悬吊式腹腔镜辅助治疗巨大卵巢囊肿

目的探讨悬吊式腹腔镜辅助手术在巨大卵巢囊肿治疗中的临床应用价值。方法2006年1月-2009年12月对89例巨大卵巢囊肿（囊肿直径≥10cm）分别采用悬吊式腹腔镜、气腹腹腔镜、开腹手术3种不同方式进行治疗,比较3种术式在手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后疼痛、皮下气肿及血肿发生率、住院时间等方面的差异,术后随访3个月观察月经情况。结果3组手术时间、术中出血量、术后疼痛、排气时间、住院时间均有显著性差异（JP〈0．05）。3组术中并发症及皮下气肿、血肿发生率无明显差异（P〉0．05）。悬吊组手术时间（38．4±10．5）min显著短于气腹组（110．5±12．2）min（q=30．758,P〈0．05）和开腹组手术时间（65．3±14．6）min（q=11．566,P〈0．05）;悬吊组术中出血量（40．3±12．8）ml明显少于气腹组（150．8±30．2）ml（q=26．598,P〈0．05）及开腹组（95．7±20．1）ml（q=13．440,P〈0．05）;悬吊组术后排气时间（14．4±4．3）h明显短于气腹组（24．9±5．9）h（q=10．157,P〈0．05）及开腹组（50．8±6．2）h（q=35．490,P〈0．05）;悬吊组住院时间（3．2±0．8）d明显少于开腹组（6．7±0．7）d（q=18．681,P〈0．05）。悬吊组肩胛疼痛2例（7．1％）,明显少于气腹组10例（33．3％）（,=6．054,P=0．014）;悬吊组皮下气肿发生率0,明显低于气腹组6例（20．0％）（Fisher’s检验,P=0．015）;悬吊组术后腹壁疼痛5例（17．8％）,明显低于开腹组26例（83．9％）（r=25．711,P=0．000）。术后3个月气腹组月经异常发生率为13．4％（4／30）,悬吊组及开腹组分别为3．6％（1／28）和6．4％（2／31）,3组比较无显著性差异（X^2=2．036,P=0．361）。结论悬吊式腹腔镜辅助治疗巨大卵巢囊肿优于气腹腹腔镜手术和传统开腹手术。     

经十二指肠镜括约肌切开术后行腹腔镜胆囊切除时机探讨

目的探讨经十二指肠镜括约肌切开术（EST）术后腹腔镜胆囊切除术的手术时机。方法胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者180例分为3组,均行EST联合LC,随机并按其EST术后手术时间分为3组。分别于EST术后3d（A组）,7d（B组）,30d（C组）行腹腔镜胆囊切除,并对其资料进行回顾性分析,术中和术后临床资料单因素方差分析。结果EST术后7d组腹腔镜胆囊切除手术时间（51．00±2．31）min明显较A组（34．70±2．24）min、C组（34．43±2．51）min延长（t=0．002,P〈0．01）;中转开腹率10．0％（6／60）较A组1．7％（1／60）、C组1．7％（1／60）明显增高（t=0．028,P〈0．05）;术中出血量（50．43±3．90）ml较A组（28．86±3．35）ml、C组（28．57±3．40）ml明显增多（t=0．003,P〈0．01）,差异有统计学意义。EST术后30d组腹腔镜胆囊切除住院总费用（15250．57±1006．67）元较A组（10093．29±496．05）元、B组（10845．86±744．27）元明显增加（t=0．002,P〈0．01）。结论EST术后3d行腹腔镜胆囊切除可降低手术难度与中转开腹率,缩短手术时间,手术安全有效,优势明显。     

