Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 14  No. 04 ( 2024 ), Article ID: 83907 , 6 pages
10.12677/acm.2024.144984

外周血炎性指标在食管癌术后吻合口瘘中的 应用

胡帅1,秦性涛1,谢军2*

1赣南医科大学第一临床医学院,江西 赣州

2赣南医科大学第一附属医院消化内科,江西 赣州

收稿日期:2024年3月1日;录用日期:2024年3月25日;发布日期:2024年4月3日

摘要

食管癌术后吻合口瘘是食管切除手术后较为常见的严重并发症,不仅会导致患者住院时间延长,对医疗资源造成负担,还可能增加病死率,影响患者的总体生存质量。研究表明,食管癌手术后吻合口瘘的发生与血液中炎症指标的水平紧密相关。包括C-反应蛋白(CRP)、白细胞计数(WBC)、中性粒细胞计数(NEUT)、降钙素原(PCT)等,其中高水平的CRP、WBC和NEU与AL的发生率呈正相关,提示这些指标有望成为AL的预测因子。但传统炎性标志物在预测AL方面具有一定的局限性。因此,寻找更准确的预测指标是至关重要的,以便能够更好地评估食管癌术后AL的风险。本文综述了常见血液炎症指标在食管癌术后吻合口瘘(AL)中的应用,旨在为临床上早期预测AL的发生提供参考依据。

关键词

外周血炎性指标,食管癌切除术,吻合口瘘

The Application of Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes in Postoperative Anastomotic Leakage in Esophageal Cancer

Shuai Hu1, Xingtao Qin1, Jun Xie2*

1The First Clinical Medical College of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou Jiangxi

2Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou Jiangxi

Received: Mar. 1st, 2024; accepted: Mar. 25th, 2024; published: Apr. 3rd, 2024

ABSTRACT

Postoperative anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the serious complications after resection of esophageal cancer, and its high incidence and long hospitalization time put pressure on medical resources, as well as increase mortality and shorten patients’ survival. Numerous studies have shown that there is a significant correlation between peripheral blood inflammatory indexes and AL after esophageal cancer surgery. These include C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), and neutrophil count (NEUT), etc. High levels of CRP, WBC, and NEU are positively correlated with the incidence of AL, suggesting that these markers are expected to be predictors of AL. However, traditional inflammatory markers have certain limitations in predicting AL. Therefore, it is crucial to find more accurate predictors to enable a better assessment of the risk of AL after esophageal cancer surgery. In this paper, we review the application of several common inflammatory markers in peripheral blood in postoperative AL of esophageal cancer, aiming to provide a more comprehensive reference index for the early diagnosis of postoperative AL of esophageal cancer.

Keywords:Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes, Esophageal Cancer Resection, Anastomotic Leakage

Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

食管癌术后吻合口瘘是食管癌切除术后常见的严重的并发症之一。尽管随着医学的发展AL的发生率有所下降 [1] 。但是,食管癌术后AL依然对患者带来负面影响。AL与发病率高,住院时间长,医疗资源加剧,死亡率增加、癌症复发率上升以及随后长期生存质量下降相关 [2] 。炎症反应是食管癌术后AL的发生机制之一 [3] 。虽然一些研究报道传统炎症指标在食管癌的预后评估中具有一定的作用 [4] ,但也有学者认为它们与AL相关性不强 [5] 。此外,术中因素如手术时间、手术方式和术中出血量等也被认为与AL的发生有关,但它们的预测能力也不够理想。故寻找更准确的预测指标是至关重要的,以便能够更好地评估食管癌术后AL的风险。近年来,越来越多的研究开始关注外周血炎性指标作为预测AL的潜在指标。这些指标反映了机体的炎症状态,可以通过测量血液中的炎性细胞和炎性因子来评估。炎性反应在术后吻合口愈合过程中起着重要作用,因此,外周血炎性指标可能能够更准确地反映术后吻合口的愈合情况,并预测AL的发生。本文综述了常见血液炎症指标在食管癌术后吻合口瘘(AL)中的应用,旨在为临床上早期预测AL的发生提供参考依据。

