高级搜索

达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术对患者胃肠动力及胃肠激素的影响

韩博强, 马有伟, 张成, 周党军, 刘宏斌, 韩晓鹏

韩博强, 马有伟, 张成, 周党军, 刘宏斌, 韩晓鹏. 达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术对患者胃肠动力及胃肠激素的影响[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2019, 46(12): 1085-1090. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2019.19.1099
引用本文: 韩博强, 马有伟, 张成, 周党军, 刘宏斌, 韩晓鹏. 达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术对患者胃肠动力及胃肠激素的影响[J]. 肿瘤防治研究, 2019, 46(12): 1085-1090. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2019.19.1099
HAN Boqiang, MA Youwei, ZHANG Cheng, ZHOU Dangjun, LIU Hongbin, HAN Xiaopeng. Effect of Da Vinci Robot Radical Gastrectomy on Gastrointestinal Motility and Gastrointestinal Hormones of Gastric Cancer Patients[J]. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 2019, 46(12): 1085-1090. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2019.19.1099
Citation: HAN Boqiang, MA Youwei, ZHANG Cheng, ZHOU Dangjun, LIU Hongbin, HAN Xiaopeng. Effect of Da Vinci Robot Radical Gastrectomy on Gastrointestinal Motility and Gastrointestinal Hormones of Gastric Cancer Patients[J]. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 2019, 46(12): 1085-1090. DOI: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2019.19.1099

达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术对患者胃肠动力及胃肠激素的影响

基金项目: 

甘肃省自然科学基金 1506RJZA309

陕西省科技厅项目 2017SF-232

详细信息
    作者简介:

    韩博强(1988—),男,硕士在读,住院医师,主要从事胃肠道肿瘤的临床研究

    通讯作者:

    韩晓鹏(1974—),男,硕士,副主任医师,主要从事胃肠道及甲状腺肿瘤的临床研究, E-mail: hanxiaopeng74@163.com

  • 中图分类号: R735.2;R656.6+1

Effect of Da Vinci Robot Radical Gastrectomy on Gastrointestinal Motility and Gastrointestinal Hormones of Gastric Cancer Patients

More Information
  • 摘要:
    目的 

    研究达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术对患者胃肠动力和激素的影响。

    方法 

    选择行胃癌根治术的患者217例,按照不同手术方式分为达芬奇组和开腹手术组。记录两组术后肠鸣音恢复时间、首次肛门排气时间并测定术前及术后胃肠激素、手术相关因素及炎性因子水平后行统计分析。

    结果 

    达芬奇组术后肠鸣音恢复时间和首次肛门排气时间均短于开腹组(均P < 0.05)。两组术后24 h血液胃动素、胃泌素和生长抑素的测量值均明显较术前12 h下降(均P < 0.05),而血管活性肠肽的测量值均显著升高(P < 0.05);术后24 h达芬器组胃动素和胃泌素的测量值均高于开腹组(均P < 0.05),而血管活性肠肽的测量值低于开腹组(P < 0.05);所有患者术后肠鸣音恢复时间和首次肛门排气时间与术后24 h血液胃动素、胃泌素值负相关(均P < 0.05),与血管活性肠肽值正相关(P < 0.05)。两组手术时长、术中出血量、术后拔除引流管时间、术后疼痛VAS评分以及炎性相关因子间差异有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)。

    结论 

    达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术患者胃肠动力恢复明显快于传统开腹术;而创伤引起的炎性反应、应激反应可能是影响患者胃肠激素分泌的重要因素。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective 

    To investigate the effect of Da Vinci robot radical gastrectomy on gastrointestinal motility and hormones of gastric cancer patients.

    Methods 

    We selected 217 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy. According to different surgical methods, the patients were divided into Da Vinci operation group and open operation group.The recovery time of bowel sounds and the time of first anal exhaust after operation were recorded. The levels of gastrointestinal hormones, surgical-related factors and inflammatory factors were measured before and after operation.

