切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华胸部外科电子杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (02) : 80 -84. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8773.2018.02.03

所属专题: 文献

论著

胸腔镜食管癌根治术后胸腔单一负压引流管与常规引流管临床效果比较
黄可南1, 吴彬1, 齐晨1, 丁新宇1, 陈昱1, 徐志飞1, 唐华1,()   
  1. 1. 200003 上海,海军军医大学第二附属医院胸外微创中心
  • 收稿日期:2017-12-15 出版日期:2018-05-28
  • 通信作者: 唐华
  • 基金资助:
    上海市卫生和计划生育委员会青年项目(20154Y0040); 国家自然科学基金面上项目(81470213); 国家自然基金青年项目(81402449)

Clinical comparative study of single negative pressure drainage tube and conventional drainage tube after thoracoscopic esophagectomy surgery

Kenan Huang1, Bin Wu1, Chen Qi1, Xinyu Din1, Yu Chen1, Zhifei Xu1, Hua Tang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery Center, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China
  • Received:2017-12-15 Published:2018-05-28
  • Corresponding author: Hua Tang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Tang Hua, Email:
引用本文:

黄可南, 吴彬, 齐晨, 丁新宇, 陈昱, 徐志飞, 唐华. 胸腔镜食管癌根治术后胸腔单一负压引流管与常规引流管临床效果比较[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2018, 05(02): 80-84.

Kenan Huang, Bin Wu, Chen Qi, Xinyu Din, Yu Chen, Zhifei Xu, Hua Tang. Clinical comparative study of single negative pressure drainage tube and conventional drainage tube after thoracoscopic esophagectomy surgery[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Thoracic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2018, 05(02): 80-84.

目的

评估胸腔镜食管癌根治术后应用单一负压引流管的有效性和安全性。

方法

选取2014年1月—2017年1月海军军医大学第二附属医院胸外微创中心收治的83例食管癌患者,根据术中采用引流管的不同,分为负压引流管组(n=40)和28F号常规引流管组(n=43)。比较两组患者术后胸腔积气、积液、皮下气肿、胸引液总量、引流管持续时间、术后住院日、术后引流管拆线时间、切口愈合率、引流管相关并发症、切口VAS疼痛评分等指标。

结果

两组患者的基线资料和术后胸腔积液、胸腔积气、皮下气肿发生率,以及切口愈合不良率、平均住院时间、引流管持续时间及引流管相关并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与常规引流管组比较,负压引流管组患者的术后胸腔引流量明显减少,瘢痕反应率明显降低,拆线时间明显缩短,VAS疼痛评分明显降低,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

胸腔镜食管癌根治术后应用单一负压引流管安全、有效,与常规28F胸引流管临床效果相当,且有助于患者术后快速康复。

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single negative pressure drainage tube after thoracoscopic esophagectomy surgery.

Methods

From January 2014 to January 2017, 83 patients with esophageal cancer admitted to the Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University were selected and divided into two groups according to the different drainage tubes used during the operation: negative-pressure drainage tube group which included 40 cases and conventional drainage tube group which included 43 cases. Pleural effusion, dropsy, subcutaneous emphysema, total volume of thoracic drainage, drainage tube duration, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative stitch removal time of drainage tube, incision healing rate, relevant complications, incision VAS pain scores and other indicators were compared.

Results

Baseline data and postoperative pleural effusion, dropsy, subcutaneous emphysema, defective rate of incision healing, average hospital stay time, duration of drainage tube, and incidence of relative complications were not statistically significant between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared to negative-pressure drainage tube group, for patients in conventional group, the thoracic drainage volume was significantly decreased; the scar reaction rate was significantly reduced; the stitch-removal time was significantly shortened; and the VAS pain score was significantly reduced. The differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Single negative pressure drainage tube is safe and effective after thoracoscopic radical resection of esophageal carcinoma, and it has the same clinical effect as conventional 28F thoracic duct and it is helpful for patients to recover quickly after operation.

