Objective To compare the effect of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery on the blood coagulation state in patients with gastric cancer, and to provide evidence for the prevention measurement of thrombosis in perioperative period. Methods One hundred patients with gastric cancer who received treatment in our hospital from Feb. 2014 to Aug. 2014, were randomly divided into laparoscopy group and laparotomy group, 50 patients in each group. The patients in laparotomy group were treated by traditionally open surgery, while patients in the laparoscopy group accepted laparoscopic surgery. The clinically therapeutic effect of 2 groups was compared. Results ① Operative indexes. The operation time, blood loss, anal exhaust time, hospital stay, and morbidity of laparoscopy group were all lower than those of laparotomy group (P<0.05). ② Coagulation function. Compared with preoperative indexes, the prothrombin time (PT) at 24 h after operation in laparoscopy group and laparotomy group were both shorter (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and international normalized ratio (INR) between the 2 time points (before operation and 24 h after operation) in both 2 groups (P>0.05). Both at 2 time points (before operation and 24 h after operation), there was no significant difference in PT, APTT, and INR between 2 groups (P>0.05). ③ Fibrinolysis indexes. Compared with preoperative indexes, the fibrinogen (FIB) and D-dimer at 24 h after operation in laparoscopy group and laparotomy group were higher (P<0.05). The FIB and D-dimer at 24 h after operation in laparoscopy group were both higher than those of laparotomy group (P<0.05). ④ Follow-up results. There was no significant difference in metastasis rate, recurrence rate, and mortality between the 2 groups (P>0.05), but the incidence of thrombus was higher in laparoscopy group than that of laparotomy group (P<0.05). Conclusions In the treatment of patients with gastric cancer, laparoscopic surgery has the advantages of less trauma, less blood loss, less complications, and so on. Laparoscopic surgery and open surgery both can lead to hypercoagulable state, but the effect of laparoscopic surgery is stronger than open surgery.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect the case-control studies about LH vs. OH for patients with HCC from inception to December, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 28 studies involving 1 908 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the LH group was superior to OH group on complications (OR=0.35, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.48, P<0.000 01), hospital stay (MD=–4.18, 95%CI (–5.08, –3.29),P<0.000 01), and five years overall survival rate (OR=1.65, 95%CI 1.23 to 2.19,P=0.000 7) and disease-free survival rate (OR=1.51, 95%CI 1.12 to 2.03, P=0.006). However, no significant differences were found in one year and three years overall survival rate, disease-free survival rate, and postoperative recurrence rate. Conclusion Current evidence shows that the LH is superior to OH for the treatment of HCC, and may be amenable to surgery because of its safety and longtime efficacy. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo assess the outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted surgery for treatment of advanced gastric cancer.MethodsA total of 115 patients with advanced gastric cancer were included between January 2014 and December 2018 were analyzed retroprospectively, the patients were divided into two groups: open surgery group (OS group, n=63) and laparoscopy-assisted surgery group (LAS group, n=52). Baseline characteristics, intraoperative parameters and postoperative items, and long-term efficacy were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative baseline data including gender, age and preoperative serum parameters between the two groups (P>0.05). Intraoperative blood loss in the LAS group was significantly less than that in the OS group (P<0.05). In addition, the first feeding time after operation and postoperative hospital stay in the LAS group were significantly shorter than the OS group (P<0.05). Furthermore, numbers of white blood cells and neutrophils in the LAS group were fewer than that in the OS group at postoperative 2 days (P<0.05); the level of serum albumin in the LAS group was higher than that OS group (P<0.05). The number of lymph nodes detected during operation in the LAS group was more than that in the OS group (P<0.05). Operative time and occurrence of postoperative complications were not statistically significant between the two groups (P>0.05). One hundred and ten of 115 patients were followed- up, the follow-up rate was 95.7%. The follow-up time ranged from 6 to 48 months, with a median follow-up time of 12.4 months. The disease-free survival time of the OS group was 12.2±6.5 months, while that of the LAS group was 13.5±7.4 months. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsLaparoscopic technique in treatment of advanced gastric cancer has the minimally invasive advantage, less intraoperative blood loss, less surgical trauma, and faster postoperative recovery in comparing to the traditional open surgery. Also the lymph node dissection is superior to open surgery. The curative effect is comparable to that of open surgery.
