发生率。     

保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术的应用探讨

目的探讨保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术在胰体尾部肿瘤治疗中的可行性及作用。方法收集大连市中心医院于1999年1月至2010年12月期间收治的胰体尾肿瘤患者49例,其中行保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术18例,包括胰腺腺癌7例,胰尾囊腺瘤9例,胰岛素瘤2例,其中3例患者接受了腹腔镜辅助保留脾脏胰体尾肿瘤切除术。回顾性分析患者的临床症状、术前检查、术后并发症等指标,并进行术后随访观察。结果开腹和腹腔镜辅助保留脾脏胰体尾肿瘤切除术均顺利实施．所选术式患者耐受性好,术后并发症少,多数患者获得长期生存。结论术前影像学检查和肿瘤标志物检查是早期诊断胰体尾肿瘤的可靠办法,CTA、DSA等检查是术前判定的重要手段,保留脾脏的胰体尾肿瘤切除术应作为胰体尾肿瘤的首选术式。腹腔镜辅助保留脾脏胰体尾肿瘤切除术是安全可行的,具有创伤轻、恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

腹腔镜下保脾治疗胰体尾部良、交界性病变的临床研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜技术治疗胰腺良性、交界性病变的应用价值及保留脾脏的意义。方法:回顾分析2010～2018年行胰体尾切除术的34例患者的临床资料,分别行腹腔镜下保留脾脏胰体尾切除术(A组,n=8)、腹腔镜下不保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术(B组,n=8)、保留脾脏胰体尾切除术(C组,8例)及不保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术(D组,n=10)。比较各组手术相关指标、术后恢复及术后并发症等。结果:在保脾的情况下,A组手术时间长于C组(P<0.05),但术中出血量、术后并发症少,术后康复快(P<0.05)。在不保留脾脏的情况下,B组术中出血量、术后并发症少于D组(P<0.05),两组手术时间、术后恢复指标差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在使用腹腔镜的情况下,A组与B组手术时间、术后恢复指标差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但前者术后并发症更少(P<0.05)。在开腹手术的情况下,C组与D组手术时间、术后恢复指标差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但C组术后并发症少(P<0.05)。结论:使用腹腔镜技术治疗胰体尾良性、交界性病变具有良好的应用价值,而术中保留脾脏较不保留脾脏的患者有着更多获益。     

腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术在临床的应用

目的探讨腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术的临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析我院2012年1月至2015年3月间胰腺手术病例资料。根据手术方式,将患者分为腹腔镜胰体尾联合脾脏切除组(切脾组)和腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术组(保脾组),记录手术相关资料(包括手术时间、术中出血量、肿瘤病理类型、肿瘤直径),术后恢复情况(包括胃管留置时间、禁食时间、生长抑素应用时间、住院时间等)以及术后并发症情况,并进行对比分析。结果保脾组和切脾组两组患者性别、年龄、肿瘤大小、手术时间、胃管留置时间和术后禁食时间均无统计学差异(P0.05);保脾组术中出血量和住院时间明显低于切脾组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜下保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术是一种适用于胰腺良性或交界性肿瘤的安全有效的手术方式。     

保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术17例临床分析

目的 探讨保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术在治疗胰腺远端肿瘤的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2011年1月至2014年2月施行的17例保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术患者的资料.结果 6例患者未能成功保脾,开腹与腹腔镜手术各3例;11例患者成功行保留脾脏胰体尾切除术,其中6例行开腹手术（1例术中行脾动脉修复,1例行Warshaw法保脾）;5例行腹腔镜手术成功保脾（1例中转开腹）.保脾成功组中腹腔镜与开腹手术后发生胰漏各2例,均经保守治疗痊愈.患者均获得随访,随访时间2个月到3年,均无脾血管栓塞、脾梗死、肿瘤复发.结论 保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术是安全可靠的,值得临床进一步推广.     

腹腔镜胰体尾切除术与开腹胰体尾切除术临床疗效对比分析

目的 对比腹腔镜胰体尾切除术（laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy,LDP）与开腹胰体尾切除术（open distal pancreatectomy,ODP）的疗效,探讨腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的优缺点.方法 回顾性分析2011年1月至2014年4月施行的17例腹腔镜胰体尾切除术患者与20例开腹胰体尾切除术患者的临床资料,对比两组患者的手术及术后情况.结果 腹腔镜组术中出血量少于开腹组,差异具有统计学意义（P＜ 0.05）;腹腔镜组术后肛门排气时间、禁食时间、住院时间较开腹组短,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;腹腔镜组手术时间长于开腹组,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;两组保脾率、术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（P＞ 0.05）,开腹组5例胰漏,1例切口感染、1例肺部感染、1例腹腔感染,腹腔镜组4例胰漏.结论 腹腔镜胰体尾切除术是安全可靠的,短期预后优于开腹组,值得临床进一步推广.     

