...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Oncology: International Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment >Implication of the examining pathologist to meet the oncologic standard of lymph node count after laparoscopic lymphadenectomy.
【24h】

Implication of the examining pathologist to meet the oncologic standard of lymph node count after laparoscopic lymphadenectomy.

机译：腹腔镜淋巴结清扫术后病理检查医师符合达到淋巴结计数肿瘤标准的意义。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective: The lymph node number as benchmark in oncologic operations depends on the patient's anatomy, surgeon's skill and pathologist's accuracy. The influence of the pathologist is barely evaluated. Methods: A retrospective analysis of lymph node numbers after 700 laparoscopic lymphadenectomies in correlation to the examining pathologists was done. Three surgeons from the same department performed all operations at 2 campi, where 2 separate pathology institutions exist. Lymph node specimens were assigned randomly to any of the 62 involved pathologists. Results: The mean number of lymph nodes was equal for all surgeons. Lymph node specimens were analyzed in the pathology institute of campus I and II in 416 and 284 cases, respectively. The mean number of lymph nodes following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was 36 at campus II and 30 at campus I (p < 0.0001). There was also a significant difference for pelvic (19.9 vs. 17.7; p < 0.0001) and para-aortic lymph node counts (16.2 vs. 14.1; p < 0.01) between both pathology institutes. At campus II, 22.6% of lymph node counts did not meet the oncologic standard for pelvic and 16.7% did not meet the standard for para-aortic lymph nodes. Moreover, at campus I, 35.5 and 20.8% of pathologists described less than the oncologic limit of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, respectively. Conclusion: The number of removed lymph nodes is not an absolute parameter for surgical radicality. Interdisciplinary cooperation with pathologists is mandatory to meet oncologic standards.
机译：目的：以肿瘤手术中的淋巴结数目为基准，取决于患者的解剖结构，外科医生的技能和病理学家的准确性。几乎没有评估病理学家的影响。方法：回顾性分析700例腹腔镜淋巴结清扫术后与检查病理学家相关的淋巴结数目。来自同一科室的三名外科医生在2个营地进行了所有手术，其中有2个独立的病理机构。随机将淋巴结标本分配给62名病理学家。结果：所有外科医生的平均淋巴结数目均相等。在校园I和II的病理学研究所分别对416和284例淋巴结标本进行了分析。盆腔和主动脉旁淋巴结清扫术后平均淋巴结数目在校园II是36，在校园I是30（p <0.0001）。在两个病理学机构之间，骨盆（19.9 vs. 17.7; p <0.0001）和主动脉旁淋巴结计数（16.2 vs. 14.1; p <0.01）也存在显着差异。在校园II，22.6％的淋巴结计数不符合盆腔肿瘤标准，而16.7％的不符合主动脉旁淋巴结标准。此外，在第一校园，分别有35.5和20.8％的病理学家描述的骨盆和主动脉旁淋巴结的肿瘤学限值低于肿瘤学限值。结论：切除的淋巴结数目不是手术根治性的绝对参数。为了符合肿瘤学标准，必须与病理学家进行跨学科合作。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号