经脐切口管状胃制备在食管癌根治术的应用

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-378X.2026.01.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨经脐切口管状胃制备技术在食管癌根治术中的应用价值,并与传统开放腹部制备管状胃进行比较。方法回顾性分析2024年1月—2025年1月期间收治的102例接受食管癌根治术的患者,根据不同手术入路方式分为经脐切口组和传统开放组,每组各51例。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、淋巴结清扫数目、术后疼痛程度评分、术后恢复情况及术后并发症发生率等指标。结果与传统开放组相比,经脐切口组术中出血量显著减少,术后疼痛评分较低,术后肠功能恢复时间较短,住院时间缩短,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两组淋巴结清扫总数无显著差异（P>0.05）。经脐切口组切口相关并发症发生率低于传统开放组（P<0.05）;两组吻合口漏、肺部感染、乳糜漏等其他并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论与传统开放腹部制备管状胃相比,经脐切口管状胃制备技术具有创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症发生率低等优势,且不增加淋巴结清扫范围和术后吻合口并发症,是食管癌三野根治术的安全有效的选择。

关键词: 食管癌, 经脐切口, 管状胃制备, 开放手术, 对比研究

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the clinical value of transumbilical gastric conduit formation in esophagectomy compared with conventional open abdominal approach. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 102 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at our hospital between January 2024 and January 2025. According to different surgical approaches, the patients were divided into a transumbilical group and a conventional open approach group （51 patients in each group）. Operative parameters including surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, lymph node yield, postoperative pain scores, postoperative recovery, and complication rates were compared between the two groups. Results The transumbilical group demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower postoperative pain scores, shorter time to first flatus, and reduced length of hospital stay compared to the conventional open approach group （P<0.05）. No significant difference was observed in the total number of harvested lymph nodes between the two groups （P>0.05）. The transumbilical group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of incision-related complications than the conventional open approach group （P<0.05）. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of other complications such as anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, and chylous leakage between the two groups （P>0.05）. Conclusion Compared with conventional open abdominal gastric conduit formation, the transumbilical approach offers significant advantages including reduced surgical trauma, accelerated postoperative recovery, and lower complication rates, without compromising lymph node dissection adequacy or increasing anastomotic complications. This approach represents a safe and effective option for esophagectomy.

Key words: Esophageal carcinoma, Transumbilical, Gastric conduit formation, Open surgery, Comparative study

中图分类号:

R655.9

张家榕, 苏伟坤, 翁贵斌, 林义进, 陈粦, 蔡艺斌, 林瑞榕, 方卫民. 经脐切口管状胃制备在食管癌根治术的应用[J]. 外科研究与新技术（中英文）, 2026, 15(1): 21-26.

ZHANG Jiarong, SU Weikun, WENG Guibin, LIN Yijin, CHEN Lin, CAI Yibin, LIN Ruirong, FANG Weimin. Application of transumbilical gastric conduit formation in esophagectomy[J]. Surgical Research and New Technique, 2026, 15(1): 21-26.

参考文献

[1] Wéber A, Vignat J, Shah R, et al.Global burden of bladder cancer mortality in 2020 and 2040 according to GLOBOCAN estimates[J].World J Urol, 2024, 42(1):1-10.
[2] Morgan E, Arnold M, Gini A, et al.Global burden of colorectal cancer in 2020 and 2040: incidence and mortality estimates from GLOBOCAN[J]. Gut, 2023, 72(2):338-344.
[3] Coelho FS, Barros DE, Santos FA, et al.Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2021, 47(11): 2742-2748.
[4] Shan S, Zhao S, Wang X.Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery vs. multiport laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian cysts: a retrospective cohort study[J]. BMC Surg, 2024, 24(1): 399.
[5] Wu S, Shen Y, Wang J, et al.Conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus transumbilical and suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy using only conventional laparoscopic instruments[J]. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2022, 407(8): 3623-3629.
[6] Li B, Zhang Y, Miao L, et al.Esophagectomy with three-field versus two-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer: long-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial[J]. J Thorac Oncol, 2021,16(7):1219-1231.
[7] Lu HY, Wang F, Ji F, et al.Hemodynamic and inflammatory responses following thoracotomy and trans-umbilical thoracoscopic sympathectomy[J]. J Surg Res, 2015,195(2):622-628.
[8] Abdallah H, Derienne J, Courie R, et al.Single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a comparison between transumbilical and left hypochondrium approaches[J]. Surg Endosc, 2025, 39(4):2221-2227.
[9] Zhu G, Lang X, Zhou S, et al.Short- and long-term outcomes of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials[J]. BMC Surg, 2023, 23(1): 223.
[10] Lee E, Suh YS, Yoo M, et al.Safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in overweight and obese gastric cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis[J]. Gastric Cancer, 2024 ,27(5):1136-1146.
[11] Schafer EJ, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al.Recent patterns and trends in global prostate cancer incidence and mortality: an update[J].Eur Urol, 2025, 87(3):302-313.
[12] Dee EC, Laversanne M, Bhoo-Pathy N, et al.Cancer incidence and mortality estimates in 2022 in southeast Asia: a comparative analysis[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2025, 26(4):516-528.
[13] Teng W, Yang X, He Y, et al.Short-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for total gastrectomy: a retrospective study[J]. BMC Surg, 2023,23(1):207.
[14] Kitagawa H, Yokota K, Marui A, et al.Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green to assess the blood supply of the reconstructed gastric conduit to reduce anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a literature review[J]. Surg Today, 2023, 53(4): 399-408.
[15] Ishikawa Y, Kato H, Ito K, et al.Wider gastric conduit morphology is associated with reduced anastomotic leak rates following esophagectomy[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2023,27(5):1058-1066.
[16] Sozzi A, Borghi F, Sciannameo V, et al.Does indocyanine green utilization during minimally invasive esophagectomy reduce anastomotic leak risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Clin Med, 2024,13(16):4899.