经脐单一部位与常规腹腔镜阑尾切除术创伤反应的对比研究

目的：比较经脐单一部位腹腔镜阑尾切除术（ laparoendoscopic single-site appendectomy ,LESS-LA）与常规三孔法腹腔镜阑尾切除术（ laparoscopic appendectomy ,LA）对机体的创伤反应。方法2011年4月～2013年3月选择205例成人急性阑尾炎,按掷硬币法分为2组,分别为LESS-LA组和常规LA组,比较2组手术时间,术前1 h,术后24、72 h血清白细胞介素6（interleukin-6,IL-6）、肿瘤坏死因子α（tumor necrosis factor-α,TNF-α）、C 反应蛋白（C reaction protein,CRP）。结果LESS-LA组手术时间（50．3±10．8）min,明显长于常规LA组（26．1±8．8）min（t＝17．625,P＝0．000）。 LESS-LA组患者术前1 h,术后24、72 h血清IL-6分别为（8.41±1．51）、（35．65±3．36）、（25．29±3．25） pg／ml,常规LA组分别为（8．76±1．39）、（35．21±3．19）、（25．56±3．19） pg／ml,2组比较均无统计学差异（ t＝-1．728,P＝0．086;t＝0．962,P＝0．337;t＝-0．600, P＝0．549）;LESS-LA组患者术前1 h,术后24、72 h血清TNF-α分别为（14．47±2．05）、（27．43±2．61）、（20．01±3．13） pg／ml,常规LA组分别为（14．65±2．09）、（27.36±2．63）、（20．57±3．18） pg／ml,2组差异均无显著性（t＝-0．622,P＝0.535;t＝0.191,P＝0．849;t＝-1．270,P＝0.206）;LESS-LA组患者术前1 h,术后24、72 h血清CRP分别为（18．47±2．71）、（45．59±3．07）、（32．46±3．22） mg／L,常规LA组分别为（18．34±2．52）、（45．03±3．16）、（32．61±3．13） mg／L,2组差异均无显著性（t＝0.356,P＝0．722;t＝1．286,P＝0.200;t＝-0．338,P＝0．736）。结论与常规三孔法LA比较,LESS-LA切口美观,瘢痕几乎不可见,但手术时间显著延长,且手术创伤并未减少。     