    Results 

    The recovery time of bowel sounds and the first time of anal exhaust in the Da Vinci operation group were shorter than those in the open operation group(both P < 0.05). The motilin, gastrin, somatostatin levels at 24h after operation were significantly lower than those at 12h before operation in both groups(all P < 0.05), the vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were significantly increased(P < 0.05). At 24h after operation, the motilin and gastrin levels in the Da Vinci operation group were higher than those in the open operation group(both P < 0.05); the levels of vasoactive intestinal peptide in the Da Vinci operation group were lower than those in the open operation group(P < 0.05). In all patients, the recovery time of bowel sounds and the time of first anal exhaust were negatively correlated with the motilin and gastrin levels(P < 0.05), while they were positively correlated with the levels of vasoactive intestinal peptide at 24h after operation(all P < 0.05). There were significant differences in operative time, operative blood loss, drainage tube removal time, VAS pain grade and inflammatory factors between the two groups(all P < 0.05).

    Conclusion 

    The recovery of gastrointestinal motility of gastric cancer patients treated with Da Vinci surgery is significantly faster than that with traditional laparotomy. The inflammation and stress reaction caused by trauma may be the important factors affecting gastrointestinal hormone secretion.

     

  • 长链非编码RNA(long noncoding RNA, LncRNA)是广泛存在于哺乳动物细胞中的一类转录本长度超过200 nt的非编码RNA分子[1]。近年来研究发现LncRNAs参与调控细胞的多个阶段,影响着癌症的发生发展[2],包括肿瘤转移[3]。此外越来越多研究探讨血清LncRNAs作为肿瘤生物标志物的价值[4-5],但其在肺癌骨转移(lung cancer with bone metastasis, LCWBM)诊断中的作用仍未见报道。

    本研究通过文献查阅,筛选出与肿瘤转移密切相关的4种LncRNAs。HOTAIR是Homebox C基因位点表达产物,以反式沉默的方式发挥作用。研究显示HOTAIR与人类同源盒基因和癌转移相关,参与多种癌症进展,可作为预后不良的标志物[6]。HOTTIP是HOXA基因远端转录生成的一类LncRNA,已有文献显示HOTTIP可促进常见消化系统恶性肿瘤细胞的增殖、侵袭、转移,抑制癌细胞的凋亡,其高表达与患者的淋巴结转移和总体生存时间密切相关[7]。CRNDE是结直肠癌差异表达的LncRNA,在许多癌组织和癌细胞中表达出现异常,与疾病分期、远处转移、病理类型及生存状态明显相关[8]。AFAP1-AS1是新发现的一种LncRNA,近年研究发现AFAP1-AS1与恶性肿瘤的增殖、转移关系密切[9]。本研究检测HOTAIR、HOTTIP、CRNDE、AFAP1-AS1这4种血清LncRNAs在LCWBM和未发生骨转移肺癌(lung cancer without bone metastasis, LCWOBM)患者中的表达水平,并分析其对LCWBM的诊断价值。

    选取2016年1月—2018年8月河南省肿瘤医院LCWBM和LCWOBM患者各38例。肺癌患者发生骨转移均经核素骨扫描或PET扫描确诊。LCWOBM肺癌未发生骨转移患者为原发肺癌患者,未发生其他任何转移。所有患者都为未经化疗、放疗或免疫治疗的新发病例。两组研究对象均排除肝功能(包括谷丙转氨酶和谷草转氨酶)异常和肾功能不全(肾小球滤过率≤60 ml/min)的患者,排除妊娠、脑血管疾病等合并症的患者。该研究经郑州大学附属肿瘤医院伦理委员会批准,所有患者均知情同意。

    LCWBM组平均年龄为63.92±8.70岁,LCWOBM组平均年龄为57.06±11.44岁,两组患者年龄差异无统计学意义(t=-1.79, P=0.08)。LCWBM患者中男14例、女24例,肺鳞癌15例,肺腺癌23例。LCWOBM患者中男性21例、女性17例,肺鳞癌13例,肺腺癌25例,两组患者性别差异无统计学意义(χ2=2.56, P=0.11)。两组肺癌的病理类型比较,差异亦无统计学意义(χ2=0.23, P=0.63)。