2. 食管癌术后吻合口瘘

食管癌吻合口瘘(Anastomotic Leakage, AL)是食管癌切除术后较为严重的并发症。AL是指伤口处出现与内容物相关的系统性并发症 [6] ,食管切除术并发症共识小组(Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group, ECCG)将吻合口瘘定义为“食管与吻合口或管状胃等消化道组织的全层缺损 [7] 。”AL往往与发病率高,住院时间长,医疗资源加剧,死亡率增加、生存期减少相关。AL的发生率约为14.2%。AL患者90天总死亡率为11.3%,并且随着AL的严重程度显著增加 [8] 。食管癌术后AL可以按照时间分为早期AL、中期AL以及晚期AL。除此之外。AL可以按照吻合部位分为颈部AL和胸内AL。颈部AL多表现为颈部吻合口出现唾液或者脓性分泌物,胸内AL多表现为发热、胸背部疼痛等症状。颈部AL发病率高,相比与胸内AL,颈部AL的病死率更低。因此,尽管胸内AL发病率更低,临床一般仍倾向与颈部吻合 [9] [10] 。目前,AL诊断一般依赖于影像学诊断。但是影像学检查能否早期诊断AL一直是持续争论的话题,因为AL的影像学表现有很大的不同 [11] 。早期诊断AL一直是临床难以解决的困题,因此通过有效经济的外周血炎症指标协助诊断AL有着重要的临床意义。

3. 炎症与食管癌术后吻合口瘘

AL愈合过程包括炎症、增殖和重塑这三个连续和重叠的阶段 [12] 。炎症阶段是最早也是最重要的阶段,这一阶段的目标主要是止血和清除潜在入侵的微生物。首先,血小板在吻合口处它们催化纤维蛋白的形成,释放储存在损伤部位相关细胞因子达到止血的目的。随后嗜中性粒细胞和巨噬细胞迁移到损伤部位,以清除通过吞噬作用吻合口处的潜在病原体 [13] 。通过正常的炎症、增殖和重塑阶段,吻合口一般愈合良好。炎症反应是食管癌术后AL的发生机制之一 [3] 。当机体出现炎症时,吻合口出现水肿,导致组织损伤,从而愈合更加缓慢甚至难以愈合,病情持续进展导致AL的产生。在组织愈合过程中,中性粒细胞、巨噬细胞等细胞清除入侵的病原体,这些病原体会破坏伤口再生的平衡,这涉及蛋白质合成和蛋白质分解的重复和更替。因此,过量的蛋白酶活性是异常愈合的标志,其分解超过合成能力 [14] 。细菌是那些使蛋白酶活性的天平倾斜的因子之一,从微调胶原蛋白分解和重塑转变为胶原蛋白和伤口完整性的过度降解。某些细菌菌株可以直接诱导、加速和增强关键组织蛋白活性,使得愈合欠佳,从而导致AL的发生 [15] 。

4. 外周血炎性指标在食管癌术后吻合口瘘中的应用

4.1. 中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值

中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞的比值(Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, NLR)是常见的简单、低廉的炎症标志物。中性粒细胞是含量最丰富的白细胞,其主要作用是吞噬和降解入侵的病原体 [13] 。当炎症出现时,中性粒细胞快速迁移到炎症部位。中性粒细胞通常随着炎症疾病的进展而增加。淋巴细胞通常随着炎症反应而减少。淋巴细胞可以反应免疫状态。但这种减少相对延迟,可能不能很好地反映疾病的进展 [16] 。通过分析306名接受肠切除和吻合术的患者的资料,马克等人证明了术后中性粒细胞计数升高与肠道术后AL的发生相关。除此之外,术前淋巴细胞计数低和AL与院内死亡率增加独立相关。术前淋巴细胞减少和直肠切除与高发病率独立相关,而术后低淋巴细胞计数与AL风险增加相关 [17] 。实际上,目前研究大多认为术后第4天的NLR值有着最好的预测结直肠癌术后AL的能力。WALK等人探究了行结直肠癌手术患者NLR与术后AL的关系,结果表示,术后第4天的NLR是结直肠癌术后AL预测因素 [18] 。来自8个手术中心的1432例行结直肠癌手术的患者的临床病例资料显示:与未发生AL的患者相比,AL患者术后第1天和第4天的NLR值显著较高,尤其是术后第4天显著升高,NLR截止值为7.1,显示了预测AL的曲线下最佳区域(AUC 0.744; 95% CI 0.719~0.768)。也就是说当术第4天NLR值超过7.1的患者更容易发生AL [19] 。术前NLR可能是胃癌切除后AL的预测因素。Radulescu D等回顾性分析204名行胃切除术的胃癌患者的资料,结果表明NLR大于3.54的患者发生AL更高 [20] ,关于NRL预测食管癌术后AL,仅有少量报道。研究表明术后早期的平均NLR值较高,呈上升趋势。相反,对于食管癌切除术后AL,低NLR有很高的阴性预测价值 [21] [22] 。因此,尽管NLR在预测结直肠癌术后以及胃癌术后AL的能力较好,但是对于NLR预测食管癌术后AL,需要更多的研究进一步证明NLR是否预测食管癌术后AL,以及预测能力的强弱。