丹参预处理对肝脏缺血再灌注后胃肠激素的影响

目的探讨丹参预处理对肝脏缺血再灌注后胃肠激素的影响。方法前瞻性研究2010年5月至2012年5月广州军区武汉总医院收治的32例肝病患者,对所有患者行肝部分切除术,术中行第一肝门阻断。按随机数字表法将32例患者分为2组：缺血再灌注组（IR组,15例）和丹参预处理组（SM组,17例）,两组患者均在术中行肝部分切除,以P6ngle法行第一肝门阻断约15～20min,IR组术前3d给予30mL／d生理盐水静脉滴注,SM组术前3d给予丹参注射液30mL／d静脉滴注;12例开腹手术而未行肝门阻断者作为阴性对照组（s0组）;5例健康志愿者作为正常对照组（CO组）。分别测定各组胃动素、胆囊收缩素、血管活性肠肽、胰泌素水平变化情况。多组比较采用单因素方差分析,两两比较采用LSD—t检验。结果c0组胃动素水平为（347±14）μg/L,SO组术后24、48、72h胃动素水平分别为（324±13）μg/L、（345±12）μg/L和（345±13）μg/L,IR组分别为（307±10）μg/L、（316±9）μg/L和（338±13）μg/L,SM组分别为（313±7）μg/L、（337±12）μg/L和（345±12）μg/L。s0组术后24h胃动素水平显著低于c0组（t=5．25,P〈0．05）;IR组术后24、48、72h胃动素水平显著低于同时相点sO组（t=10．05,8．09,2．07,P〈0．05）;SM组胃动素表达水平在术后24、48h显著低于SO组（t=9．83,2．28,P〈0．05）,但是至术后72h与S0组比较,差异无统计学意义（t=0．36,P〉0．05）;SM组胃动素表达水平在术后24、48、72h显著高于IR组（t=3．80,7．10,2．35,P〈0．05）。CO组胆囊收缩素水平为（2．53±0．06）μg/L,SO组24、48、72h胆囊收缩素水平分别为（3．28±0．09）μg/L、（2．52±0．09）μg/L和（2．54±0．16）μg/L,IR组分别为（4．34±0．21）μg/L、（3．63±0．31）μg/L和（3．25±0．09）μg/L,SM组分别为（3．71±0．28）μg/L、（3．28±0．11）μg/L和（2．53±0．09）μg/L。SO组术后24h胆囊收缩素水平显著高于c0组（t=4．33,P〈0．05）;IR组术后24、48、72h胆囊收缩素水平显著高于同时相点的s0组（t=9．32,5．37,2．16,P〈0．05）;SM组胆囊收缩素表达水平在术后24、48h显著高于s0组（t=7．21,3．42,P〈0．05）,但是至术后72h与S0组比较,差异无统计学意义（t=0．29,P〉0．05）。SM组胆囊收缩素表达水平在术后24、48、72h显著低于IR组（t=5．62,4．63,3．57,P〈0．05）。CO组血管活性肠肽水平为（11．8±1．6）μg/L,SO组术后24、48、72h血管活性肠肽水平分别为（21．5±3．8）μg/L、（12．2±1．6）μg/L和（11．9±1．7）μg/L,IR组分别为（29．7±4．1）μg/L、（22．9±4．2）μg/L和（18．8±2．8）μg/L,SM组分别为（22．4±4．1）μg/L、（16．4±2．3）μg/L和（12．1±1。6）彬L。s0组术后24h血管活性肠肽水平显著高于C0组（t=3．59,P〈0．05）;IR组患者血管活性肠肽表达水平在术后24、48、72h显著高于同时相点S0组（t=6．35,3．22,2．36,P〈0．05）。SM组患者血管活性肠肽表达水平在术后24、48h显著高于s0组（t=5．04,2．33,P〈0．05）,但是至术后72h与s0组比较,差异无统计学意义（t=0．18,P〉0．05）。SM组患者血管活性肠肽表达水平在术后24、48、72h显著低于IR组（t=4．27,3．87,2．45,P〈0．05）。CO组胰泌素水平为（75±5）μg/L,SO组术后24、48、72h胰泌素水平分别为（98±6）μg/L、（76±4）μg/L和（76±4）μg/L,IR组分别为（129±6）μg/L、（102±8）μg/L和（89±6）μg/L,sM组分别为（104±8）μg/L、（90±6）μg/L和（74±4）μg/L。S0组术后24h胰泌素水平显著高于CO组（t=3．27,P〈0．05）;IR组患者胰泌素表达水平在术后24、48、72h显著高于同时相点s0组（t=5．20,2．94,1．77,P〈0．05）。SM组患者胰泌素表达水平在术后24、48h显著高于s0组（t=4．16,2．54,P〈0．05）,但是至术后72h与SO组比较,差异无统计学意义（t=0．23,P〉0．05）。SM组患者胰泌素表达水平在术后24、48、72h显著低于IR组（t=5．13,4．32,2．87,P〈0．05）。结论肝门阻断所致胃肠道淤血可导致同期胃动素表达下调,胆囊收缩素、血管活性肠肽、胰泌素表达上升;丹参可能通过改善微循环、减轻胃肠道水肿,改善胃肠运动功能,间接影响胃肠激素的分泌表达。     

腹腔镜手术治疗直肠癌28例临床观察

为探讨腹腔镜下直肠癌手术的临床应用价值。对行腹腔镜下直肠癌根治术28例（腹腔镜组）、开腹直肠癌根治术34例（开腹组）的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果显示,腹腔镜组与开腹组手术时间分别为（212±4.24）min和（182±29）min（P〉0．05）;术中平均出血量分别为（156±51）ml和（345±63）ml（P〈0．05）;恢复肠道功能的时间分别为（3．5±1．3）d和（6．2±2．1）d（P〈0．05）。两组在肠段切除长度、肿块至下切缘距离和淋巴结清扫范围方面差异无显著意义（P〉0．05）。结果表明,腹腔镜直肠癌根治术安全,经济,创伤小,恢复快。     

