切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志

中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (04) : 333 -338. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2020.04.009

所属专题： 文献；

临床研究

腹腔镜下超声引导微波消融治疗巨大肝血管瘤疗效分析
陈亚峰1, 杜锡林1,†(), 董瑞1, 鲁建国1, 臧莉1   
  1. 1. 710038　西安，空军军医大学第二附属医院普通外科
  • 收稿日期:2020-03-27 出版日期:2020-08-10
  • 通信作者: 杜锡林
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81172287)

Efficacy of laparoscopic ultrasound-guided microwave ablation for giant hepatic hemangioma

Yafeng Chen1, Xilin Du1,†(), Rui Dong1, Jianguo Lu1, Li Zang1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University, Xi'an 710038, China
  • Received:2020-03-27 Published:2020-08-10
  • Corresponding author: Xilin Du
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Du Xilin, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

陈亚峰, 杜锡林, 董瑞, 鲁建国, 臧莉. 腹腔镜下超声引导微波消融治疗巨大肝血管瘤疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2020, 09(04): 333-338.

Yafeng Chen, Xilin Du, Rui Dong, Jianguo Lu, Li Zang. Efficacy of laparoscopic ultrasound-guided microwave ablation for giant hepatic hemangioma[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 09(04): 333-338.

目的

探讨腹腔镜下超声引导微波消融治疗巨大肝血管瘤的疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2016年1月至2018年6月空军军医大学第二附属医院收治的72例巨大肝血管瘤患者临床资料。患者均签署知情同意书，符合医学伦理学规定。其中男32例，女40例；平均年龄（50±13）岁。根据不同手术方式将患者分为腹腔镜下超声引导微波消融组（微波组，36例）和腹腔镜肝血管瘤切除组（切除组，36例）。比较两组围手术期情况和并发症发生情况，并评价手术疗效。年龄、血管瘤最大径等计量资料比较采用t检验。并发症发生率、治疗缓解率等比较采用χ2检验或Fisher确切概率法。

结果

微波组手术时间、术后引流管拔除时间、术后住院时间分别为（76±25）min、（3.2±0.8）d、（4.7±0.9）d，明显少于切除组的（138±27）min、（4.5±1.0）d、（6.0±1.1）d、（t=-6.494，-3.045，-3.262；P<0.05）。术后3 d，微波组ALB为（36.1±1.7）g/L，明显高于切除组的（34.7±1.6）g/L（t=2.852，P<0.05）。微波组PT为（11.5±1.1）s，明显低于切除组的（12.9±1.8）s（t=-2.522，P<0.05）。微波组术后腹腔出血、胆漏、血红蛋白尿分别为0、0、5例，切除组相应为4、4、0例，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。术后12个月微波组总体缓解率为89%（32/36），切除组为81%（29/36），差异无统计学意义（χ2=0.966，P>0.05）。

结论

腹腔镜下超声引导微波消融治疗巨大肝血管瘤疗效显著，且具有安全、微创优势。

关键词: 腹腔镜, 超声检查，介入性, 导管消融术, 血管瘤, 肝切除术
Objective

To explore the efficacy of laparoscopic ultrasound-guided microwave ablation in the treatment of giant hepatic hemangioma.

Methods

Clinical data of 72 patients with giant hepatic hemangioma who admitted in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University from January 2016 to June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The informed consents of all patients were obtained and the local ethical committee approval was received. Among them, 32 patients were male and 40 female, with a mean age of (50±13) years old. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic ultrasound-guided microwave ablation group (microwave group, n=36) and laparoscopic resection of hepatic hemangioma group (resection group, n=36) according to different operations. The perioperative situation and complications between two groups were compared and the efficacy was evaluated. Measurement data such as age and maximum diameter of hemangioma were compared using t test. Incidence of complication, remission rates, etc. were compared using Chi-square test or Fisher's exact probability.

Results

The duration of operation, time to postoperative drainage tube extraction, and length of postoperative hospital stay in microwave group were (76±25) min, (3.2±0.8) d, and (4.7±0.9) d, respectively, significantly lower than (138±27) min, (4.5±1.0) d, and (6.0±1.1) d in resection group (t=-6.494, -3.045, -3.262; P<0.05). At postoperative 3 d, ALB in microwave group was (36.1±1.7) g/L, which was significantly higher than (34.7±1.6) g/L in resection group (t=2.852, P<0.05). The prothrombin time in microwave group was (11.5±1.1) s, which was significantly lower than (12.9±1.8) s in resection group (t=-2.522, P<0.05). In microwave group, no intra-abdominal hemorrhage, no bile leakage and 5 cases of hemoglobinuria were observed, and in resection group, it was accordingly 4, 4, 0 cases, where significant differences were observed (P<0.05). The overall remission rate at 12 months postoperatively was 89% (32/36) in microwave group and 81% (29/36) in resection group, which did not significantly differed between two groups (χ2=0.966, P>0.05).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic ultrasound-guided microwave ablation exert significant effect for giant hepatic hemangioma with advantages of safety and minimal invasion.