4.2. C反应蛋白

C反应蛋白(C-Reactive Protein, CRP)是急性时相反应蛋白,可以反应急性炎症。CRP一般作为阴性预测指标。系统评价结果显示CRP、降钙素原和白细胞是最常评估结直肠癌术后AL的全身生物标志物,具有显着的阴性和阳性预测值。曲线下的相关面积值范围为0.508至0.960 [23] 。CRP可以作为食管癌切除术后AL的阴性预测指标。研究表明,术后第4天的CRP结直肠癌术后早期感染的最准确预测指标(AUC = 0.775)。以100 mg/L为临界值,其阴性预测值为95.7%的,灵敏度和特异度分别为75%的和70.3%。POD 4时CRP值低于100 mg/L的患者可以安全出院 [24] 。也有部分学者将C反应蛋白与白蛋白联合探索该比值是否可以预测AL的发生。日本学者回顾性分析295例行根治性胸段食管鳞癌的患者的资料发现,术前C反应蛋白与白蛋白比值(≥0.0139)是AL的独立预测因子(p = 0.048,优势比 = 3.02,95%置信区间1.01~9.06) [25] 。这对临床医师早期识别AL具有一定的临床意义。尼卡里等也证实了CRP和CRP与淋巴细胞比值可以作为食管癌切除术后AL的阴性预测指标 [26] 。

4.3. 降钙素原

当机体出现严重的感染时,血液中降钙素(Procalcitonin, PCT)的水平会迅速升高,PCT可以代表炎症反应的程度。PCT是常见的评估结直肠癌术后AL的全身生物标志物 [23] 。纳入134名行结直肠手术的患者按照术后有无AL分组,结果表明术后第3天PCT预测AL的能力最佳。灵敏度为85%,特异性为95% [27] 。一项队列研究表明结直肠术后第5天的PCT与AL的相关,但是遗憾的是在多因素分析中未达到统计学意义 [28] 。PCT可以预测食管癌术后合并ARDS患者出现AL的能力 [29] 。但是也有研究认为PCT不能很好的预测肠道术后AL [18] [30] 。鉴于PCT在多种研究中未得到统一的结论,敏感度和灵敏度也有其局限性,因此,PCT辅助诊断AL有一定的参考意义,可能PCT结合CRP有着更好预测AL的能力 [31] [32] ,这需要进一步的研究探讨PCT联合或不联合CRP是否可以预测AL的发生。

4.4. 全身免疫炎症指数

全身免疫炎症指数(Systemic Immune-Inflammatory Index, SII)是一种最近被提出的新型炎症指标,它综合了血小板、中性粒细胞、淋巴细胞三种免疫炎症细胞,因其结合了更多外周血炎症细胞特点,能综合反映宿主全身免疫和炎症平衡状态 [33] 。已有的研究表明,SII与食管癌术后吻合口瘘发生风险呈正相关,高SII值通常提示免疫炎症反应增强,与吻合口瘘的发生风险增加相关。Zhang [34] 等人的研究发现术前SII升高与食管鳞癌患者术后不良预后显著相关。WANG [33] 等人一项回顾性研究表明关,术前高SII与食管癌患者术后发生严重并发症有关,但多因素logistics分析显示SII并非为患者发生术后肺部并发症的预测因子。目前针对SII预测食管癌术后AL的研究仍少,未来需要大样本、多中心的前瞻性研究来证实相关结论。

5. 小结

食管癌切除术后吻合口瘘(Anastomotic Leakage, AL)是一种严重的并发症,会对患者的生活质量和生存期产生负面影响,导致不良预后。尽管已经报道了多种与AL相关的危险因素,但早期预测AL仍然具有一定的困难。外周血炎性指标作为简单、易得的炎性标志物,具有可靠、快速、经济等优势。已有大量研究表明外周血炎性指标如中性粒细胞淋巴细胞比值(Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, NLR)、C-反应蛋白(C-Reactive Protein, CRP)、降钙素原(Procalcitonin, PCT)和全身免疫炎症指数(Systemic Immune-Inflammatory Index, SII)等在预测结直肠癌和胃癌术后AL方面均具有一定的价值。因此,外周血炎性指标的监测对于预测食管癌手术后吻合口瘘(AL)具有潜在价值。在临床上可以通过监测这些指标及时发现AL的发生,制定相关措施,有助于提高食管癌患者术后生活质量。然而,目前关于外周血炎性指标预测食管癌术后AL的研究还相对较少,大多数研究都是基于回顾性研究,样本量较小。因此,需要更多的大型、多中心的前瞻性研究来进一步验证外周血炎性指标在食管癌术后AL中的应用。这将有助于提高预测的准确性,并为临床决策提供更可靠的依据。

