检索历史 清除

目的:探讨机器人手术系统实施中低位直肠癌保肛术后吻合口漏发生的危险因素。方法:采用回顾性病例对照研究方法。病例纳入标准：（1）18~80岁；（2）病理证实为直肠癌；（3）肿瘤距肛缘<10 cm；（4）采用机器人直肠癌前切除术。排除既往有结直肠癌手术史者、合并远处转移或其他恶性肿瘤者以及急诊手术、严重腹腔粘连未行微创手术或需要联合脏器切除者。根据以上标准，收集2015年1月至2018年12月期间复旦大学附属中山manbet官网登录 行机器人中低位直肠癌根治性保肛手术的636例患者的临床资料，其中男性398例（62.6%），女性238例（37.4%），年龄（61.9±11.3）岁，应用新辅助放化疗者68例（10.7%），采用经自然腔道标本取出术（NOSES）123例（19.3%），应用末端回肠预防性造口15例（2.3%）。了解本组患者术后吻合口漏发生情况，并根据2010年国际直肠癌研究组制定的吻合口漏定义进行分级：A级：不需介入性操作治疗；B级：需要介入性操作来治疗，但不需手术治疗；C级：需行手术治疗。采用logistic回归分析吻合口漏与临床病理因素关系，并将单因素分析 P<0.05的因素，纳入多因素分析。 结果:38例（6.0%）出现了吻合口漏；吻合口漏分级：13例（2.0%）为A级，19例（3.0%）为B级，6例（0.9%）为C级。出现吻合口漏和非吻合口漏患者的3年无病生存率分别为83.5%和83.6%，差异无统计学意义（ P=0.862）；3年总体生存率分别为85.1%和87.5%，差异亦无统计学意义（ P=0.296）。单因素logistic回归分析结果显示，男性（ P=0.011）、手术时间长（ P=0.042）、肿瘤距离肛缘≤5 cm（ P=0.012）及术中出血量多（ P=0.048）与机器人中低位直肠癌术后发生吻合口漏相关（均 P<0.05）。手术方式是否为NOSES手术与吻合口漏的发生无明显关系（ P=0.704）。多因素分析结果显示，男性（ OR=3.03, 95% CI: 1.37~7.14， P=0.010）、手术时长≥180 min（ OR=2.04, 95% CI:1.03~3.99， P=0.040）、肿瘤距离肛缘≤5 cm（ OR=2.56, 95% CI:1.28~5.26， P=0.008）是患者行机器人中低位直肠癌保肛术后发生吻合口漏的独立危险因素（均 P<0.05）。 结论:男性、肿瘤距肛缘距离近、手术时间长是行机器人中低位直肠癌根治术患者术后发生吻合口漏的独立危险因素，此类患者术中需注意防治。

Objective:To investigate the risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancer.Methods:A retrospective case-control study method was conducted. Inclusion criteria: (1) 18 to 80 years old; (2) pathologically confirmed rectal cancer; (3) distance <10 cm from tumor to anal margin; (4) robotic anterior rectal resection. Patients with previous history of colorectal cancer surgery, distant metastases or other malignant tumors, undergoing emergency surgery, with severe abdominal adhesions or those receiving combined organ resection were excluded. Based on the above criteria, 636 patients undergoing robotic radical sphincter-preserving surgery for mid-low rectal cancer in Zhongshan Hospital from January 2015 to December 2018 were included in this study, including 398 males (62.6%) and 238 females (37.4%) with a mean age of (61.9±11.3) years. Sixty-eight cases (10.7%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Amony the 636 included patients, 123(19.3%) underwent natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and 15 (2.3%) underwent preventive stoma. According to the cirteria developed by the International Rectal Cancer Research Group in 2010, the anastomotic leakage was classified as grade A (no requirement of intervention), B (requirement of intervention), and C (requirement of operation). Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between anastomotic leakage and clinicopathological factors. Factors in univariate analysis with P<0.05 were included in the multivariate analysis. Results:Anastomotic leakage occurred in 38 cases (6.0%). The grading of anastomotic leakage was grade A in 13 cases (2.0%), grade B in 19 cases (3.0%), and grade C in 6 cases (0.9%). The 3-year disease-free survival rate of patients with anastomotic leakage and without anastomotic leakage was 83.5% and 83.6% respectively ( P=0.862); the 3-year overall survival rate of the two group was 85.1% and 87.5% respectively ( P=0.296). The results of univariate logistic regression analysis showed that male ( P=0.011), longer operation time ( P=0.042), distance ≤5 cm from tumor to anal margin ( P=0.012), more intraoperative blood loss ( P=0.048) were associated with anastomotic leakage (all P<0.05). NOSES was not associated with anastomotic leakage ( P=0.704). Multivariate analysis confirmed that male (OR=3.03, 95%CI: 1.37 to 7.14, P=0.010), operation time ≥180 minutes (OR=2.04, 95%CI: 1.03 to 3.99, P=0.040), distance ≤5 cm from tumor to anal margin (OR=2.56, 95%CI:1.28 to 5.26, P=0.008) were independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Conclusion:Male, short distance from tumor to anal margin, and long operation time are independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing robotic mid-low rectal cancer radical surgeries. These patients need to be cautiously treated during surgery.