微型腹腔镜胆囊切除术临床疗效观察

目的 通过随机对照方法比较微型腹腔镜胆囊切除术(MLC)与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的临床疗效.方法 将拟行LC的57例患者用随机数字表法分为传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术组(30例)和微型腹腔镜胆囊切除术组(27例).对比其手术时间、出血量、VAS评分、术后住院天数、并发症.结果 两组患者均无中转开腹及严重并发症出现,但各有6例从三孔L增加至四孔L,且MLC组中有4例转为传统LC.MLC组和LC组手术时间平均(57.5 ±17) min和(50±15) min(P＞0.05);术后平均住院时间为(2.5±1.4)d和(3.1 ±1.5) d(P＞0.05);术后疼痛程度MLC组6h和12 h分别为(4.8±2.6)分和(3.5±1.1)分,LC组分别为(5.5±2.7)分和(5.0±2.1)分(P＜0.05).结论 MLC术后疼痛较LC更轻,对适合的病例,是一种安全有效的治疗方式.     

三孔法微型腹腔镜在胆囊切除术中的应用

目的　探讨三孔法微型腹腔镜在胆囊切除术中的临床应用价值。　方法　 90例慢性结石性胆囊炎和胆囊息肉样病变随机分成两组 ,分别进行三孔法微型腹腔镜下胆囊切除术 (Mini-laparoscop iccholecystectomy ,MLC)和常规孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术 (Laparoscopiccholecystectomly,LC)。比较两组的中转率、手术时间、术后 6小时疼痛程度和并发症。　结果　两组均无并发症发生。MLC组中 2例因操作困难 ,中转LC。MLC组与LC组手术时间分别为 (5 4 8± 11 3)min和 (5 1 0± 11 0 )min ,(t =1 6 1,P >0 0 5 ) ;术后疼痛程度分别为 (2 0± 0 7)分和 (2 5± 0 8)分 ,(t=- 3 0 2 ,P <0 0 1)。　结论　在熟练掌握LC的基础上 ,开展MLC是安全、有效的。     

多孔与经脐单孔小儿腹腔镜胆囊切除术的对照研究

目的:探讨常规多孔与经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)治疗小儿胆囊结石的安全性及手术经验。方法:回顾分析15例常规多孔LC及6例经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(single incision laparoscopic cholecystec-tomy,SILC)治疗小儿胆囊结石的临床资料、术中及术后恢复情况。结果:手术均获成功,无一例中转开腹。LC组手术时间平均(30.3±5.2)min,术后平均住院(2.0±1.1)d,SILC组手术时间平均(42.3±10.6)min,术后平均住院(2.0±1.3)d,患者术后恢复良好,无并发症发生。结论:小儿胆囊结石行SILC同样安全、有效,美容效果更好,疼痛更轻,可作为治疗小儿胆囊结石可选择的技术。     

2mm无鞘针形器械在隐瘢痕腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的应用:一种无瘢痕手术新思路

目的:探讨隐瘢痕腹腔镜胆囊切除术的手术方法及应用价值。方法:选择2011年1月至2011年6月60例无严重胆囊炎症的胆囊息肉或胆囊结石患者,随机分为2组,新方法组行隐瘢痕腹腔镜胆囊切除术,单孔组行常规单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术,对比分析两组患者手术时间、术后切口疼痛程度、术后切口满意程度及中转率。结果:新方法组均顺利完成手术;单孔组28例顺利完成手术,2例中转常规腹腔镜胆囊切除术。新方法组与单孔组手术时间平均(14.17±3.51)min和(24.67±4.12)min,新方法组明显优于单孔组(P<0.01);术后切口疼痛程度轻于单孔组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后患者对切口满意程度优于单孔组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。两组均无出血、胆漏、胆管损伤等并发症发生。结论:隐瘢痕腹腔镜胆囊切除术安全、可行,术后瘢痕不明显且隐蔽,相对单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术,手术时间缩短,手术难度及中转率降低,术后患者切口满意度高,为腹腔镜手术的更微创化发展提供了新的可行途径及思路。     