Objective To analyze the treatment and effect of bacterial liver abscess over the past two decades in one single center. Methods The total 198 patients with bacterial liver abscess during the last twenty years were studied retrospectively. They were divided into three groups according time: 1989-1995 group, 1996-2002 group and 2003-2008 group. Gender and age of patient, location, number and size of abscesses, treatment, hospital days, morbidity of complications and mortality among the groups were compared. Results There were 54, 69, 75 cases in 1989-1995, 1996-2002 and 2003-2008 group respectively. No significant differences were found in gender and age of patient, location, number and size of abscess among three groups （Pgt;0.05）. In 1989-1995 group, 35 cases (64.8%) were treated with laparotomy, 8 cases (14.8%) with laparoscope, and 11 cases (20.4%) with percutaneous treatment (needle aspiration or catheter drainage). In 1996-2002 group, 15 cases (21.8%) were treated with laparotomy, 21 cases (30.4%) with laparoscope, 31 cases (44.9%) with percutaneous treatment (needle aspiration or catheter drainage), and 2 cases (2.9%) were treated with antibiotherapy. In 2003-2008 group, 5 cases (6.7%) were treated with laparotomy, 13 cases (17.3%) with laparoscope, 54 cases (72.0%) with percutaneous treatment (needle aspiration or catheter drainage), and 3 cases (4.0%) were treated with antibiotherapy. The constituent ratio of treatment was significantly different among three groups (P＜0.05). The hospital days was (18.5±12.2) d, (16.4±12.8) d and (20.1±14.6) d, the morbidity of complications was 9.3% (5/54), 4.3%(3/69) and 4.0%(3/75), the mortality was 3.7%(2/54), 1.4%(1/69) and 1.3% (1/75) respectively, but there were no significant differences of three indexes among three groups. Conclusion With the development of surgical techniques, effective antibiotic therapy and percutaneous treatment (needle aspiration or catheter drainage) have been the main therapeutic methods, and laparoscopy and laparotomy are necessary supplement.
ObjectiveTo analyze the therapeutic effects of open surgery and endovascular treatment for mesenteric venous thrombosis.MethodsThe clinical data of 22 patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis from March 2005 to January 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. One patient underwent open surgery including removal of necrotic small intestine and thrombectomy of superior mesenteric vein immediately admission to the hospital. Five cases were treated with simple anticoagulation and cured. Sixteen cases received thrombolytic therapy after primary anticoagulant therapy.ResultsOne case who underwent open surgery died of multiple organ failure at 72 h after the surgery. Five cases who received simple anticoagulant reached clinical relief finally. Sixteen patients who received thrombolytic therapy achieved recanalization totally or partially. Three cases died during follow-up (3 months to 7 years, average) of which 1 died of recurrence of acute superior mesenteric venous thrombosis, 1 died of myocardial infarction, and 1 died of stroke.ConclusionsFor patients with symptomatic mesenteric venous thrombosis, if there is no intestinal necrosis, there will be encouraging results by interventional thrombolytic therapy. And the treatment effect needs further experience accumulation in more cases.
ObjectiveTo investigate the influencing factor of intraoperative hypothermia during laparotomy.MethodsA total of 81 patients underwent laparotomy in our hospital from October 1, 2018 to January 1, 2019 were enrolled. The difference of preoperative baseline data and surgical data between the hypothermia and non-hypothermia groups was compared, and the influencing factor of intraoperative hypothermia during laparotomy was explored.ResultsOf the 81 patients, 32 patients occurred hypothermia during operation. There were no significant differences in gender, age, BMI, HGB, WBC count, PLT count, TB, AST, ALT, ALB, PT, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and Clavien-Dindo grade between the hypothermia group and the non-hypothermia group (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in intraoperative infusion volume, intraoperative blood loss, and surgical mode (P<0.05). The intraoperative infusion volume and intraoperative blood loss in the hypothermia group were higher than those in the non-hypothermia operation group, and the proportion of hepatectomy was higher than that in the non-hypothermia group. The multivariate analysis show that the intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative infusion volume, and kind of operation were the risk factors for the hypothermia during laparotomy (P<0.05).ConclusionsIntraoperative hypothermia is related to intraoperative bleeding volume, intraoperative fluid infusion volume, and the kind of operation. Therefore, for patients with less bleeding, the intraoperative hypothermia can be reduced by limiting the volume of intraoperative fluid infusion. For those patients with more intraoperative bleeding, warming fluid infusion may reduce the incidence of intraoperative hypothermia.
