目的 观察腹腔镜低位直肠癌保肛手术与传统开腹手术治疗低位直肠癌的临床疗效。方法 临床难入低位直肠癌患者90例，根据手术方案的不同分为研究组与对照组，研究组进行腹腔镜低位直肠癌保肛手术，对照组进行传统开腹手术。观察手术一般情况，包括手术方式、术中出血量、手术时间、保肛率、术中及术后输血率等。对比两组患者术后肠道功能恢复时间及住院时间。对比两组患者术后并发症情况。结果 研究组术中出血量为（297.3±185.3）ml，手术时间为（221.3±51.3）min，术中及术后输血率为2.22%，对照组术中出血量为（370.1±198.3）ml，手术时间为（245.3±55.0）min，术中及术后输血率为13.33%，差异均有显著性（P＜0.05）；研究组术后肠道功能恢复时间为（2.3±1.6）d，对照组术后肠道功能恢复时间为（3.8±1.7）d，差异有显著性（P＜0.05）；研究组术后并发症发生率为15.56%，对照组术后并发症发生率为35.56%，差异有显著性（P＜0.05）。结论 腹腔镜低位直肠癌保肛手术治疗低位直肠癌的临床疗效优于传统开腹手术，能够减少对患者的损伤，早期恢复肠道功能，且并发症较少，值得推广。 【关键词】腹腔镜低位直肠癌保肛手术；开腹手

Objective:To observe the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic assisted sphincter-preserving surgery and conventional open surgery in low rectal cancer. Method:90 patients with low rectal cancer were selected and divided into research group and control group according to different operative plans. The research group adopted the laparoscopic assisted sphincter-preserving surgery and control group adopted the conventional open surgery. The general operation conditions like surgical procedures, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, preserving rate of sphincter, intraoperative/postoperative transfusion rate were observed. The postoperative recovery time of intestinal function, hospitalization time as well as postoperative complications of two groups was compared. Result:The intraoperative blood loss, operation time and intraoperative/postoperative transfusion rate of research group was (297.3±185.3)ml, (221.3±51.3)min and 2.22% while the intraoperative blood loss, operation time and intraoperative/postoperative transfusion rate of control group was (370.1±198.3)ml, (245.3±55.0)min and 13.33% (P＜0.05); the postoperative recovery time of intestinal function of research group and control group was (2.3±1.6)d and (3.8±1.7)d (P＜0.05); the incidence rate of postoperative complications of research group (15.56%) was significantly lower than that of control group (35.56%) (P＜0.05).Conclusion: For low rectal cancer, the laparoscopic assisted sphincter-preserving surgery have a better clinical efficacy than the conventional open surgery, which it can reduce the patient’s injury, promote the recovery of intestinal function and have fewer complications. It is worthy of promotion.