肝曲或近端横结肠癌症的腹腔镜回盲部保留术与传统右半结肠切除术:一项双中心倾向评分匹配研究。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastroenterology Report Pub Date : 2024-05-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/gastro/goae047
Jinjie He, Yue Cao, Xiangxing Kong, Siqi Dai, Jun Li, Dong Xu, Yongmao Song, Jianwei Wang, Lifeng Sun, Zhanhuai Wang, Qian Xiao, Lei Ding, Lihao Chen, Cheng Lei, Jian Wang, Haijiang Wang, Kefeng Ding
{"title":"肝曲或近端横结肠癌症的腹腔镜回盲部保留术与传统右半结肠切除术:一项双中心倾向评分匹配研究。","authors":"Jinjie He, Yue Cao, Xiangxing Kong, Siqi Dai, Jun Li, Dong Xu, Yongmao Song, Jianwei Wang, Lifeng Sun, Zhanhuai Wang, Qian Xiao, Lei Ding, Lihao Chen, Cheng Lei, Jian Wang, Haijiang Wang, Kefeng Ding","doi":"10.1093/gastro/goae047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional right hemicolectomy (TRH) is the standard treatment for patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. However, the ileocecum, a vital organ with mechanical and immune functions, is removed in these patients regardless of the tumor location. This study aimed to evaluate the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing right hemicolectomy (LISH).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients who underwent LISH at two tertiary medical centers were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent TRH by propensity score matching based on sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and disease stage. Data on surgical and perioperative outcomes were collected. Oncological safety was evaluated in a specimen-oriented manner. Lymph nodes (LNs) near the ileocolic artery (ICA) were examined independently in the LISH group. Disease outcomes were recorded for patients who completed one year of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 34 patients in the LISH group and 68 patients in the TRH group were matched. LISH added 8 minutes to the dissection of LNs around the ileocolic vessels (groups 201/201d, 202, and 203 LNs), without affecting the total operation time, blood loss, or perioperative adverse event rate. Compared with TRH, LISH had a comparable lymphadenectomy quality, specimen quality, and safety margin while preserving a more functional bowel. The LISH group had no cases of LN metastasis near the ICA. No difference was detected in the recurrence rate at the 1-year follow-up time point between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this dual-center study, LISH presented comparable surgical and oncological safety for patients with hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":54275,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Report","volume":"12 ","pages":"goae047"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11105954/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing vs traditional right hemicolectomy for cancer of the hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon: a dual-center propensity score-matched study.\",\"authors\":\"Jinjie He, Yue Cao, Xiangxing Kong, Siqi Dai, Jun Li, Dong Xu, Yongmao Song, Jianwei Wang, Lifeng Sun, Zhanhuai Wang, Qian Xiao, Lei Ding, Lihao Chen, Cheng Lei, Jian Wang, Haijiang Wang, Kefeng Ding\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/gastro/goae047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional right hemicolectomy (TRH) is the standard treatment for patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. However, the ileocecum, a vital organ with mechanical and immune functions, is removed in these patients regardless of the tumor location. This study aimed to evaluate the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing right hemicolectomy (LISH).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients who underwent LISH at two tertiary medical centers were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent TRH by propensity score matching based on sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and disease stage. Data on surgical and perioperative outcomes were collected. Oncological safety was evaluated in a specimen-oriented manner. Lymph nodes (LNs) near the ileocolic artery (ICA) were examined independently in the LISH group. Disease outcomes were recorded for patients who completed one year of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 34 patients in the LISH group and 68 patients in the TRH group were matched. LISH added 8 minutes to the dissection of LNs around the ileocolic vessels (groups 201/201d, 202, and 203 LNs), without affecting the total operation time, blood loss, or perioperative adverse event rate. Compared with TRH, LISH had a comparable lymphadenectomy quality, specimen quality, and safety margin while preserving a more functional bowel. The LISH group had no cases of LN metastasis near the ICA. No difference was detected in the recurrence rate at the 1-year follow-up time point between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this dual-center study, LISH presented comparable surgical and oncological safety for patients with hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastroenterology Report\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"goae047\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11105954/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastroenterology Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goae047\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Report","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goae047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:传统的右半结肠切除术(TRH)是非转移性右结肠癌患者的标准治疗方法。然而,回盲部是一个具有机械和免疫功能的重要器官,无论肿瘤位置如何,这些患者都要切除回盲部。本研究旨在评估腹腔镜保留回盲部右半结肠切除术(LISH)的技术和肿瘤安全性:方法:根据性别、年龄、体重指数、肿瘤位置和疾病分期,将在两家三级医疗中心接受 LISH 手术的患者与接受 TRH 手术的患者进行倾向得分匹配,匹配比例为 1:2。收集了手术和围手术期的结果数据。肿瘤安全性以标本为导向进行评估。在 LISH 组中,回肠结肠动脉 (ICA) 附近的淋巴结 (LN) 单独接受检查。对完成一年随访的患者的疾病结果进行了记录:LISH组共有34名患者,TRH组共有68名患者。LISH 使回肠结肠血管周围 LN(201/201d、202 和 203 LN 组)的解剖时间增加了 8 分钟,但不影响总手术时间、失血量或围术期不良事件发生率。与 TRH 相比,LISH 的淋巴结切除质量、标本质量和安全系数相当,同时保留了功能更强的肠道。LISH 组没有出现靠近 ICA 的淋巴结转移病例。结论:在这项双中心研究中,LISH 组在 ICA 附近没有 LN 转移病例:在这项双中心研究中,LISH 对肝曲或近端横结肠癌患者的手术和肿瘤安全性相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing vs traditional right hemicolectomy for cancer of the hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon: a dual-center propensity score-matched study.

