|
|
|
| Influence of Terminal Ileostomy and Transverse Colostomy on Perioperative Indicators Postoperative Complications and Prognosis of Patients with Low Rectal Cancer Undergoing Laparoscopic Anus-preserving Surgery |
| SUN Chengyu, et al |
| Shenyang Anorectal Hospital, Liaoning Shenyang 110002, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To compare the influence of terminal ileostomy and transverse colostomy on perioperative indicators, postoperative complications and prognosis of patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic anus-preserving surgery. Methods: The clinical data of 151 patients with low rectal cancer who received laparoscopic anus-preserving surgery in the hospital between January 2018 and April 2020were retrospectively analyzed. According to different stoma methods, they were divided into observation group (n=78, terminal ileostomy) and control group (n=73, transverse colostomy). The perioperative indicators, anal status at 1 month, 6 months and 12 months after surgery (Wexner anal function score scale), defecation status at 6 months after surgery (Xu Zhongfa's five-item ten-point scale) and prognosis at 1 month, 6 months and 12 months after surgery [European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EOETC QLQ-C30)] were compared. The complications of the two groups were compared. Results: There was no statistical significance in the surgical time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P>0.05). The postoperative first eating time, first defecation time and hospital stay were obviously shorter in observation group than in control group (P<0.05). There were statistical distinctions in the between-group effect, time-point effect and interaction effect of between-group and time-point of anal status score (P>0.05). The excellent and good rate of defecation status in observation group was observably higher than that in control group at 6 months after surgery (P<0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the between-group effect and time-point effect of EOETC QLQ-C30 evaluation (P<0.05), but the interaction effect of between-group and time-point was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There were no obvious differences in the incidence rates of complications between groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared with transverse colostomy, terminal ileostomy has a better application effect on patients with low rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic anus-preserving surgery. It can promote postoperative recovery and anal recovery, and improve the prognosis of patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Han J G,Wang Z J,Gao Z G,et al.Perineal wound complications after extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.[J].Diseases of the colon and rectum,2019,62(12):1477~1484.
[2] 谢爽,张春旭,尹智渊,等.改良腹腔镜肛提肌外腹会阴联合切除术治疗超低位直肠癌的近期疗效[J].中华消化外科杂志,2020,19(10):1091~1097.
[3] Ahmad S,Fozan S,Mohammed A,et al.Assessment and management of low anterior resection syndrome after sphincter preserving surgery for rectal cancer [J].Chin Med,2020,133(15):1824~1833.
[4] 屈景辉,贺佳蓓,张琦,等.腹腔镜经括约肌间切除联合回肠预防性造口治疗超低位直肠癌的疗效观察[J].中国肿瘤临床,2019,46(3):122~125.
[5] 吴昕,林国乐,肖毅,等.回肠造口与横结肠造口在经标本取出辅助切口行保护性肠造口术中应用的比较分析[J].中华胃肠外科杂志,2019,22(10):961~965.
[6] 叶志伟,陈远光,胡明,等.直肠癌经肛内镜全直肠系膜切除术对肛门功能影响的临床研究[J].中国普通外科杂志,2015,24(4):473~477.
[7] 徐忠法.现代肛肠肿瘤外科学[M].山东科学技术出版社,1993.
[8] Doble B,Lorgelly PK.Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D·3L:assessing the extemal validity of existing mapping algorithms[J].Quality Life Res,2016,25(4):891~911.
[9] Zeng Z W,Liu Z H,Huang L,et al.Transanal total mesorectal excision in mid-Low rectal cancer:evaluation of the learning curve and comparison of short-term results with standard laparoscopic TME[J].Diseases of the Colon & Rectum,2020,64(4):380~388.
[10] 刘赢,石欣.直肠低位前切除术预防性造口临床应用的进展[J].东南大学学报(医学版),2020,39(3):358~361.
[11] 宋瑞,郭兰栓,王前,等.预防性横结肠造口与末端回肠造口对低位直肠癌腹腔镜保肛手术患者预后的影响[J].中国现代普通外科进展,2018,21(6):449~450.
[12] 刘业六,闫冬升,刘卫东,等.末端回肠造瘘术在老年中低位直肠癌患者手术中的应用研究[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复,2020,27(10):35~38. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 27 