    采用EDTA抗凝真空采血管采集LCWBM和LCWOBM患者晨起空腹静脉血5 ml,全血离体6 h内进行血清分离。将采血管3 000 r/min离心10 min,收集上清液;之后将上清液12000 r/min再次离心10 min,收集血清,放于-80℃冻存备用。

    TRIzol试剂盒购自美国Invitrogen公司,反转录试剂盒PrimeScript™ RT reagent Kit with gDNA Eraser(Perfect Real Time)和荧光定量试剂盒TB Green® Premix Ex Taq™(Tli RNaseH Plus)均来自日本Takara公司。PCR仪器使用Illumina公司的PCRmax Eco 48实时荧光定量PCR仪。由尚亚公司合成的GAPDH为内参,LncRNA HOTAIR、HOTTIP、CRNDE和AFAP1-AS1的引物由锐博生物公司设计合成,见表 1

    表  1  qRT-PCR引物序列
    Table  1  Primers sequences for qRT-PCR
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    采用TRIzol试剂从血清样本中提取总RNA,Thermo Scientific NanoDrop 2000超微量分光光度计检测RNA浓度和纯度。将RNA浓度调整至200~300 ng/μl。采用反转录试剂盒PrimeScript™ RT reagent Kit with gDNA Eraser将RNA反转录为cDNA,采用荧光定量PCR试剂盒TB Green® Premix Ex Taq™检测LncRNA HOTAIR、HOTTIP、CRNDE、AFAP1-AS1的表达水平。在冰上配制25 μl反应体系:cDNA 2 μl,上、下游引物各1.0 μl,SYBR Premix Ex TaqⅡ 12.5 μl,dH2O 8.5 μl。实时定量PCR反应条件:首先95℃ 30 s预变性,其次95℃ 5 s,60℃ 30 s,共40个循环,最后绘制熔化曲线。采用2-∆∆Ct法计算LncRNA在肺癌骨转移患者血清中表达量相对于未发生骨转移肺癌患者血清中表达量的倍数。

    采用SPSS21.0统计软件进行数据分析,计数资料比较采用卡方检验,不符合正态分布的计量资料采用中位数(M)和四分位数间距(P25, P75)表示,非正态分布的计量资料两组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U秩和检验。采用MedCalc医学统计软件15.2绘制受试者工作特征曲线(receiver operating characteristics curve, ROC),计算曲线下面积(area under curve, AUC),得出敏感度、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值。敏感度(试验正确检出阳性患者的率)=真阳性人数/(真阳性人数+假阴性人数)×100%。 特异性(试验正确检出阴性患者的率)=真阴性人数/(真阴性人数+假阳性人数)×100%。 阳性预测值(试验检出真阳性数在试验方法检出总阳性数中的比例)=真阳性例数/(真阳性例数+假阳性例数)×100%;阴性预测值(试验检出真阴性数在试验方法检出总阴性数中的比例)=真阴性例数/(真阴性例数+假阴性例数)×100%。采用二分类Logistic回归分析两个血清LncRNA诊断肺癌骨转移的效果。检验水准为双侧α=0.05。

    LCWBM患者血清中HOTAIR的表达水平明显低于LCWOBM患者(P < 0.05),LCWBM患者血清中HOTTIP的表达水平明显高于LCWOBM患者(P < 0.05),血清CRNDE、AFAP1-AS1表达水平在LCWBM组和LCWOBM组之间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),见表 2

    表  2  LCWBM和LCWOBM患者血清中四种LncRNA的表达水平比较
    Table  2  Comparison of four serum LncRNA levels between LCWBM group and LCWOBM group
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    根据LCWBM患者年龄中位数(58岁)将两组患者分为两个部分。年龄分层后,LCWBM组 < 58岁的低年龄层患者血清HOTTIP表达水平显著高于LCWOBM组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),其余3种血清LncRNAs在两组患者不同年龄层的表达量比较,差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05),见表 3

    表  3  LCWBM和LCWOBM组年龄与血清中4种lncRNA表达量的关系
    Table  3  Association between age and four serum lncRNA levels in LCWBM and LCWOBM groups
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    性别和病理类型分层结果显示:性别分层后,LCWBM组女性患者血清HOTAIR表达量明显低于LCWOBM组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);LCWBM组肺腺癌患者血清HOTTIP表达水平明显高于LCWOBM组肺腺癌患者,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。其余3种血清LncRNAs在两组患者不同性别、不同病理类型分层的表达量比较,差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05),见表 4~5