文章引用

胡 帅,秦性涛,谢 军. 外周血炎性指标在食管癌术后吻合口瘘中的应用
The Application of Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes in Postoperative Anastomotic Leakage in Esophageal Cancer[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(04): 35-40. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.144984

参考文献

  1. 1. Voeten, D.M., Gisbertz, S.S., Ruurda, J.P., et al. (2021) Overall Volume Trends in Esophageal Cancer Surgery Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. Annals of Surgery, 274, 449-458. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004985

  2. 2. Hua, X., Qian, R., Shi, K., et al. (2019) Effectiveness and Safety of Bovine Pericardium Patch Repair for Cervical Anastomotic Leakage after Oesophagectomy for Cancer. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 11, 3808-3813. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.09.12

  3. 3. Lee, J.A., Chico, T. and Renshaw, S.A. (2018) The Triune of Intestinal Microbiome, Genetics and Inflammatory Status and Its Impact on the Healing of Lower Gastrointestinal Anastomoses. The FEBS Journal, 285, 1212-1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.14346

  4. 4. Gordon, A.C., Cross, A.J., Foo, E.W. and Roberts, R.H. (2018) C-Reactive Protein Is a Useful Negative Predictor of Anastomotic Leak in Oesophago-Gastric Resection. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 88, 223-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13681

  5. 5. Noble, F., Curtis, N., Harris, S., et al. (2012) Risk Assessment Using a Novel Score to Predict Anastomotic Leak and Major Complications after Oesophageal Resection. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery: Official Journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 16, 1083-1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1867-9

  6. 6. Blencowe, N.S., Strong, S., McNair, A.G., et al. (2012) Reporting of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes after Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review. Annals of Surgery, 255, 658-666. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182480a6a

  7. 7. Low, D.E., Alderson, D., Cecconello, I., et al. (2015) International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated with Esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Annals of Surgery, 262, 286-294. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098

  8. 8. (2022) Rates of Anastomotic Complications and Their Management Following Esophagectomy: Results of the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Annals of Surgery, 275, E382-E391. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004649

  9. 9. Jones, C.E. and Watson, T.J. (2015) Anastomotic Leakage Following Esophagectomy. Thoracic Surgery Clinics, 25, 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thorsurg.2015.07.004

  10. 10. Gooszen, J., Goense, L., Gisbertz, S.S., Ruurda, J.P., Van Hillegersberg, R. and Van Berge Henegouwen, M.I. (2018) Intrathoracic versus Cervical Anastomosis and Predictors of Anastomotic Leakage after Oesophagectomy for Cancer. The British Journal of Surgery, 105, 552-560. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10728

  11. 11. Messager, M., Warlaumont, M., Renaud, F., et al. (2017) Recent Improvements in the Management of Esophageal Anastomotic Leak after Surgery for Cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology: The Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology, 43, 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.06.394

  12. 12. Lam, A., Fleischer, B. and Alverdy, J. (2020) The Biology of Anastomotic Healing-The Unknown Overwhelms the Known. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery: Official Journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 24, 2160-2166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04680-w

  13. 13. Rodrigues, M., Kosaric, N., Bonham, C.A. and Gurtner, G.C. (2019) Wound Healing: A Cellular Perspective. Physiological Reviews, 99, 665-706. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00067.2017

  14. 14. Edwards, J.V. and Howley, P.S. (2007) Human Neutrophil Elastase and Collagenase Sequestration with Phosphorylated Cotton Wound Dressings. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A, 83, 446-454. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.31171

  15. 15. Shogan, B.D., Belogortseva, N., Luong, P.M., et al. (2015) Collagen Degradation and MMP9 Activation by Enterococcus faecalis Contribute to Intestinal Anastomotic Leak. Science Translational Medicine, 7, 286ra68. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3010658

  16. 16. Vidal, A.C., Howard, L.E., De Hoedt, A., et al. (2018) Neutrophil, Lymphocyte and Platelet Counts, and Risk of Prostate Cancer Outcomes in White and Black Men: Results from the SEARCH Database. Cancer Causes & Control: CCC, 29, 581-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-018-1031-2

  17. 17. Chiarelli, M., Achilli, P., Tagliabue, F., et al. (2019) Perioperative Lymphocytopenia Predicts Mortality and Severe Complications after Intestinal Surgery. Annals of Translational Medicine, 7, 311. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.06.46

