加速康复外科在食管癌根治术中的临床价值

Clinical value of enhanced recovery after surgery in radical resection of esophageal carcinoma

  • 摘要: 目的:探讨加速康复外科(ERAS)在食管癌根治术中的临床价值。
    方法:采用回顾性队列研究方法。收集2011年4月至2014年8月四川省肿瘤医院收治的131例行食管癌根治术患者的临床病理资料。2011年4月至2012年4月的33例患者采用传统围术期处理措施,设为传统组;2012年5—12月的26例患者采用改进的围术期处理措施,设为改进组;2013年1月至2014年8月的72例患者采用ERAS围术期处理措施,设为ERAS组。3组患者采用相同的胸腔引流管拔除标准和出院标准。观察指标:(1)术后血清学指标水平变化情况:术后1、4、7 d淋巴细胞计数、淋巴细胞比例、Hb、TP、Alb水平。(2)术后恢复情况:术后肛门首次排气时间、术后首次排便时间、术后胸腔引流管留置时间、术后肠内营养管留置时间、术后输液时间、术后肺部感染发生例数、术后吻合口瘘(颈部和胸内)发生例数、术后住院时间、出入院时体质量变化(入院体质量-出院体质量)、出院1个月内(因迟发性吻合口瘘和切口感染)再入院例数。(3)随访情况。采用门诊和电话方式进行随访,了解患者因并发症再入院情况,及生存、肿瘤复发、转移情况。随访时间截至2016年8月。正态分布的计量资料以±s表示,多组间比较采用方差分析,两两比较采用LSDt检验;重复测量数据采用重复测量方差分析。计数资料比较采用χ2检验。
    结果:(1)术后血清学指标水平变化情况:传统组食管癌患者术后1 d至术后7 d淋巴细胞计数、淋巴细胞比例、Hb、TP、Alb变化分别为(0.5±0.3)×109/L~(1.0±0.3)×109/L、4.7%±2.2%~12.9%±4.3%、(117±9)g/L~(107±14)g/L、(51±3)g/L~(55±6)g/L、(30.2±2.2)g/L~(29.7±2.7)g/L,改进组患者分别为(0.5±0.3)×109/L~(1.0±0.4)×109/L、4.5%±2.4%~12.8%±5.1%、(119±11)g/L~(107±17)g/L、(53±5)g/L~(54±4)g/L、(31.2±2.7)g/L~(28.7±2.8)g/L,ERAS组患者分别为(0.6±0.3)×109/L~(1.0±0.4)×109/L、5.8%±2.1%~13.7%±4.5%、(114±14)g/L~(102±18)g/L、(52±5)g/L~(56±5)g/L、(30.8±2.1)g/L~(29.7±3.1)g/L,3组患者上述指标水平变化趋势比较,差异均无统计学意义(F=0.209,1.451,2.327,0.312,0.475,P>0.05)。(2)术后恢复情况:传统组、改进组和ERAS组食管癌患者术后肺部感染发生例数分别为5、2、3例,术后吻合口瘘发生例数颈部分别为2、3、6例,胸内分别为1、0、1例,出院1个月内再入院例数分别为0、1、1例,3组患者上述指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(χ2=3.873,0.445,0.430,1.451,P>0.05)。传统组、改进组和ERAS组食管癌患者术后胸腔引流管留置时间分别为(8.1±1.8)d、(8.2±2.5)d、(6.8±1.8)d,术后肠内营养管留置时间分别为(11.0±1.7)d、(10.2±2.2)d、(7.2±1.8)d,术后输液时间分别为(9.5±1.4)d、(8.7±1.4)d、(6.7±2.1)d,术后住院时间分别为(12.1±1.7)d、(12.6±5.9)d、(9.6±3.5)d。3组上述指标比较,差异均有统计学意义(F=5.709,4.335,15.756,8.905,P<0.05)。其中ERAS组患者上述指标分别与传统组比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=-1.269, -1.504,-2.647,-2.742,P<0.05);ERAS组患者分别与改进组比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=-1.297,-1.797,-1.862,-3.190,P<0.05);改进组患者分别与传统组比较,差异均无统计学意义(t=-0.027,-0.593,-0.785,-0.449,P>0.05)。(3)随访情况:131例患者术后均获得随访,随访时间为10~64个月,中位随访时间为23个月。随访期间,19例患者死亡,3例肿瘤复发,4例淋巴结转移,16例其他器官转移。
    结论:ERAS应用于食管癌根治术围术期安全可行,可明显加快患者术后恢复,缩短术后住院时间。

     