    表  4  LCWBM和LCWOBM组性别与血清中4种LncRNA表达量的关系
    Table  4  Association between gender and four serum LncRNA levels in LCWBM and LCWOBM groups
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    表  5  LCWBM和LCWOBM组病理类型与血清中4种LncRNA表达量的关系
    Table  5  Association between pathological types and four serum LncRNA levels in LCWBM and LCWOBM groups
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    采用ROC曲线评估四种血清LncRNAs对LCWBM的诊断价值,结果显示:血清HOTAIR诊断LCWBM的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.722(95%CI: 0.562~0.849);敏感度和特异性分别为70.0%和81.3%,阳性预测值和阴性预测值为53.8%和89.7%。血清HOTTIP诊断LCWBM的ROC曲线下面积为0.784(95%CI: 0.538~0.936);敏感度和特异性分别为100.0%和45.5%,阳性预测值和阴性预测值为57.1%和100.0%。血清CRNDE和AFAP1-AS1的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.630和0.558。血清HOTAIR和HOTTIP对LCWBM的诊断效力较好(P=0.027, P=0.008),血清CRNDE和AFAP1-AS1对LCWBM诊断效力较差(P=0.345, P=0.658)。

    由于血清HOTAIR和HOTTIP表达水平在两组间差异有统计学意义,将血清HOTAIR和HOTTIP联合,分析其联合诊断LCWBM的效果,结果显示ROC曲线下面积为0.818(95%CI: 0.577~0.955)(P=0.002);敏感度和特异性为87.5%和72.7%,阳性预测值和阴性预测值为70.0%和88.9%,见图 1

    图  1  四种血清lncRNA诊断LCWBM的ROC曲线
    Figure  1  ROC curves of four serum lncRNA diagnosing LCWBM

    HOTAIR能够调控其靶基因参与多种肿瘤的发生和转移。研究报道非小细胞肺癌患者血清中HOTAIR水平明显高于健康对照者[10];食管鳞癌患者血清中HOTAIR的表达水平亦明显高于健康对照者,采用血清HOTAIR诊断食管鳞癌的ROC曲线下面积为0.793,提示其可能可以作为诊断食管鳞癌的潜在生物标志物[11]。本研究结果显示LCWBM患者血清HOTAIR表达水平明显低于LCWOBM患者,性别分层后发现,女性LCWBM组患者血清HOTAIR表达量明显低于LCWOBM组女性患者,分析其原因,可能是两组研究对象均为肺癌患者,只是发生骨转移的情况不同,而之前报道的研究对象是癌症患者和健康人群;此外LCWBM患者血液中免疫细胞可能因肿瘤细胞的攻击而受到抑制,导致其分泌入血的HOTAIR减少,且在女性患者中更为明显。本研究血清HOTAIR诊断LCWBM的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.722,敏感度和特异性分别为70.0%和81.3%,曲线下面积大于0.7,敏感度和特异性均较高,提示其诊断效力较好。

    HOTTIP可以通过广泛的结构域激活组蛋白H3赖氨酸27三甲基化(H3K4me3)转录,提示HOTTIP在协调和激活HOXA簇基因中发挥着重要作用。HOTTIP通过结合WD-repeat-containing protein 5(WDR5),增加β-catenin基因表达水平,增强成骨分化,最终激活下游Wnt/catenin信号通路,因此HOTTIP可以促进骨肉瘤细胞的生长和上皮-间质转化[12]。HOTTIP在大多数癌症中过表达[13],HOTTIP可能通过靶向调控miR-516b-5p/SPIN1参与食管癌凋亡、转移和免疫逃逸[14]。胃癌患者血清外泌体HOTTIP表达明显升高,且与顺铂化疗耐药有关[15]。本研究中,LCWBM组患者血清HOTTIP表达显著上调,特别是在LCWBM组 < 58岁的低年龄层和肺腺癌患者中,血清HOTTIP表达量均明显高于LCWOBM组相应亚型组,说明在 < 58岁且肺癌病理类型为肺腺癌的患者中判断其是否可能发生骨转移,应重点考虑该指标。血清HOTTIP诊断LCWBM的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.784,敏感度和特异性分别为100.0%和45.5%。结果表明血清HOTTIP对肺癌骨转移有较好的诊断潜力,但特异性较低,即血清HOTTIP把实际没有发生骨转移的肺癌患者正确判断为未发生骨转移的能力较低,最终可能导致假阳性增多。然而将血清HOTAIR与HOTTIP两指标联合,其联合诊断肺癌骨转移的ROC曲线下面积为0.818,敏感度和特异性分别为87.5%和72.7%,显示两指标联合诊断效果要明显优于单一指标的诊断效果,即联合血清HOTAIR与HOTTIP有助于提高诊断LCWBM的效力。