图1 负压引流管及操作。A.一次性负压引流球;B.引流操作,黑色箭头示胸腔负压引流管(右胸腋后线第9肋间)
表2 两组胸腔镜食管癌根治术患者引流效果对比
表3 两组胸腔镜食管癌根治术患者切口VAS疼痛评分(±s,分)
表1 两组胸腔镜食管癌根治术患者基线资料比较
1
Li X, Lai FC, Qiu ML, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the lateral-prone position: experience of 226 cases[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2016,26(1):60-65.
2
Mu JW, Gao SG, Xue Q, et al. Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015,21(45):12873-12881.
3
Aarts MA, Okrainec A, Glicksman A, et al. Adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS)strategies for coloreclal surgery at academic teaching hospitals and impact on total length of hospital stay[J]. Surg Endosc,2012,26(2):442-450.
4
Linson J, Latzko M, Ahmed B, et al. Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with right aortic arch[J].J Gastrointest Oncol, 2017,8(1):E1-E2.
5
Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Ozawa S, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using a nationwide database in Japan[J].Ann Surg Oncol, 2017,24(7):1821-1827.
6
Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA,et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the time trial[J]. Ann Surg, 2017,266(2):232-236.
7
罗责清.72例自发性血气胸治疗方法探讨[J].心肺血管杂志,2002,21(2):82.
8
Mongardon N, Tremey B, Marty J. Thoracentesis and chest tube management in critical care medicine: a multicenter survey of current practices[J]. Chest, 2010,138(6):1524-1525.
9
Mueller XM, Tinguely F, Tevaearai HT, et al. Impact of duration of chest tube drainage on pain after cardiac surgery[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2000,18(5):570-574.
10
Alex J, Ansari J, Bahalkar P, et al. Comparison of the immediate postoperative outcome of using the conventional two drains versus a single drain after lobectomy[J]. Ann Thorac Surg,2003,76(4):1046-1049.
11
中国加速康复外科专家组.中国加速康复外科围手术期管理专家共识(2016)[J].中华外科杂志,2016,54(6):413-418
12
杨梅,樊骏,周红霞,等. 胸腔镜肺癌肺叶切除术后16F较28F胸腔引流管应用的临床优势[J].中国肺癌杂志,2015,(8):512-517.
13
叶雄,陈刚,唐继鸣,等. 胸腔镜微创术后不留置胸腔引流管在快速康复外科中的应用[J].中国胸心血管外科临床杂志,2014(1):112-114.
14
Nakamura M, Iwahashi M, Nakamori M, et a1. An analysis of the factors contributing to areduction in the incidence of pulmonary complications following an esophageetomy for esophageal cancer[J]. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2008 ,393(2):127-133.
15
孙翔翔,徐美青,郭明发,等. 胸腔镜辅助食管癌根治并胸内吻合术临床分析[J]. 中华外科杂志,2013,51(4):354-357.
16
Huang HT, Wang F, Shen L, et al. Comparison of thoracola-paroscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis with McKeown esophagectomy for middle esophageal cancer[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2015,13:310.
17
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase Ⅱ multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study[J]. Ann Surg, 2015,261(4):702-707.
18
Thirunavukarasu P, Gabriel E, Attwood K, et al. Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy[J]. Int J Surg,2016,25:69-75.
19
张树亮,陈椿,郑炜,等.超细胸腔引流管在单孔全胸腔镜下肺叶及亚肺叶切除术的临床应用[J].中华胸心血管外科杂志,2016,32(4): 212-215.
[1] 杨轲, 丁增巴姆, 马静, 李盼盼, 陈婷. 全程无缝隙肺康复训练在单孔胸腔镜肺叶切除术中的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 801-804.
[2] 张卫锋, 张天翼, 赵正维, 王海强, 尹逊亮. VE /VCO2 斜率对肺癌肺叶切除术后心血管并发症的预测意义[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 725-730.
[3] 张璇, 高杨, 房雅君, 姚艳玲. 保护性机械通气在肺癌胸腔镜肺段切除术中的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 563-567.
[4] 任甜甜, 张玉慧, 祁玲霞, 朱梅冬, 胡佳. 多学科疼痛管理对胸腔镜肺叶切除术后胸痛及应激反应的影响分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 630-633.
[5] 申宏, 成楠, 杨博, 申华, 张林, 李东, 李梁钢, 董士勇, 姜胜利. 全胸腔镜同期心肺联合手术治疗主动脉瓣关闭不全合并原发性肺癌[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(03): 160-163.
[6] 王冲, 闫东杰, 龚昌帆, 韩毅. 三维重建辅助胸腔镜胸膜剥脱术治疗包裹性脓胸的思路和技巧[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(03): 164-167.
[7] 段伟, 刘飞, 许光源, 程宇豪, 陈星. 食管癌调强放疗计划剂量学参数差异对放射性肺炎发生及严重程度的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 320-324.
[8] 陶金华, 陈珊珊, 陈晓四. 阿帕替尼联合替吉奥治疗晚期食管癌的疗效与安全性影响因素评价[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 325-329.
[9] 陈轶维, 吴近近, 李奋, 孙彦隽, 郁夏风. 儿童左心耳起源房性心动过速镶嵌治疗一例[J/OL]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2024, 12(03): 185-188.
[10] 高鹏强, 林军鹏, 王佩元, 林辉, 周航, 魏文巍, 柳硕岩, 王枫. 胸段食管鳞状细胞癌中锁骨上淋巴结转移对预后的影响:一项大型回顾性研究[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2024, 11(04): 211-218.
[11] 李春光, 杨洋, 李斌, 华荣, 李志刚. 完全腹腔镜下管状胃制作技术在食管癌McKeown手术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2024, 11(04): 219-224.
[12] 蔡剑桥, 蒋雷. 单孔胸腔镜与开胸双袖式肺叶切除治疗非小细胞肺癌对比[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2024, 11(04): 225-230.
[13] 王嘉巍, 张广健, 杜昊楠, 余宸傲, 张佳. 混合现实技术在肺结节手术中的应用进展[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2024, 11(04): 254-259.
[14] 陈小科, 吴晗, 丁征平. 胸腔镜下右肺上叶前段切除术[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2024, 11(04): 261-261.
[15] 沈海锋, 吕方伊, 顾海华, 常志博, 陈盈, 王苹莉, 吴祖群, 邱福铭, 姚杰, 范军强. 局部进展期肺癌新辅助治疗后胸腔镜袖式肺叶切除术——浙江大学医学院附属第二医院2014—2023年56例回顾性分析[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 158-166.
阅读次数
全文


摘要