经脐单套管三通道与经脐腹壁内三通道单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的对比研究

目的:探讨经脐腹壁内三通道单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)的手术经验及临床价值。方法:回顾分析2010年6月至2011年12月为11例患者行经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床资料。11例患者分别行经脐单套管三通道单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(对照组)及经脐腹壁内三通道单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(改良组)。对比分析两组患者手术时间、手术并发症、术后24 h使用镇痛剂例数及术后住院时间等。结果:11例手术均获成功,无并发症发生,均于4 d出院。两组患者术后住院时间及使用镇痛剂例数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对照组手术时间95～145 min,平均(120.25±18.95)min;改良组手术时间40～70 min,平均(55.71±9.74)min;两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:经脐单套管三通道单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术手术器械平行置入,前端狭小术野内腹腔镜、抓钳及主操作器械运动时相互干扰,难以相互配合,多顾此失彼,且易漏气,造成手术困难、时间延长。经脐腹壁内三通道单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术器械间的距离相对增加,相互干扰减少,操作空间亦相对增加,腹壁组织相对柔软,操作较灵活、漏气少,安全可行。相对传统LC而言,单孔手术操作困难,对术者技术要求较高;但术后腹壁无明显可见疤痕,美容效果极佳,具有临床推广价值。     

腹腔镜联合手术

目的 :探讨腹腔镜联合手术的临床应用价值。方法 :5 1例腹腔镜联合手术的患者中行腹腔镜胆囊切除术加肝囊肿开窗引流术 12例 ,腹腔镜胆囊切除加附件切除术 2例 ,腹腔镜胆囊切除加左肾囊肿开窗引流术 2例 ,腹腔镜胆囊切除加腹腔粘连松解术 35例。均先行腹腔镜胆囊切除 ,再完成腹腔镜下的其他手术。观察术后并发症发生情况、平均住院时间、肠功能恢复时间、下床活动时间和术后疼痛情况等治疗效果。结果 :5 1例腹腔镜联合手术均获得成功 ,无 1例中转开腹 ,无并发症发生。其术后住院时间平均为 (3 5± 1 2 )d ,肠功能恢复时间平均为 (19 9± 9 3)h ,下床活动时间平均为 (2 0 5± 9 9)h ,术后疼痛轻微 ,仅 7例患者需使用镇痛药。医疗费用明显低于 2次手术费用的总和。结论 :只要严格掌握手术指征 ,腹腔镜联合手术能够安全有效地一次性处理 2种或 2种以上腹部病变 ,减轻患者的痛苦 ,节省医疗费用。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗复杂性胆囊结石902例分析

目的:总结腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗复杂性胆囊结石的疗效及手术操作技巧。方法:对比分析单纯性胆囊结石组和复杂性胆囊结石组的手术时间、术后住院时间、中转开腹手术率及并发症发生率。结果:单纯组和复杂组手术时间分别为30.16±17.20min和41.83±26.76min(P<0.01),术后住院时间分别为3.56±1.14d和3.74±1.23d(P>0.05),中转开腹手术率分别为0.21％和2.44％(P<0.01),并发症发生率分别为0.29％和1.66％(P<0.01)。单纯组98％的患者和复杂组95％以上的患者均能经LC治愈。结论:只要正确评估手术难度,腹腔镜外科医师技术娴熟,便能明显降低中转开腹手术率及并发症发生率,获得与单纯组同样的疗效。     

肝硬化门脉高压症患者行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床体会(附128例报告)

目的:探讨为肝硬化门脉高压症患者行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)的可行性及临床效果。总结肝功能Child A、B级肝硬化患者围手术期处理及术中注意事项。方法:回顾分析2000年1月至2011年1月为128例合并肝硬化门脉高压症的胆囊结石患者行LC的临床资料,其中Child A级95例(A组),Child B级33例(B组)。结果:A组手术时间平均(31.6±12.5)min,平均住院(4.3±1.5)d;B组手术时间平均(61.6±24.5)min,平均住院(6.3±1.8)d。A组无一例中转开腹及术后并发症发生;B组3例(2.34%)中转开腹,术中胆管壁电刀灼伤1例,术后出现腹水5例、肺炎3例。结论:为Child A、B级的肝硬化门脉高压症患者行腹腔镜胆囊切除术是安全、可行的,丰富的腹腔镜手术经验及完善的围手术期处理是手术成功的关键。     