Key words: Laparoscopes, Ultrasonography, interventional, Catheter ablation, Hemangioma, Hepatectomy
表1 微波组和切除组巨大肝血管瘤患者一般资料比较
组别 例数 性别（例） 年龄（岁，±s ） BMI （kg/m2，±s ） 血管瘤最大径（cm，±s ） 肝功能Child-Pugh分级（例） ICGR15[M （QR）]
男 女 A级 B级
微波组 36 13 23 51±15 21.8±2.7 12.5±1.6 28 8 0.06(0.01, 0.25)
切除组 36 16 20 48±12 20.9±1.8 11.7±1.2 32 4 0.05(0.01, 0.16)
统计值 ? χ2=0.520 t=0.740 t=1.711 t=1.333 χ2=0.600 Z=1.604
P值 ? 0. 471 0.475 0.109 0.209 0.206 0.109
表2 微波组和切除组巨大肝血管瘤患者围手术期指标比较
组别 手术时间（min，±s ） 术中出血量[ml，M（QR）] 术中输血量[ml，M（QR）] 术后恢复进食时间（d，±s ） 术后引流管拔除时间（d，±s ） 术后住院时间（d，±s ）
微波组 76±25 070（30，250） 000（0，0） 2.1±0.6 3.2±0.8 4.7±0.9
切除组 138±27 450（100, 1 000） 200（0, 600） 3.0±0.8 4.5±1.0 6.0±1.1
统计值 t=-6.494 Z=-3.297 Z=-2.692 t=-3.210 t=-3.045 t=-3.262
P值 0.000 0.001 0.007 0.009 0.011 0.006
表3 术后第3天微波组和切除组巨大肝血管瘤患者肝功能比较
组别 ALB（g/L，±s ） ALT[U/L，M（QR）] TB（μmol/L，±s ） PT（s，±s ）
微波组 36.1±1.7 125（52, 312） 35±10 11.5±1.1
切除组 34.7±1.6 140（78, 440） 38±12 12.9±1.8
统计值 t=2.852 Z=-1.015 t=-1.704 t=-2.522
P值 0.017 0.310 0.110 0.030
[1]
European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL). EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of benign liver tumours[J]. J Hepatol, 2016, 65(2):386-398.
[2]
Mocchegiani F, Vincenzi P, Coletta M, et al. Prevalence and clinical outcome of hepatic haemangioma with specific reference to the risk of rupture: a large retrospective cross-sectional study[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2016, 48(3):309-314.
[3]
Gao J, Fan RF, Yang JY, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for hepatic hemangiomas: a consensus from a Chinese panel of experts[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2017, 23(39):7077-7086.
[4]
Wang Z, Tang X, Qi X, et al. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for giant hepatic hemangioma[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2018, 35(1): 246-252.
[5]
Yedibela S, Alibek S, Müller V, et al. Management of hemangioma of the liver: surgical therapy or observation?[J]. World J Surg, 2013, 37(6):1303-1312.
[6]
Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Semin Liver Dis, 2010, 30(1):52-60.
[7]
Eriksen PL, Schultz NA, Larsen LP, et al. Benign liver tumours-diagnosis and management[J]. Ugeskr Laeger, 2016, 178(9): V11150894.
[8]
国际肝胆胰协会中国分会肝血管瘤专业委员会．肝血管瘤诊断和治疗多学科专家共识（2019版）[J]．中国实用外科杂志，2019, 39(8):761-765.
[9]
Hamaloglu E, Altun H, Ozdemir A, et al. Giant liver hemangioma: therapy by enucleation or liver resection[J]. World J Surg, 2005, 29(7):890-893.
[10]
王爽，刘长安．肝血管瘤外科诊治进展[J]．世界最新医学信息文摘，2018, 18(105):124-125, 127.
[11]
Miura JT, Amini A, Schmocker R, et al. Surgical management of hepatic hemangiomas: a multi-institutional experience[J]. HPB, 2014, 16(10):924-928.
[12]
Jinhuan Y, Gang D, Binyao S, et al. Is laparoscopic hepatectomy suitable for giant hepatic hemangioma larger than 10 cm in diameter?[J]. Surg Endosc, 2020, 34(3):1224-1230.
[13]
张磊，熊俊．腹腔镜下微波消融治疗巨大肝血管瘤:附86例报告[J]．中国普通外科杂志，2017, 26(7):902-906.
[14]
Tang X, Ding M, Lu B, et al. Outcomes of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation versus surgical resection for symptomatic large hepatic hemangiomas[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2019, 36 (1):632-639.
[15]
Santambrogio R, Chiang J, Barabino M, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic microwave to radiofrequency ablation of small hepatocellular carcinoma (≤3 cm)[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2017, 24(1):257-263.
[16]
Liu F, Yu X, Liang P, et al. Ultrasonography-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for large hepatic cavernous haemangiomas[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2018, 34(7):1061-1066.
[17]
肖莉．微波消融与腹腔镜肝切除术对肝血管瘤患者VAS及肝功能的影响[J]．世界华人消化杂志，2018, 26(8):500-505.
[18]
Haradome H, Okubo T, Toda Y, et al. Shrunken hepatic hemangioma following delineated peritumoral hyperintensity on gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MR imaging[J]. Magn Reson Med Sci, 2017, 16(4):271-272.
[19]
Nassour I, Polanco PM. Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatic colorectal metastases[J]. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep, 2016, 12(2):103-112.
[20]
陈亚峰，杜锡林，鲁建国，等．微波固化在肝硬化肝癌不规则性切除术中的应用[J]．现代生物医学进展，2015, 15(13):2457-2461.
[21]
van Tilborg AAJM, Dresselaars HF, Scheffer HJ, et al. RF ablation of giant hemangiomas inducing acute renal failure: a report of two cases[J]. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2016, 39(11):1644-1648.
[22]
Wah TM, Arellano RS, Gervais DA, et al. Image-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and incidence of post-radiofrequency ablation syndrome: prospective survey[J]. Radiology, 2005, 237(3):1097-1102.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李华志, 曹广, 刘殿刚, 张雅静. 不同入路下行肝切除术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 52-55.
[10] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[11] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[12] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号