    Abstract: Objective:To explore the clinical value of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in radical resection of esophageal carcinoma.
    Methods:The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 131 patients who underwent radical resection of esophageal carcinoma at the Sichuan Cancer Hospital from April 2011 to August 2014 were collected. Thirtythree patients receiving conventional perioperative management between April 2011 and April 2012 were allocated into the conventional group, 26 receiving modified perioperative management between May 2012 and December 2012 were allocated into the modified group and 72 receiving ERAS perioperative management between January 2013 and August 2014 were allocated into the ERAS group. The standards of thoracic drainagetube removal and discharge were applied to the patients in the 3 groups. Observation indicators: (1) changing of postoperative serum indexes: lymphocyte count at postoperative day 1, 4 and 7, lymphocyte ratio, levels of hemoglobin (Hb), total protein (TP) and albumin (Alb). (2) postoperative recovery: time to initial anal exsufflation, time for initial defecation, time of indwelling thoracic drainagetube, time of indwelling enteral nutritional tube, postoperative infusion time, number of cases with postoperative pulmonary infection, number of cases with postoperative anastomotic leakage (at neck and within the chest), duration of postoperative hospital stay, changes of body mass at admission and discharge and number of cases with readmission within 1 month after discharge. (3) followup situations. The followup using outpatient examination and telephone interview was performed to detect the readmission due to complications, survival of patients and tumor recurrence or metastases up to August 2016. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as ±s. Comparisons among groups were done using AVONA, and pairwise comparison was analyzed using the LSDt test. Repeated measurement data were analyzed by the repeated measures ANOVA. Comparison of count data was analyzed using the chisquare test.
    Results:(1) Changing of postoperative serum indexes: lymphocyte count at postoperative day 1, 4 and 7, lymphocyte ratio, levels of Hb, TP and Alb were (0.5±0.3)×109/L-(1.0±0.3)×109/L, 4.7%±2.2%-12.9%±4.3%, (117±9)g/L-(107±14)g/L, (51±3)g/L-(55±6)g/L, (30.2±2.2)g/L-(29.7±2.7)g/L in the conventional group and (0.5±0.3)×109/L-(1.0±0.4)×109/L, 4.5%±2.4%-12.8%±5.1%, (119±11)g/L-(107±17)g/L, (53±5)g/L-(54±4)g/L, (31.2±2.7)g/L-(28.7±2.8)g/L in the modified group and (0.6±0.3)×109/L-(1.0±0.4)×109/L, 5.8%±2.1%-13.7%±4.5%, (114±14)g/L-(102±18)g/L, (52±5)g/L-(56± 5)g/L, (30.8±2.1)g/L-(29.7±3.1)g/L in the ERAS group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference in changing trends among the 3 groups (F=0.209, 1.451, 2.327, 0.312, 0.475, P>0.05). (2) Postoperative recovery: number of cases with postoperative pulmonary infection, number of cases with postoperative anastomotic leakage at neck and within the chest and number of cases with readmission within 1 month after discharge were respectively 5, 2, 1, 0 in the conventional group and 2, 3, 0, 1 in the modified group and 3, 6, 1, 1 in the ERAS group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups (χ2=3.873, 0.445, 0.430, 1.451, P>0.05). Time of indwelling thoracic drainagetube, time of indwelling enteral nutritional tube, postoperative infusion time and duration of postoperative hospital stay were (8.1±1.8)days, (11.0±1.7)days, (9.5±1.4)days, (12.1±1.7)days in the conventional group and (8.2±2.5)days, (10.2±2.2)days, (8.7±1.4)days, (12.6±5.9)days in the modified group and (6.8±1.8)days, (7.2±1.8)days, (6.7±2.1)days, (9.6±3.5)days in the ERAS group, respectively, with statistically significant differences among the 3 groups (F=5.709, 4.335, 15.756, 8.905, P<0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the above indicators between ERAS group and conventional group (t=-1.269,-1.504,-2.647,-2.742, P<0.05) and between ERAS group and modified group (t=-1.297,-1.797,-1.862,-3.190, P<0.05), and no statistically significant difference between conventional group and modified group (t=-0.027,-0.593,-0.785,-0.449, P>0.05). (3) Followup situations: 131 patients were followed up for 10- 64 months with a median time of 23 months. During the followup, 19 patients died, 3 had tumor recurrence, 4 had lymph node metastasis and 16 had other organ metastasis.
    Conclusion:ERAS is safe and feasible in radical resection of esophageal carcinoma, and it can obviously improve the recovery of patients and reduce duration of postoperative hospital stay.

     

/

返回文章
返回