免气腹与气腹腹腔镜下子宫肌瘤剔除术的临床比较研究

目的探讨免气腹腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术的临床应用价值。方法选取2007年5月～2008年5月在我院行免气腹腹腔镜下子宫肌瘤剔除术（免气腹组）的子宫肌壁间肌瘤43例,及同期气腹腹腔镜下子宫肌瘤剔除术（气腹组）40例进行回顾性对照研究,比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后腹腔引流量、术后胃肠功能恢复时间及术后半年的复发情况。结果2组手术均在腹腔镜下顺利完成,无术中、术后并发症。与气腹组相比,免气腹组手术时间短[（46．2±17．2）min vs （59．4±20．8）min,t=-3．160,P=0．002],术中出血量少[（235．3±83．1）ml vs （310．5±99．4）ml,t=-3．749,P=0．000],术后24h腹腔引流量少[108．4±23．4）ml vs （125．9±35．1）ml,t=-2．690,P=0．010],术后胃肠功能恢复快[肛门首次排气时间（17．4±7．2）h vs （21．6±9．8）h,t=-2．236,P=0．023;首次排便时间（23．5±8．1）h vs （31．0±9．4）h,t=-3．902,P=0．001]。2组术后2个月阴道B超均未发现肌瘤,术后6个月阴道B超提示气腹组1例子宫后壁肌层内见一直径12mm的小肌瘤,2组复发率差异无显著性（0／43 vs 1／40,P=0．482）。结论与气腹腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除比较,免气腹法具有手术时间短、术中出血少、手术操作简便、术后病人恢复快等优点,对于拟施行子宫肌瘤剔除术的患者是一种较好的手术方式。     

慢性阑尾炎腹腔镜与开腹手术疗效比较

目的比较腹腔镜手术与开腹手术对治疗慢性阑尾炎的I临床疗效。方法将2000年1月至2005年6月间收治的224例慢性阑尾炎患者按其个人意愿分为腹腔镜手术组（98例）与开腹手术组（126例），对比两组在手术时间、术中出血、住院时间、术中发现和处理的差异，并随访患者术后慢性腹痛的改善情况。结果开腹组手术时间（54．8±21．8）min，腹腔镜组则为（51．8±18．0）min（t=0.80，P〉0．05）；开腹组术中出血（18．6±23．3）ml，腹腔镜组则为（9．8±4．7）ml（t=3．13，P〈0．05）；开腹组住院时间（8．9±5．3）d，腹腔镜组则为（6．8±3．0）d（t=2．66，P〈0．05）。腹腔镜手术组发现有不同程度的腹腔粘连25例（25．5％），其中阑尾与周围粘连9例，回盲部与前侧腹壁粘连6例，大网膜与腹壁及肠管粘连4例，升结肠与周围及腹腔内其他粘连6例，均在术中给予松解：开腹手术组发现阑尾与周围粘连14例（11．1％），松解粘连行阑尾切除术（x^2=7．95，P〈0．05）。术后开腹手术组慢性腹痛发生率24．5％（24／98例），而腹腔镜手术组仅占10．3％（9／87例），两组比较x^2=6．29，P〈0．05；差异有统计学意义。结论腹腔镜手术对慢性阑尾炎的治疗同样具有一定优势，且能降低术后慢性腹痛的发生率。     