胆囊结石并肝硬化患者行腹腔镜与开腹胆囊切除术的对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)治疗胆囊结石合并肝硬化患者的优点、可行性和疗效。方法:胆囊结石合并肝硬化患者72例,随机分成LC组39例和开腹胆囊切除术(open cholecystectomy,OC)组33例,同组按编号、年龄、性别、肝功能分级等收集和分析数据。结果:LC组和OC组平均手术时间分别为(56.0±4.1)min和(70.8±5.2)min(P<0.05),术中平均出血量分别为(97.7±4.03)ml和(133.9±8.64)ml(P<0.05),平均住院时间分别为(6.2±1.9)d和(9.11±2.3)d(P<0.05),手术并发症发生率分别为10.2%(4例)和27.3%(9例)(P<0.05)。结论:胆囊结石合并肝硬化的患者用LC治疗优势明显,与OC相比更加安全可靠。     

经脐单孔与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较研究

目的探讨传统器械经脐入路单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy,TSPLC)的可行性、安全性并总结初步经验。方法回顾性分析我院2010年5月～2011年8月行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparo-scopic cholecystectomy,LC)60例患者的临床资料,其中行TSPLC患者36例,行传统LC24例;所有病例都经过B超或CT确诊为慢性结石性胆囊炎,手术指征包括:①非急性炎症期的胆囊炎或胆囊结石;②胆囊息肉;③非急性炎症期的胆囊良性病变。观察两组中体重指数、手术时间、出血量、疼痛指数、肩背部疼痛发生率、恢复进食时间、住院时间及切口并发症。结果TSPLC组36例成功施行手术,LC组24例成功施行手术。平均手术时间TSPLC组(56.0±16.7)min长于LC组(36.7±6.0)min(P<0.05),两组术中出血量相似(P>0.05),两组术后疼痛指数、肩背部疼痛发生率、住院时间相似(P>0.05),患者满意度TSPLC组高于LC组(P<0.05),两组均未置腹腔引流管,无出血及胆漏、胆道损伤等重大并发症,平均住院时间为3天。术后随访1～3月,TSPLC组腹部未见明显手术疤痕。结论①使用传统器械经脐入路单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术是安全可行的,具有优于传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的美容效果;但手术操作难度较大,初学者需要经过一定量的练习方能熟练掌握。     

两种组合微创技术治疗胆总管结石比较的前瞻性研究

目的:比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)联合胆总管探查术(LCBDE)与内镜下乳头括约肌切开取石术(EST)+LC治疗胆总管结石的有效性、安全性及经济性。方法:采用前瞻随机对照的方法,将确诊为胆总管结石的患者按照1:1的比例随机分配为两组,分别采用LC+LCBDE与EST+LC治疗,术后随访6个月,比较两组的相关临床指标。结果:共纳入110例患者。LC+LCBDE组平均手术时间(103.9±18.0)min,平均出血量(15.3±29.5)mL,中转3例(5.5%),平均住院时间(12.02±5.8)d,平均住院费用(32 116±6 503)元,随访未发现残余结石者。EST+LC组平均手术时间(175.2±10.5)min,平均出血量(6.8±7.0)mL,中转2例(3.6%),平均住院时间(11.9±3.0)d,平均住院费用(37 571±5 017)元,术后残余结石1例(1.8%)。两组手术时间、出血量、治疗费用方面有统计学差异(均P0.05),其余指标均无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:两种微创治疗方案在有效性及安全性方面无明显差异,LC+LCBDE较EST+LC的治疗费用明显减少。     