Comparison of Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy with or without Splenic Preservation

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has gained large popularity in recent years, although the choice of whether to preserve the spleen has remained inconsistent. The aim of our study was to report our experiences with LDP and to provide evidence for the safety of the operative technique and an evaluation index of splenic function. We retrospectively evaluated all LDPs performed at our institution between March 2008 and February 2012. Cases were divided into a laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) group (n?=?14) and an LDP with splenectomy (LDPS) group (n?=?19). Parametric and nonparametric statistical analyses were used to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Demographic characteristics, operating time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, pathologic diagnosis, and complication rate were similar between groups. Patients who underwent LDPS tended to have larger masses and lower pancreatic fistula rates, but these differences were not significant. White blood cell (WBC) counts were significantly higher in the LDPS group than in the LSPDP group on postoperative days 1 and 7. To avoid splenectomy-associated complications, preservation of the spleen and especially the splenic vessels are preferred. This procedure can be performed safely and feasibly. Lower postoperative WBC counts may imply better splenic function.     

腹腔镜保脾胰体尾切除八例的手术经验

目的总结保留脾脏腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的临床经验与手术技巧。方法自2003年11月至2008年2月,我们对8例胰体尾部良性占位病变患者施行保留脾脏腹腔镜胰体尾切除术。结果本组8例均在腹腔镜下完成,其中1例合并胆囊切除,1例合并右肾上腺肿瘤切除,1例合并子宫肌瘤挖出、左卵巢畸胎瘤挖出,1例合并子宫肌瘤挖出。本组手术时间120—290min,出血量150—600ml。术后住院时间3～9d,无胰漏发生。术后病理诊断：潴留性囊肿2例,浆液性囊腺瘤1例,黏液性囊腺瘤2例,上皮性囊肿2例,先天性囊肿1例。随访9～60个月,症状消失,未见复发。结论对于胰体尾部良性病变,可行保留脾脏的胰体尾部切除,对拥有丰富高级腹腔镜手术经验的术者,开展保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术是安全可行的。     

保留脾脏腹腔镜胰尾肿瘤切除术5例报告

目的探讨腹腔镜保留脾、胰尾肿瘤切除术的可行性。方法2001年11月至2006年2月间，暨南大学第二临床医学院（深圳市人民医院）肝胆外科对5例胰尾肿瘤的病人实施保留脾脏腹腔镜胰尾肿瘤切除术。结果手术过程顺利，肿瘤完整切除，其中2例为手助腹腔镜、3例在全腹腔镜下完成，术中出血50—150mL，手术时间90～180min，术后第2天进食、下床活动，1例少量胰瘘，1例胰腺假性囊肿形成。5例病人均痊愈出院。结论腹腔镜对于胰尾的孤立肿瘤切除是微创、安全、可行的，值得进一步推广。     

腹腔镜保脾对比切脾的胰体尾切除术治疗胰腺肿瘤：基于倾向性得分匹配的对照研究

目的探讨腹腔镜保脾胰体尾切除术治疗胰体尾肿瘤的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析宁波市鄞州人民医院肝胆外科于2012年1月至2017年12月行腹腔镜胰体尾切除术的39例患者的临床资料,按照手术方式分为腹腔镜保脾组（n=11）和腹腔镜切脾组（n=28）。经倾向性得分配对后,两组各10例纳入研究,比较两组术中情况及术后近远期并发症情况等。结果保脾组与脾切除组手术时间[（175.3±47.6）minvs（187.6±56.7）min,P=0.15]、切除病灶直径[（31.6±3.7）mmvs（35.8±5.7）mm,P=0.069]差异无统计学意义,但保脾组术中出血量少于切脾组[（45.5±13.4）mLvs（105.9±34.7）mL,P＜0.001]。两组术后近期并发症的发生率（80%vs100%,P=0.531）、胰漏发生率（40%vs50%,P=0.650）无统计学差异。保脾组术后白细胞（WBC）峰值[（10.6±4.7）×10⁹/Lvs（15.3±5.9）×10⁹/L,P＜0.001]以及术后近期血小板（PLT）峰值[（534.0±149.4）×10¹²/Lvs（718.0±200.9）×10¹²/L）,P＜0.001]低于切脾组,生活质量（QOL）评分[（39.3±8.3）vs（27.0±9.5）,P＜0.001]优于切脾组。无一例发生爆发性感染。结论腹腔镜保脾胰体尾切除术和腹腔镜切脾胰体尾切除术具有相同的安全性和可行性,腹腔镜保脾胰体尾切除术后患者生活质量更高,血液稳定性更佳。     