    血清外泌体CRNDE水平在胰腺导管内黏液腺瘤(IPMN)患者和恶性程度较高的胰腺导管腺癌(PDAC)患者中显著高于健康对照,且其在PDAC患者血清中表达水平高于IPMN患者,提示血清CRNDE表达水平与胰腺癌恶性程度有关[15]。AFAP1-AS1可通过介导miR-423-5p调节Rho/Rac信号通路,促进鼻咽癌细胞的迁移和侵袭;裸鼠转染AFAP1-AS1后鼻咽癌细胞的肺转移率明显高于对照组[16]。本研究中,血清CRNDE和AFAP1-AS1表达水平在两组中差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),且对LCWBM诊断效力较低(0.5 < AUC < 0.7, P > 0.05),尚不能作为诊断LCWBM的生物标志物。

    本研究探讨了血清LncRNA HOTAIR、HOTTIP、CRNDE、AFAP1-AS1对LCWBM的诊断价值。血清检测因其无创、方便、可重复性等特点,更适合作为生物标志物[17]。本研究也存在一些局限:首先,样本数量较少;其次,除了年龄、性别和病理类型,未收集患者的其他基本信息,无法深层次探讨肺癌骨转移患者临床特征与血清LncRNAs表达的关系。今后,将扩大样本量,进一步验证血清LncRNA HOTAIR、HOTTIP在肺癌骨转移诊断中的价值,并探索其生物学效应,揭示其内在的分子机制。

    综上所述,血清HOTAIR和HOTTIP对肺癌骨转移有一定的诊断价值,两者联合诊断效果优于单一指标,可能成为诊断肺癌骨转移的新的生物标志物,为肺癌骨转移临床诊断提供新的思路。

    作者贡献
    韩博强:试验设计、病例收集、部分数据处理及论文撰写
    马有伟:病例收集及部分论文撰写
    张成:部分数据处理
    周党军:文献查阅
    刘宏斌:参与论文修改
    韩晓鹏:对试验设计及论文修改提供指导意见
  • 图  1   达芬奇机器人食管-空肠侧侧吻合

    Figure  1   Side-to-side esophagojejunostomy in Da Vinci robot radical gastrectomy

    图  2   达芬奇机器人残胃-空肠侧侧吻合

    Figure  2   Side-to-side gastrojejunostomy in Da Vinci robot radical gastrectomy

    图  3   达芬奇机器人输入-输出袢Braun氏吻合

    Figure  3   Braun's anastomosis in Da Vinci robot radical gastrectomy

    表  1   胃癌根治术患者一般资料比较

    Table  1   Comparison of general data of gastric cancer patients undergoing radical gastrectomy

    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2   两组胃癌根治术患者胃肠激素水平比较 (x±s, ng/L)

    Table  2   Comparison of gastrointestinal hormone levels between two groups undergoing radical gastrectomy  (x±s, ng/L)

    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3   两组胃癌根治术患者胃肠动力恢复情况比较 (x±s, h)

    Table  3   Comparison of gastrointestinal motility recovery between two groups undergoing radical gastrectomy  (x±s, h)

    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4   胃癌根治术后24h患者胃肠激素与胃肠动力恢复情况相关性