Objective To investigate the difference of effect between laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with traumatic rupture of spleen. Methods The literatures on comparison of laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with traumatic rupture of spleen were retrieved in PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from Jan. 2007 to Jan. 2017, and then Stata 12.0 software was applied to present meta-analysis. Results ① The condition during operation: compared with the OS group, operative time of the LS group was shorter [SMD=–0.71, 95% CI was (–1.12, –0.30), P=0.001] and intraoperative blood loss of the LS group was less [SMD=–1.53, 95% CI was (–2.28, –0.78), P<0.001]. ② The postoperative condition: compared with the OS group, the postoperative anal exhaust time [SMD=–2.47, 95% CI was (–3.24, –1.70), P<0.001], postoperative ambulation time [SMD=–2.97, 95% CI was (–4.32, –1.62), P<0.001], and hospital stay [SMD=–1.68, 95% CI was (–2.15, –1.21), P<0.001] of the LS group were all shorter. ③ The overall incidence of complications and the incidence of complications: on the one hand, compared with the OS group, patients in the LS group had a lower overall incidence of postoperative complications [OR=0.29, 95% CI was (0.19, 0.43), P<0.001]. On the other hand, compared with the OS group, patients in the LS group had lower incidences of infection [OR=0.27, 95% CI was (0.13, 0.55), P<0.001], ascites [OR=0.36, 95% CI was (0.13, 1.00), P=0.049], bleeding [OR=0.29, 95% CI was (0.10, 0.90), P=0.032], ileus [OR=0.34, 95% CI was (0.13, 0.90), P=0.030], incision fat liquefaction [OR=0.27, 95% CI was (0.08, 0.94), P=0.040], and incision rupture [OR=0.17, 95% CI was (0.03, 0.96), P=0.045]. However, there was no statistical difference on splenectomy fever [OR=0.41, 95% CI was (0.13, 1.27), P=0.123], pancreatic fistula [OR=0.40, 95% CI was (0.06, 2.63), P=0.343], liver function lesion [OR=0.36, 95% CI was (0.10, 1.34), P=0.127], and thrombosis [OR=0.33, 95% CI was (0.09, 1.22), P=0.097] between the 2 groups. Conclusions Laparoscopic surgery can not only significantly reduce the incidence of multiple complications of traumatic rupture of spleen, but also can speed up the recovery rate of postoperative recovery. Therefore, it is safe and beneficial in treatment of patients with traumatic rupture of spleen.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision(LTME) vs. open total mesorectal excision (OTME) in treating rectal cancer. MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) about LTME vs. OTME for rectal cancer were searched in PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2014), EMbase, CNKI, CBM and WanFang Data from the date of their establishment to April 2014. Other relevant journals and references of included studies were also searched manually. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was then conducted using RevMan 5.2. ResultsA total of fifteen RCTs involving 2 268 patients were enrolled. The results of meta-analysis indicated that:a) for effectiveness, LTME and OTME were alike in resection length of the intestine (MD=-0.52, 95%CI-1.29 to 0.25, P=0.18), dissection number of lymph nodes (MD=-0.11, 95%CI-0.75 to 0.52, P=0.73), 1-year survival rate (RR=0.99, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.02, P=0.52), and 3-year survival rate (RR=0.99, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.04, P=0.63) with no significant difference. For safety, LTME had longer operation time (MD=29.64, 95%CI 14.90 to 44.39, P < 0.000 1); caused less intra-operative bleeding (MD=-105.51, 95%CI-133.95 to-77.08, P < 0.000 01); and shortened post-operative anal exsufflation time (MD=-0.99, 95%CI-1.35 to-0.62, P < 0.000 01), catheterization time (MD=-2.02, 95%CI-2.20 to-1.83, P < 0.000 01) as well as hospital stay (MD=-3.47, 95%CI-4.20 to-2.74, P < 0.000 01). Besides, LTME had less postoperative complications such as anastomotic leak (RR=0.67, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.22, P=0.19) and wound infection (RR=0.43, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.73, P=0.002). However, LTME and OTME were alike in the incidence of intestinal obstruction (RR=0.53, 95%CI 0.28 to 1.00, P=0.05). ConclusionCurrent evidence indicates that LTME and OTME are alike in effectiveness, but LTME could cause less bleeding, shorten time of catheterization, post-operative anal exsufflation and hospital stay with less post-operative complications. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more larger sample, multicenter, high quality RCTs are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were electronically searched to identify cohort studies on robotic, laparoscopic-assisted, and open TME for rectal cancer published from January 2016 to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. Subsequently, network meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software and R software. Results A total of 24 studies involving 12 348 patients were included. The results indicated that among the three types of surgical procedures, robotic TME showed the best outcomes by shortening the length of hospital stay, reducing the incidence of postoperative anastomotic fistula and intestinal obstruction, and lowering the overall postoperative complication rate. However, differences in the number of dissected peritumoural lymph nodes were not statistically significant. Conclusion Robotic TME shows better outcomes in terms of the radicality of excision and postoperative short-term outcomes in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, clinicians should consider the patients’ actual condition for the selection of surgical methods to achieve individualised treatment for patients with rectal cancer.