Background: Traditional right hemicolectomy (TRH) is the standard treatment for patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. However, the ileocecum, a vital organ with mechanical and immune functions, is removed in these patients regardless of the tumor location. This study aimed to evaluate the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing right hemicolectomy (LISH).

Method: Patients who underwent LISH at two tertiary medical centers were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent TRH by propensity score matching based on sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and disease stage. Data on surgical and perioperative outcomes were collected. Oncological safety was evaluated in a specimen-oriented manner. Lymph nodes (LNs) near the ileocolic artery (ICA) were examined independently in the LISH group. Disease outcomes were recorded for patients who completed one year of follow-up.

Results: In all, 34 patients in the LISH group and 68 patients in the TRH group were matched. LISH added 8 minutes to the dissection of LNs around the ileocolic vessels (groups 201/201d, 202, and 203 LNs), without affecting the total operation time, blood loss, or perioperative adverse event rate. Compared with TRH, LISH had a comparable lymphadenectomy quality, specimen quality, and safety margin while preserving a more functional bowel. The LISH group had no cases of LN metastasis near the ICA. No difference was detected in the recurrence rate at the 1-year follow-up time point between the two groups.

Conclusion: In this dual-center study, LISH presented comparable surgical and oncological safety for patients with hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon cancer.

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
Gastroenterology Report
Gastroenterology Report Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
63
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology Report is an international fully open access (OA) online only journal, covering all areas related to gastrointestinal sciences, including studies of the alimentary tract, liver, biliary, pancreas, enteral nutrition and related fields. The journal aims to publish high quality research articles on both basic and clinical gastroenterology, authoritative reviews that bring together new advances in the field, as well as commentaries and highlight pieces that provide expert analysis of topical issues.
期刊最新文献
TNFSF15 variant predicts disease progression in Chinese patients with Crohn's disease. Supplementation with probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in patients with chronic functional constipation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial. New perspectives in liver diseases with challenges. A comprehensive review and update on acute severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding in Crohn's disease: a management algorithm. Gasdermin E mediates pyroptosis in the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma: a double-edged sword.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1