    Table  4   Correlation between gastrointestinal hormones and gastrointestinal motility recovery of gastric cancer patients 24 hours after radical gastrectomy

    下载: 导出CSV

    表  5   两组胃癌根治术患者手术相关因素及炎性因子比较 (x±s)

    Table  5   Comparison of surgical-related factors and inflammatory factors between two groups undergoing radical gastrectomy  (x±s)

    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1]

    McGuire S. World Cancer Report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO Press, 2015[J]. Adv Nutr, 2016, 7(2): 418-419. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=1cfdd6cf53a3cbb08b8681583659d80b&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [2]

    Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, et al. Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-years for 32 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2017, 3(4): 524-548. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5688

    [3]

    Hashizume M, Shimada M, Tomikawa M, et al. Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system[J]. Surg Endosc, 2002, 16(8): 1187-1191. doi: 10.1007/s004640080154

    [4] 徐子鹏, 汪文杰, 熊诗萌, 等.达芬奇机器人手术系统辅助胃癌根治术的临床疗效[J].中华消化外科杂志, 2019, 18(5): 453-458. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2019.05.010

    Xu ZP, Wang WJ, Xiong SM, et al. Clinical efficacy of Da Vinci robot-assisted radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer[J]. Zhonghua Xiao Hua Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2019, 18(5): 453-458. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2019.05.010

    [5] 兰蕴平, 李春玲, 黎嘉嘉, 等.达芬奇机器人与传统开腹手术在老年上腹部外科疾病中的应用比较[J].中华普通外科杂志, 2017, 32(7): 595-597. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2017.07.015

    Lan YP, Li CL, Li JJ, et al. Da Vinci robot surgical system versus traditional open surgery for old patients with upper abdominal surgical diseases: a case control study[J]. Zhonghua Pu Tong Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2017, 32(7): 595-597. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2017.07.015

    [6] 马超, 李沛雨, 张楠, 等.达芬奇机器人胃癌根治术与开腹胃癌根治术治疗胃癌近期疗效的对比研究[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志, 2017, 25(9): 47-51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-5971.2017.09.011

    Ma C, Li PY, Zhang N, et al. Comparative Study for Short-term Curative Effect on Gastric Carcinoma between Leonardo's Robotic and Open Radical Operation for Gastric Carcinoma[J]. Shi Yong Xin Nao Fei Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi, 2017, 25(9): 47-51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-5971.2017.09.011

    [7]

    van Boxel GI, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective[J]. Gastric Cancer, 2019, 22(5): 909-919. doi: 10.1007/s10120-019-00979-z

    [8] 唐波, 曾冬竹, 赵永亮, 等.达芬奇机器人胃癌及结直肠癌手术647例临床研究[J].中华外科杂志, 2016, 54(3): 177-181. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2016.03.005

    Tang B, Zeng DZ, Zhao YL, et al. Application of da Vinci robotic surgical system in radical resection of gastric and colorectal cancer: a report of 647 cases[J]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2016, 54(3): 177-181. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2016.03.005

    [9]

    Kitazawa T, Kaiya H. Regulation of Gastrointestinal Motility by Motilin and Ghrelin in Vertebrates[J]. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2019, 10: 278. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00278

    [10]

    Martinez EE, Panciotti C, Pereira LM, et al. Gastrointestinal hormone profiles associated with enteral nutrition tolerance and gastric emptying in pediatric critical illness: a pilot study[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2019, [Epub ahead of print]. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=0cc6c138d1d127d610304771d31a8a2c&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [11]

    Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver.4)[J]. Gastric Cancer, 2017, 20(1): 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10120-016-0622-4

    [12]

    Zhou M, Wang H, Zhu J, et al. Cause-specific mortality for 240 causes in China during 1990-2013: a systematic subnational analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013[J]. Lancet, 2016, 387(10015): 251-272. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00551-6

    [13]

    Kiyokawa T, Fukagawa T. Recent trends from the results of clinical trials on gastric cancer surgery[J]. Cancer Commun (Lond), 2019, 39(1): 11. doi: 10.1186/s40880-019-0360-1

    [14] 余佩武, 钱锋, 曾冬竹, 等.应用达芬奇机器人手术系统治疗胃癌[J].中华消化外科杂志, 2010, 9(2): 114-115. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2010.02.012