Early minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND: Recently, techniques using fine-caliber instruments (2 or 3 mm in diameter) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, called minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC), were reported to be superior to conventional LC (CLC, using 5 mm instruments) in postoperative course and cosmetic outcome. However, the use of MLC to date has been largely restricted to uncomplicated situations. Since CLC has been proved to be a safe and efficient technique for acute cholecystitis especially if conducted early, this study tests the feasibility and safety of MLC for acute cholecystitis. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients with acute cholecystitis were prospectively randomized to minilaparoscopic (n = 38) or conventional laparoscopic (n = 31) cholecystectomy, and the operations were conducted within 2 days of admission whenever possible. Despite different operative techniques, both groups of patients received identical preoperative preparation, evaluation and postoperative care. The two groups were compared for patient characteristics, results of laboratory tests, predictive score for LC difficulties, operative time, operative complications, hospitalization days and need for meperidine injection for wound pain. RESULTS: The conversion rate was 7.9% (3 of 38) for the MLC group and 6.5% (2 of 31) for the CLC group. Nine patients in the MLC group and 7 in the CLC group had concomitant choledocholithiasis and underwent endoscopic stone retrieval before operation. The age, sex, predictive score for LC difficulties, preoperative leukocyte count, length of hospital stay and requirement of intramuscular meperidine injections were similar for both groups of patients, while, the operative times were marginally longer in the MLC group (113.8 +/- 30.8 versus 98.2 +/- 33.2 minutes, P = 0.056). No major complications occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis by MLC are as good as those of CLC if the operation is performed early, with obvious smaller incisions and minimal complications. MLC is a safe and effective procedure for patients with acute cholecystitis, and has an acceptable low conversion rate.     

Is there an optimal time for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis?

Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is safe in acute cholecystitis, but the exact timing remains ill-defined. This study evaluated the effect of timing of LC in patients with acute cholecystitis. Methods Prospective data from the hospital registry were reviewed. All patients admitted with acute cholecystitis from June 1994 to January 2004 were included in the cohort. Results Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was attempted in 1,967 patients during the study period; 80% were women, mean patient age was 44 years (range, 20–73 years). Of the 1,967 LC procedures, 1,675 were successful, and 292 were converted to an open procedure (14%). Mean operating time for LC was 1 h 44 min (SD ± 50 min), versus 3 h 5 min (SD ± 79 min) when converted to an open procedure. Average postoperative length of stay was 1.89 days (± 2.47 days) for the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days (± 2.2 days) for the conversion group. No clinically relevant differences regarding conversion rates, operative times, or postoperative length of stay were found between patients who were operated on within 48 h compared to those patients who were operated on post-admission days 3–7. Conclusions The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis has no clinically relevant effect on conversion rates, operative times, or length of stay.     

三孔法腹腔镜胆囊联合阑尾切除术

目的 :从手术时间、住院天数以及术后恢复时间等方面探讨三孔法腹腔镜胆囊联合阑尾切除术的临床价值。方法 :慢性胆囊炎合并慢性阑尾炎 37例在采用三孔法切除胆囊后 ,继续沿用三孔切除阑尾。并与同时期行开腹胆囊切除术 ,单纯腹腔镜胆囊切除术和开腹阑尾切除术进行对照。结果 :37例均顺利完成手术 ,无手术并发症。平均手术时间 5 9 2 9± 2 0 4 0min。平均住院 9 0 0± 1 2 0d。术后住院平均 5 30±1 1 2d。结论 :此术式可同时治疗胆囊和阑尾病变 ,具有创伤小、住院时间短 ,医疗费用低等优点     

经腹白线腹腔镜胆囊切除术:一种新的隐瘢痕胆囊切除术式

目的:通过与经脐腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,验证经腹白线腹腔镜胆囊切除术在避免术中器械干扰、减轻术后疼痛和美容效果等方面的优越性。方法:随机将患者分为2组:经腹白线腹腔镜胆囊切除(translinea alba laparoscopic cholecystectomy,TLLC)组20例,经脐入路腹腔镜胆囊切除(transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystectomy,TULC)组18例。两组均采取3孔法。前者2个5mm戳孔在脐部,1个5mm戳孔位于耻骨正上方1～2cm处。后者3个5mm戳孔均在脐部。比较两组的手术时间、手术并发症、术后VAS疼痛评分、术后住院时间、美容效果满意度等。结果:38例手术均获成功,无并发症发生。TLLC组手术时间10～21min,平均(16.3±2.8)min,明显短于TULC组的32～52min[平均(43.4±2.8)min],差异有统计学意义(P0.001);TLLC组术后第1天VAS评分[(2.4±0.7)分]显著低于TULC组[(4.5±0.9)分](P0.001);两组术后切口满意度及术后住院时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:TLLC是美容效果与TULC相当的新型隐瘢痕术式,与TULC相比,具有手术难度小和术后疼痛轻等优点。     