胃间质瘤的围手术期加速康复治疗北大核心CSCD

目的探讨腹腔镜优势部位胃间质瘤患者围手术期应用加速康复外科（enhanced recovery after surgery, ERAS）治疗的安全性和有效性。方法对2015年3月至2017年1月期间上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院收治的86例腹腔镜优势部位胃间质瘤患者进行回顾分析,分为ERAS组44例。传统组42例,比较两组患者围手术期临床资料及术后恢复情况。结果与传统组相比,ERAS组术后首次排气时间提前[（36．5±3．8）h比（48．5±4．1）h,P〈0．01],术后首次排便时间提前[（44．2±6．7）h比（57．2±9．1）h,P〈0．01],术后经口进食时间提前[（1．1±0．2）d比（2．4±0．3）d,P〈0．01],术后下床时间提前[（1．3±0．5）d比（2．9±1．1）d,P〈0．01],术后住院时间缩短[（4．2±2．1）d比（5．9±2．8）d,P〈0．01],术后疼痛减轻[（3．1±3．0）分比（5．2±3．2）分,P〈0．05）]。ERAS组术后1d血糖和胰岛素抵抗水平较传统组降低[（6．7±1．1）mmol／L比（9．8±1．7）mmol／L,（d．0±7．5）比（9．5±2．2）,均P〈0．05]。ERAS组和传统组术后总体并发症发生率为4．5％和4．7％,差异无统计学意义（χ^2=0．46,P〉0．05）。结论对腹腔镜胃间质瘤手术患者在围手术期应用ERAS理念可以促进术后康复,明显缩短患者住院时间。     

腹腔镜与开腹肝切除术治疗肝癌的对比研究

目的探讨腹腔镜肝癌切除术的优越性。方法2012年1月～2013年12月,对原发性肝细胞肝癌行腹腔镜肝切除和开腹肝切除各22例,比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后留置腹腔引流管时间、术后住院时间、手术费用、总费用、术后并发症。结果 与开腹手术相比,腹腔镜组术中出血量少[（75．5±43．2）mlVS．（203．5±61．4）ml,t=－8．000,P=0．000],手术时间短[（121．3±31．5）ｍinVS．（141．4±32．2）min,t=－2．093,P=0．042],排气早[（31．2±0．9）hVS．（39．8±0．8）h,t=－33．500,P=0．000],留置引流管时间短[（4．1±2．1）dVS．（6．4±1．9）d,t=－3．810,P=0．000],术后住院时间短[（9．1±4．4）dVS．（11．6±3．1）d,t=－2．179,P=0．035],但手术费用高[（6815．3±2113．4）元VS．（3732．2±618．4）元,t=6．567,P=0．000],2组并发症[1例V８．3例,ｘ２=0．275,P=0．600]和总费用[（14677．2±5444．3）元VS．（15123．3±4388．4）元,t=－0．299,P=0．766]差异无显著性。结论腹腔镜与开腹肝切除相比具有创伤小、痛苦少、术中出血少、术后恢复快、住院时间短等优越性。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗腹部手术史急性阑尾炎的临床研究

目的探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗腹部手术史急性阑尾炎的的可行性及临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2009年2月-2012年6月行腹腔镜手术治疗的253例急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,其中无腹部手术史患者177例（无手术史组）,腹部手术史患者76例（手术史组）,比较两组患者的中转开腹率、手术时间、术中失血量、肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、术后住院时间。结果无手术史组和手术史组的中转开腹率分别是1．7％和1．3％（P〉0．05）,手术时间分别是（40．5±12．3）min和（62．6±14．2）min（P〈0．05）。两组的术中失血量、肠功能恢复时间、术后并发症发生率及术后住院时间的差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论腹部手术史使腹腔镜阑尾切除术的手术时间延长,但对手术疗效无明显影响,提示腹腔镜手术治疗腹部手术史急性阑尾炎安全、有效,且仍具有创伤小、恢复快的优势。     

