Objective?To approach feasibility, safety, and the application range of pure laparoscopic resection （PLR）, hand-assisted laparoscopic resection （HALR）, and robotic liver resection （RLR） in the minimally invasive liver resection （MILR）. Methods?The clinical data of 128 patients underwent MILR in the Surgical Department of the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital from September 2004 to January 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the different methods, the patients were divided into PLR group, HALR group, and RLR group. The intraoperative findings and postoperative recovery of patients in three groups were compared.?Results?There were 82 cases in PLR group, 3 cases of which were transferred to open surgery；the mean operating time was （145.4±54.4） minutes （range：40-290 minutes）；the mean blood loss was （249.3±255.7） ml （range：30-1 500 ml）；abdominal infection was found in 3 cases and biliary fistula in 5 cases after operation, but all recovered after conservative treatment；the mean length of hospital stay was （7.1±3.8） days （range：2-34 days）. There were 35 cases in HALR group, 3 cases of which were transferred to open surgery；the mean operating time was （182.7±59.2） minutes （range：60-300 minutes）；the mean blood loss was （754.3±785.2） ml （range：50-3 000 ml）；abdominal infection was found in 1 case, biliary fistula in 2 cases, and operative incision infection in 2 cases after operation, but all recovered after conservative treatment；the mean length of hospital stay was （15.4±3.7） days （range：12-30 days）. There were 11 cases in RLR group, 2 cases of which were transferred to open surgery； the mean operating time was （129.5±33.5） minutes （range：120-200 minutes）； the mean blood loss was （424.5±657.5） ml （range：50-5 000 ml）； abdominal infection was found in 1 case and biliary fistula in 1 case after operation, but all recovered after conservative treatment； the mean length of hospital stay was （6.4±1.6） days （range：5-9 days）. The operating time （P=0.001） and length of hospital stay （P=0.000） of the RLR group were shortest and the blood loss （P=0.000） of the PLR group was least among three groups. Conclusions?Minimally invasive resection is a safe and feasible. Different surgical procedures should be chosen according to different cases. The robotic liver resection provides new development for treatment of liver tumor.
ObjectiveTo summary the standard treatment for early gastric cancer. MethodsThe current early gastric cancer treatment guidelines around the world were analyzed and the standardized treatment patterns for early gastric cancer were concluded. ResultsThe accurate preoperative evaluation for early gastric cancer is the basis of standardized treatment which can be divided into staging evaluation and histological evaluation.The staging evaluation is focused on the gastric wall invasion and lymph node involvement of the tumor while the histologic evaluation emphasize the histological type and grading of the tumor.According to the precise evaluation for early gastric cancer, endoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, open surgery, and multimodal therapy can be applied individually to the patients.Different treatment methods have their indications, but the indications of the therapies in different guidelines are suggested with slight differences. ConclusionIn clinical practice, the choice of treatment should be made with comprehensive consideration of diagnosis and individual characteristics of patients to achieve the most benefit on prognosis.
ObjectiveTo compare the short-term outcome of 3-port and 5-port laparoscopic assisted radical resection for middle and high rectal cancer.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical characteristics of 67 patients with middle and high rectal cancer who were treated in the Gastrointestinal Ward of Center of General Surgery in General Hospital of Western Theater Command of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army from January 2018 to December 2018. The operative, pathological, recent postoperative related indicators, and follow-up results of the two groups were compared and analyzed.ResultsAmong all the enrolled patients, 33 cases received 3-port laparoscopic surgery (3-port group) and 34 cases received 5-port laparoscopic surgery (5-port group). The total length of incision and the pain score of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on the 3rd postoperative day of the 3-port group were significantly better than those of the 5-port group (P<0.05). Peripheral incisal margins were negative in both two groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences in indicators such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, operative conversion rate, hospitalization expenses, length of the distal margins, number of positive lymph nodes, number of lymph nodes harvested, time to the first flatus, time to the first ambulation, time to urinary catheter removal, time to drainage tube removal, time to the first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate (P>0.05). Thirty cases of the 3-port group were followed up for 12–24 months (median of 19 months), as well as 29 cases of 5-port group were followed up for 12–24 months (median of 19.5 months). There were no significant differences on the incidences of intestinal obstruction, local recurrence, distant metastasis, and death between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionCompared with the conventional 5-port laparoscopic surgery, the 3-port laparoscopic surgery could shorten the total length of incision and reduce the surgical trauma, suggesting that it is safe and effective.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer. MethodDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Knowledge, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched to collect controlled trials and cohort studies about laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer from inception to July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies involving 2 020 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy operation could reduce intraoperative blood loss (MD=-247.99, 95%CI -408.90 to -87.07, P=0.003) , the incidence of perioperative blood transfusion (OR=0.33, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.52, P<0.000 01) , haemoglobin level before and after surgery (MD=-0.98, 95%CI -0.13 to -0.93, P<0.000 01) , postoperative complication (OR=0.61, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.93, P=0.02) , and shorten postoperative exhaust time (MD=-17.41, 95%CI -32.79 to -2.03, P=0.03) and postoperative hospitalization days (MD=-2.51, 95%CI -3.25 to -1.78, P<0.000 01) . There were no significant differences between two groups in the number of pelvic lymph nodes removed, operative complications, as well as the recurrence rate, mortality and non-recurrence survivals after 2 to 5 years of follow-up. But the operation time of the laparoscopy operation group was longer than that of the laparotomy group. ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that compared with laparotomy, laparoscopic operation for early stage cervical cancer has less trauma, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization days and less postoperative complications. Due to the limited quantity of the included studies, more studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）中因胆囊破裂致腹腔残留胆石对术后机体的影响。方法 2001年3月至2009年8月期间广西桂东人民医院对750例胆囊结石患者进行了LC，术中穿破胆囊30例（4.0%），其中术后发现腹腔内残留胆石者10例（1.3%）。回顾性分析该10例患者的临床和随访资料。结果 本组患者住院时间2～7 d，平均4 d。随访2～36个月（平均10个月），CT、X线或B超检查8例患者腹腔仍残存明显胆石，其中1例合并有腹腔脓肿，给予抗炎治疗后症状消失（脓肿较小）； 另2例腹腔残存胆石消失。10例患者均无慢性腹痛、表皮窦道形成、肠梗阻、腹腔肿瘤等并发症。随访期间10例患者肝功能及T细胞水平与术后第2天比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），WBC水平则明显降低（P＜0.05）。结论 LC中如果无法寻找到遗留于腹腔的微小胆石时，只要常规腹腔冲洗，术后预防性应用抗生素，少数残留于腹腔的小胆石对术后机体无严重不良影响。
The “Expert consensus on radical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2023)” (following abbreviations as “this consensus”) was formulated by the Biliary Surgery Group of the Chinese Medical Association Surgery Branch and the Biliary Surgery Expert Working Group of the Surgeons Branch of the Chinese Medical Doctor Association, and was first published in the Chinese Journal of Surgery in April 2024. In this consensus, relevant experts discussed and formulated relevant recommendations on the operation process of laparoscopicradical resection of gallbladder cancer (LRRGC), and elaborated on many issues. We interpreted and discussed the safety and efficacy evaluation of LRRGC, the standardized operating procedures and technical key points in this procedure, as well as the surgical principles for reoperation of delayed diagnosed gallbladder cancer in this consensus so as to enhance readers’ understanding of this consensus. We also hoped that medical centers will make more attempts and research on LRRGC in order to standardize and promote the application of LRRGC.