    Yu PW, Qian F, Zeng DZ, et al. Application of Da Vinci surgical system in the treatment of gastric cancer[J]. Zhonghua Xiao Hua Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2010, 9(2): 114-115. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2010.02.012

    [15]

    Wang Y, Zhao X, Song Y, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2017, 96(48): e8797. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=3c10c7ce45eec6f088f52e79abc618a6&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [16]

    Munk-Madsen P, Eriksen JR, Kehlet H, et al. Why still in hospital after laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery programme?[J]. Colorectal Dis, 2019, 21(12): 1438-1444. doi: 10.1111/codi.14762

    [17]

    Vather R, O'Grady G, Bissett IP, et al. Postoperative ileus: mechanisms and future directions for research[J]. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol, 2014, 41(5): 358-370. doi: 10.1111/1440-1681.12220

    [18]

    Gomez-Pinilla PJ, Binda MM, Lissens A, et al. Absence of intestinal inflammation and postoperative ileus in a mouse model of laparoscopic surgery[J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2014, 26(9): 1238-1247. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12376

    [19]

    Li J, Xi H, Cui J, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery[J]. Surg Endosc, 2018, 32(3): 1422-1433. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5826-0

    [20] 田浩, 魏微微, 张雪梅, 等.腹腔镜胃癌根治术对胃癌患者机体能量代谢及胃肠激素的影响[J].实用医学杂志, 2018, 34(20): 3426-3429. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2018.20.024

    Tian H, Wei WW, Zhang XM, et al. Effect of laparoscopic radical gastrectomy on energy metabolism and gastrointestinal hormones in patients with gastric cancer[J]. Shi Yong Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2018, 34(20): 3426-3429. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2018.20.024

    [21]

    Baig MK, Wexner SD. Postoperative ileus: a review[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2004, 47(4): 516-526. doi: 10.1007/s10350-003-0067-9

    [22]

    Kim MC, Kim KH, Kim HH, et al. Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted by conventional open distal gastrectomy and extraperigastric lymph node dissection in early gastric cancer[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2005, 91(1): 90-94. doi: 10.1002/jso.20271

    [23] 童博, 郑荣芝, 肖霞, 等.盐酸右美托咪定对乳腺癌患者术后胃肠激素及恶心呕吐的影响[J].医药导报, 2018, 37(12): 1478-1480. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yydb201812011

    Tong B, Zheng RZ, Xiao X, et al. Effect of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride on gastrointestinal hormones and nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after operation[J]. Yi Yao Dao Bao, 2018, 37(12): 1478-1480. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yydb201812011

    [24]

    Schnoor J, Bartz S, Klosterhalfen B, et al. A long-term porcine model for measurement of gastrointestinal motility[J]. Lab Anim, 2003, 37(2): 145-154. doi: 10.1258/00236770360563796

  • 期刊类型引用(4)

    1. 张琳,陈瑞芳. 胸腔封闭式引流技术在肺癌恶性胸腔积液患者治疗中的效果研究. 实用中西医结合临床. 2024(06): 63-65+92 . 百度学术
    2. 庞乐乐. 帕米膦酸二钠对肺癌骨转移性疼痛及骨纤维结构的影响研究. 药品评价. 2024(01): 56-59 . 百度学术
    3. 秦晓娟,袁媛. 血清CA125、CEA、NSE和SII联合检测对原发性肺癌患者骨转移的预测价值. 国际呼吸杂志. 2024(05): 563-567 . 百度学术
    4. 张昉,李敏,李嘉敏. 中西医结合治疗肺肿瘤骨转移的效果分析. 中国防痨杂志. 2024(S2): 175-177 . 百度学术

    其他类型引用(0)

图(3)  /  表(5)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  1438
  • HTML全文浏览量:  340
  • PDF下载量:  346
  • 被引次数: 4
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2019-08-29
  • 修回日期:  2019-10-17
  • 网络出版日期:  2024-01-12
  • 刊出日期:  2019-12-24

目录

/

返回文章
返回
x 关闭 永久关闭