腹腔镜与开放手术治疗急性阑尾炎的疗效比较

目的 对比分析腹腔镜和开腹手术治疗急性阑尾炎的手术效果和优缺点.方法 将1558例急性阑尾炎患者分为腹腔镜组(779例)和开放组(779例),比较两组手术的临床指标及术后随访情况.采用SPSS11.5软件,计量资料采用t检验,计数资料采用X~2检验.结果 两组手术均顺利完成.腹腔镜组和开放组手术时间分别为(30±2.2)min和(30±1.6)min(t=0.00,P>0.05);术中出血量分别为(15±2.9)ml及(29±5.2)ml(t=65.62,P<0.05);术后下床活动时间分别为(26±3.1)h及(51±2.1)h(t=69.95,P<0.05);术后排气时间分别为(29±1.6)h及(52±4.6)h(t=10.92,P<0.05);住院时间分别为(3±0.9)d及(7±1.2)d(t=74.42,P<0.05);综合费用分别为(6591±41)元及(4860±32)元(t=-12.19,P<0.05);切口感染率分别为0及2.8%(X~2=25.40,P<0.05);止痛药使用频率分别为3.8%和31.4%(X~2=30.63,P<0.05).随访时间为4.5～9.8(平均6.8)年,切口疝的发生率分别为0及0.64%(X~2=5.01,P<0.05).结论 腹腔镜手术治疗急性阑尾炎具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和平均住院时间短等优点,是治疗急性阑尾炎较为理想的手术方式.     

经脐部三孔法腹腔镜阑尾切除术的研究

目的探讨完全经脐部三孔法腹腔镜阑尾切除手术的可行性及美容效果。 方法958例急性阑尾炎患者随机分为完全经脐部三孔法腹腔镜组（研究组）479例和传统非全部经脐部三孔法腹腔镜组（对照组）479例。比较两组手术的临床指标及术后随访情况,并采用患者问卷方法评价美容效果。 结果两组手术均顺利完成。研究组和对照组手术时间分别为（48±2.2）min和（30±1.6）min（t=144.819,P<0.01）,差异有统计学意义,而术中出血量分别为（15±2.9）ml及（15±2.2）ml,下床活动时间分别为（26±3.1）h及（26±2.1）h,术后肛门排气时间分别为（29±2.1）h及（29±1.6）h,住院时间分别为（3±0.5）d及（3±0.3）d,综合费用分别为（6 589±42）元及（6 591±41）元,差异均无统计学意义。随访时间为1.7~4.8年,两组均无切口感染;止痛药使用频率分别为16.7%（80/479）和17.7%（85/479）,差异无统计学意义;患者美容满意度为优的比例分别占99.8%（478/479）和9.8%（47/479）,差异有统计学意义（χ²=782.84,P<0.01）。 结论经脐部三孔法腹腔镜阑尾切除术具有安全可行、腹部美容效果佳等优点,可作为急性阑尾炎的有效治疗方式之一。     

Specialty versus generalist care of children with appendicitis: an outcome comparison

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Some Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) limit access of their members to specialists to lower costs. The purpose of this study is to determine whether this policy affects the outcome of children with appendicitis. METHODS: At a large academic medical center, children 17 years or younger with appendicitis were treated either by an HMO Adult General Surgical Service (group A) or a Pediatric Surgical Service (group B). Board certified pediatric surgeons were not available on the HMO surgical service. Anesthesia, surgical residents, nursing, and ancillary support services were identical in both groups. Study parameters included imaging tests performed, operation type, complications, readmissions, and length of stay. Results were analyzed using chi(2) and Fischer's Exact tests. RESULTS: One-hundred seventy-five consecutive children underwent appendectomy, 96 in group A and 79 in group B. In patients with simple acute appendicitis, there was no significant difference between group A and group B for complications, readmissions, second operation, or length of stay. In patients with gangrenous or perforated appendicitis there was a significant difference between group A and group B for type of operation (laparoscopic appendectomy, group A, 4 of 27 v. group B, 0 of 34; P =.04); complications (group A, 9 of 27 v. group B, 3 of 34; P =.025); readmissions (group A, 6 of 27 v. group B, 0 of 34; P =.001); second operation (group A, 6 of 27 v. group B, 2 of 34; P =.001); and mean total length of stay in days (group A, 8.6 of 27 v. group B, 5.4 of 34; P =.05). CONCLUSIONS: Children with significantly perforated appendicitis have lower complication rates and shorter lengths of hospital stay when treated by pediatric surgeons as compared with HMO adult general surgeons.     