腹腔镜胆囊、子宫联合切除术围手术期的处理(附78例报告)

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊、子宫联合切除术围手术期的处理措施。方法:回顾分析78例腹腔镜胆囊、子宫联合切除术的临床资料。78例中腹腔镜胆囊切除术联合腹腔镜子宫次全切除术45例,联合腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术11例,联合全子宫切除术22例。结果:78例联合手术均获成功。手术时间(120.1±56.3)min,术中出血(288.1±102.5)ml,术后住院(6.1±2.0)d。无中转开腹及胆道、输尿管、膀胱损伤。结论:正确把握手术适应证,术前充分准备,熟练掌握操作技巧,术后妥善处理,腹腔镜子宫、胆囊联合切除术安全可行。     

腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的临床应用(附45例报告)

目的:探讨腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的可行性和优越性。方法:回顾分析2007年3月至2009年8月我院为45例患者行腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(transabdominal preperitoneal prosthesis,TAPP)的临床资料。结果:本组均成功完成腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术,TAPP联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)6例。手术时间单侧平均(40±20)min;双侧平均(60±27)min;TAPP联合LC平均(104±32)min。术后排气时间1~3d,术后平均住院4.8d。术后4例阴囊血清肿。随访1~26个月,1例复发,复发率2.22%。结论:腹腔镜TAPP具有患者创伤小、康复快及复发率低等优点,修补复发疝、双侧疝、对腹腔内其他疾病施行联合手术有较大优势。     

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments

BACKGROUND: The outcomes after traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC; one 10-mm port, one 12-mm port and two 5-mm ports) and minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC; three 3-mm ports and one 12-mm port) for gallstone disease were compared. METHODS: The study was a randomized, single-blind trial comparing LC with MLC. Only elective patients were eligible for inclusion. LC was a routine procedure at the institution in which the study was performed, whereas MLC was introduced after a short training period. The randomization period was from January to December 2001. RESULTS: Of 175 patients who had elective minimal access cholecystectomy during the randomization period, 135 entered the trial: 68 underwent LC and 67 underwent MLC. The groups were matched for age, sex and preoperative characteristics. Median (range) operating times for LC and MLC were similar (45 (20-120) and 50 (20-170) min respectively). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, the time for the patient to resume walking, eating and passing stools, and median hospital stay were the same in the two groups. The level of postoperative pain was lower in the MLC group at 1 h (P = 0.011), 3 h (P = 0.012), 6 h (P = 0.003), 12 h (P = 0.052) and 24 h (P = 0.034). Patients who had MLC received fewer injections of analgesic (P = 0.036) and more patients in this group expressed satisfaction with the cosmetic result (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: MLC took a similar time to perform and caused less postoperative pain than the standard laparoscopic procedure. Reducing the port size further enhanced the advantages of laparoscopic over open cholecystectomy.     

单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术对缺血修饰白蛋白水平的影响

目的:评估单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术对缺血修饰白蛋白水平的影响。方法:对140例良性胆囊病变患者进行前瞻性研究,其中42例行单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术,98例行腹腔镜胆囊切除术,两组均按标准麻醉方案施术。分别于术前、术后45 min、术后24 h分析患者血清缺血修饰白蛋白水平。结果:两组手术时间分别为(36.2±12.1)min与(44.2±14.1)min,两组患者手术时间、中转率、术后45 min、术后24 h缺血修饰白蛋白水平差异无统计学意义。手术时间延长(>30 min)时,可导致患者缺血修饰白蛋白水平的早期增加。结论:单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术是良性胆囊疾病有效、安全的手术方法。手术时间延长可能增加组织缺血,但其与胆囊切除术操作本身无关。