  18. 18. Walker, P.A., Kunjuraman, B. and Bartolo, D. (2018) Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Anastomotic Dehiscence. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 88, E573-E577. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14369

  19. 19. Paliogiannis, P., Deidda, S., Maslyankov, S., et al. (2020) Blood Cell Count Indexes as Predictors of Anastomotic Leakage in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Multicenter Study on 1432 Patients. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 18, Article No. 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01856-1

  20. 20. Radulescu, D., Baleanu, V.D., Padureanu, V., et al. (2020) Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio as Predictor of Anastomotic Leak after Gastric Cancer Surgery. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 10, Article No. 799. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10100799

  21. 21. Al Lawati, Y., Alkaaki, A., Luis Ramírez García Luna, J., et al. (2021) The Predictive Value of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Esophageal Anastomotic Leaks. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 112, 1790-1796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.12.033

  22. 22. Pantoja Pachajoa, D.A., Gielis, M., Palacios Huatuco, R.M., et al. (2021) Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio vs C-Reactive Protein as Early Predictors of Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012), 64, Article ID: 102201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102201

  23. 23. Su’a, B.U., Mikaere, H.L., Rahiri, J.L., Bissett, I.B. and Hill, A.G. (2017) Systematic Review of the Role of Biomarkers in Diagnosing Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Surgery. The British Journal of Surgery, 104, 503-512. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10487

  24. 24. Facy, O., Paquette, B., Orry, D., et al. (2017) Inflammatory Markers as Early Predictors of Infection after Colorectal Surgery: The Same Cut-Off Values in Laparoscopy and Laparotomy. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 32, 857-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2805-9

  25. 25. Sugimoto, A., Toyokawa, T., Miki, Y., et al. (2021) Preoperative C-Reactive Protein to Albumin Ratio Predicts Anastomotic Leakage after Esophagectomy for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study. BMC Surgery, 21, Article No. 348. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01344-7

  26. 26. Neary, C., McAnena, P., McAnena, O., Kerin, M. and Collins, C. (2020) C-Reactive Protein-Lymphocyte Ratio Identifies Patients at Low Risk for Major Morbidity after Oesophagogastric Resection for Cancer. Digestive Surgery, 37, 515-523. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510963

  27. 27. Muñoz, J.L., Alvarez, M.O., Cuquerella, V., et al. (2018) Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein as Early Markers of Anastomotic Leak after Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program. Surgical Endoscopy, 32, 4003-4010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6144-x

  28. 28. Baeza-Murcia, M., Valero-Navarro, G., Pellicer-Franco, E., et al. (2021) Early Diagnosis of Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery: Prospective Observational Study of the Utility of Inflammatory Markers and Determination of Pathological Levels. Updates in Surgery, 73, 2103-2111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01082-8

  29. 29. Li, H., Wang, D., Wei, W., Ouyang, L. and Lou, N. (2019) The Predictive Value of Coefficient of PCT × BG for Anastomotic Leak in Esophageal Carcinoma Patients with ARDS after Esophagectomy. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 34, 572-577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066617705108

  30. 30. Aaron, D.J., Anandhi, A., Sreenath, G.S., et al. (2021) Serial Estimation of Serum C-Reactive Protein and Procalcitonin for Early Detection of Anastomotic Leak after Elective Intestinal Surgeries: A Prospective Cohort Study. Turkish Journal of Surgery, 37, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.47717/turkjsurg.2021.5102

  31. 31. Lagoutte, N., Facy, O., Ravoire, A., et al. (2012) C-Reactive Protein and Procalcitonin for the Early Detection of Anastomotic Leakage after Elective Colorectal Surgery: Pilot Study in 100 Patients. Journal of Visceral Surgery, 149, E345-E349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2012.09.003

  32. 32. Zawadzki, M., Czarnecki, R., Rzaca, M., Obuszko, Z., Velchuru, V.R. and Witkiewicz, W. (2016) C-Reactive Protein and Procalcitonin Predict Anastomotic Leaks Following Colorectal Cancer Resections—A Prospective Study. Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques, 10, 567-573. https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2015.56999

  33. 33. 王再莉, 李雪霏, 玉红, 孙琪荣, 余海. 全身免疫炎症指数对腹部手术患者术后肺部并发症的影响: 回顾性观察性研究[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2021, 28(5): 625-630.

  34. 34. Zhang, H., Shang, X., Ren, P., et al. (2019) The Predictive Value of A Preoperative Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index and Prognostic Nutritional Index in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 234, 1794-1802. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27052

  35. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单