��������β���и�ǻ���뿪����������Ч�Աȷ���

目的　对比分析腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术在治疗穿孔性阑尾炎中的手术效果。方法　 2 0 0 0年 1月至 2 0 0 4年 1月行阑尾切除术治疗穿孔性阑尾炎 12 8例 ,其中腹腔镜阑尾切除术 5 6例 ,开腹阑尾切除术 72例。比较两种术式的手术时间、下床活动时间、术后排气时间、疼痛评分、止痛药使用率、切口感染率、置管引流率、残余脓肿发生率、住院时间和综合费用。结果　比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术组和开腹阑尾切除术组以上各指标 (除手术时间和综合费用外 )差异均有显著意义 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论　腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗穿孔性阑尾炎和开腹阑尾切除术相比 ,具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和平均住院时间短等优点 ,是治疗穿孔性阑尾炎较理想的手术方式。     

急性阑尾炎行腹腔镜手术与传统开腹手术的比较

目的对比急性阑尾炎经腹腔镜切除与传统开腹切除的手术效果及优缺点。方法对2004年2月~2004年12月临床诊断为急性阑尾炎的病人123例,其中行腹腔镜手术59例,开腹手术64例。比较两种术式的手术时间,术后下床活动时间,术后进食时间,术后出院时间,止疼药使用率,其他器官探查阳性率及综合费用。结果通过比较两种术式的以上各指标,腹腔镜手术组有明显的优势。结论急性阑尾炎经腹腔镜手术具有创伤小、疼痛轻、恢复快、住院时间短及美容等优点,是治疗急性阑尾炎理想的手术方式。     

A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined whether there was an advantage to laparoscopic appendectomy when compared with open appendectomy. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy were questioned because the recovery from open appendectomy is brief. METHODS: From January 15, 1992 through January 15, 1993, 75 patients older than 9 years were entered into a study randomizing the choice of operation to either the open or the laparoscopic technique. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were assigned to the open appendectomy group and 38 patients were assigned to the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Two patients were converted intraoperatively from laparoscopic appendectomies to open procedures. Thirty-one patients (81%) in the open group had acute appendicitis, as did 32 patients (84%) in the laparoscopic group. Mean duration of surgery was 65 minutes for open appendectomy and 87 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, interval until resumption of a regular diet, or morbidity. Duration of both parenteral and oral analgesic use favored laparoscopic appendectomy (2.0 days versus 1.2 days, and 8.0 days versus 5.4 days, p < 0.05). All patients were instructed to return to full activities by 2 weeks postoperatively. This occurred at an average of 25 days for the open appendectomy group versus 14 days for the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomies have a shorter duration of analgesic use and return to full activities sooner postoperatively when compared with patients who underwent open appendectomies. The authors consider laparoscopic appendectomy to be the procedure of choice in patients with acute appendicitis.     

Perforated appendicitis: is laparoscopic operation advisable?

AIMS: A retrospective study was used to compare laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis to open operation. METHODS: Between July 1991 and June 1999 a total of 734 patients, all over 14 years of age, underwent operation for acute appendicitis. Of these patients, 125 (17%) displayed perforated appendicitis and were treated with either a laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 80; total conversion rate 36/80, 45%) or a primary open procedure (n = 45). RESULTS: Due to selection, the 3 treatment groups (laparoscopic, laparoscopy with conversion, open operation) showed differences with respect to gender, duration of symptoms, proportion of obese patients and patients with generalized peritonitis. The median operating time was 75 min for the laparoscopic procedure, 90 min for a converted procedure and 70 min for open operation. Only 1 of 44 (2%) patients who had a laparoscopic operation, but 8 of 36 (22%) who had a converted operation, and 8 of 45 (18%) who had an open operation developed wound infection. A similar frequency of intra-abdominal abscess formation was observed in the 3 treatment groups (2/44, 5%; 3/36, 8%; 2/45, 5%). Fatal outcome occurred only in patients who underwent an open operation and presented with severe peritonitis (5/45, 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations in comparability of patient groups, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a significantly lower rate of septic wound complications (p < 0.05). This was especially true for the subgroup of obese patients (BMI >26). Therefore, for patients with perityphlitic abscess or fresh purulent lower abdominal peritonitis, but not for patients with generalized peritonitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is not only justifiable but even recommended as the procedure of choice.     