保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术治疗经验

目的 总结腹腔镜保留脾脏的胰体尾切除术的经验。方法 2003年11月和2004年12月分别对2例胰体尾囊性占位患者施行保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术。结果 2例手术均顺利完成,手术时间分别为220min和190min,术中出血为450ml和350ml,术后住院时间为6d和5d,术后无胰漏等并发症发生。病理诊断2例均为胰腺浆液性囊腺瘤。分别随访18个月和5个月,术前症状均得到明显缓解,未见复发。结论 对胰体尾部良性病变行保留脾脏的腹腔镜胰体尾切除术是安全可行的,具有创伤轻、恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

腹腔镜胰体尾（保脾）切除术

目的 探讨在腹腔镜下,对远端胰腺肿瘤患,施行胰体及胰尾部分切除手术的同时,保留脾脏的可能性。方法 在腹腔镜下,仔细分离胰体及胰尾部位与脾脏相关的血管,在原位保留与脾脏相连的胃短血管,为保留脾脏及完成胰腺体部及尾的切除创造条件。结果 本组11例中,除l例因胰腺癌灶的局部侵蚀,病变较重,无法分离脾门区血管,另l例因肥胖而被迫中转开腹手术外,其余9例均在腹腔镜下完成了胰腺的部分切除及保留脾脏的手术,随访平均30个月,情况良好。结论 位于胰腺体部或尾部的良性肿瘤患,有选择地在腹腔镜条件下进行胰腺体尾部的部分切除手术并保留脾脏是可行的。     

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenic preservation

Background The technique of distal pancreatectomy has been well described, both with en bloc resection of the spleen and with splenic preservation. Splenic preservation during pancreatic tail resection is desirable when oncologically appropriate, yet it is technically challenging, particularly with laparoscopic approaches. Skeletonization of the splenic artery and vein is associated with longer operative times and greater potential for bleeding. The authors report their experience with splenic preservation during laparoscopic pancreatic resection using ligation of the splenic vessels and preservation of the short gastric vessels. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who underwent attempted laparoscopic pancreatic resection at Duke University Medical Center from July 2002 to October 2005. Charts were analyzed for demographic information, length of hospital stay, conversion, splenic preservation, and postoperative complications. Results A total of 12 laparoscopic distal pancreatic resections were attempted for three men and nine women with a mean age was 55.8 years (range, 33–74 years). All 12 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy, 8 with splenic preservation. The spleen was removed from three patients using splenic hilar lesions that prevented splenic salvage. One patient required splenectomy secondary to more than 50% ischemia of the spleen. No patients with preoperatively diagnosed malignancy underwent splenic salvage. The final pathologic diagnosis included neuroendocrine tumors (n = 2), cystic serous (n = 4) and mucinous (n = 2) neoplasms, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) (n = 1), pancreatitis (n = 2), and adenocarcinoma (n = 1). Two patients underwent conversion to open surgery for thickened parenchyma secondary to chronic pancreatitis (17%). There were no other conversions. There were three chemical leaks (25%) diagnosed by elevated drain amylase and low volume output, which were managed with intraoperatively placed drains removed at the initial postoperative clinic visit. There were three higher volume leaks (25%) that required extended or percutaneous drainage, with eventual removal. The average blood loss was 215 ml (range, 50–700 ml). The average operative time was 3 h and 41 min (range, 2 h 15 min to 5 h 58 min). The average length of hospital stay was 4 days (range, 2–7 days). Conclusion Splenic preservation should be performed when technically possible to decrease the morbidity of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The choice to ligate the splenic vessels allows for shorter operative times with minimal perioperative morbidity and blood loss while maintaining the spleen.     

Novel approach to laparoscopic resection of tumours of the distal pancreas

Background: Laparoscopic resection for small lesions of the pancreas has recently gained popularity. We report our initial experience with a new approach to laparoscopic spleen‐preserving distal pancreatectomy so that the maximum amount of normal pancreas can be preserved while ensuring adequate resection margins and preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels. Methods: Three patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with spleen and splenic vessel preservation over a 2‐month period. Surgical techniques and patient outcomes were examined. Results: All three patients were females, with ages ranging from 31 to 47 years. Two patients underwent resection using the conventional medial‐to‐lateral dissection as the lesion was close to the body or proximal tail of the pancreas. The third patient had a lesion in the distal tail of the pancreas and surgery was carried out in a lateral‐to‐medial manner. This new approach minimized excessive sacrifice of normal pancreatic tissue for such distally located lesions. The splenic artery and vein were preserved in all cases and there was no significant difference in clinical outcome, operative time or intraoperative blood loss. Conclusion: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the spleen and splenic vessels is a feasible surgical technique with acceptable outcome. We have shown that a tailored approach to dissection and pancreatic transection based on the location of the lesion allows the maximum amount of normal pancreatic tissue to be preserved without additional morbidity. Although the conventional ‘medial‐to‐lateral’ approach is recommended for more proximal tumours of the pancreas, distal lesions can be safely addressed using the ‘lateral‐to‐medial’ approach.