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to length of operation, complications, hospital stay, and recovery time. METHODS: Adult patients (older than 14 years of age) with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic appendectomy over a 9-month period. All patients received preoperative antibiotics. The operative time was calculated as beginning with the incision and ending when the wound was fully closed. Patients that were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy were considered a separate group. Return to normal activity and work were determined by questioning during postoperative clinic, telephone, or mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a total of 169 patients randomized, 88 to the open and 81 to the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar demographically. Of the 81 laparoscopic patients, 13 (16%) were converted to open. In the open group, 70 patients (79.5%) had acute appendicitis and 21 (23.9%) had perforative appendicitis. In the laparoscopic group, 62 patients (76.5%) had acute appendicitis and 10 (12.3%) had perforative appendicitis. There was no statistical difference in the return to activity or work between the laparoscopic and open groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (102.2 minutes vs. 81.7 minutes, p < 0.01). The hospital stay of 2.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days in the open group was statistically (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the hospital stay for those with acute appendicitis (1.89 days vs. 2.61 days, p = 0.067) compared with those with a normal appendix but with pelvic inflammatory disease (1.1 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.11). There was a significant difference in patients with perforative appendicitis (1.5 days vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.01). The hospital cost for patients having laparoscopic appendectomy was $6077 and for an open appendectomy $7227 (p = 0.164). There were no increased complications associated with the laparoscopic technique. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, hospital stay, cost, return to activity, and return to work. There was a greater operative time involved with the laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach for the routine patient with appendicitis.     

Perforated appendicitis is not a contraindication to laparoscopy.

Recent studies have reported an increased risk of intra-abdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic operation for perforated appendicitis. We undertook this study to compare laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in the treatment of perforated appendicitis. Records of all patients undergoing an appendectomy between January 1994 and June 1997 were reviewed, classifying appendicitis as acute, gangrenous, or perforated based on the intraoperative findings. Operative procedures were categorized as open, laparoscopic converted to open, or laparoscopic. The study group included 690 patients; four hundred fourteen (60%) were acute, 77 (11%) were gangrenous, and 199 (29%) were perforated. Although mean length of stay was shorter for all patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy, patients with perforated appendicitis had similar length of stay between treatment groups. Mean operative time for open appendectomy was significantly shorter than for converted or laparoscopic appendectomy regardless of diagnosis (P<0.01). Ten patients (1.4%) developed an intra-abdominal abscess: six after open appendectomy (1.7%), one after converted appendectomy (3.7%), and three after laparoscopic appendectomy (1%). There was no significant difference in rate of abscess formation in patients with perforated appendicitis undergoing open, converted, or laparoscopic appendectomy. We conclude that laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis is not associated with an increased rate of intra-abdominal abscess formation.     

经脐单孔与常规腹腔镜阑尾切除手术的比较研究

目的:探讨单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除手术的可行性。方法:对2011年1月—2011年12月收治的122例急性阑尾炎病例,按照随机原则分单孔腹腔镜组(61例)和常规腹腔镜组(61例),对两组的手术时间、术中出血量、肠道功能恢复时间、住院时间、并发症、中转率进行比较。结果:两组在术中出血量、术后肠道功能恢复时间、住院时间及术后并发症的比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),单孔腹腔镜组因粘连(2例)和腹膜后阑尾(1例)中转常规腹腔镜手术;坏疽性(穿孔性)阑尾炎的手术时间,单孔腹腔镜组明显长于常规腹腔镜组(P=0.004);单纯性阑尾炎和化脓性阑尾炎两组的手术时间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:选择性对急性阑尾炎行单孔腹腔镜手术治疗是安全可行的;与常规腹腔镜比较,单孔腹腔镜治疗单纯性阑尾炎和化脓性阑尾炎同样具有恢复快、创伤小的优点,且比常规腹腔镜有更好的维护形体的效果。