3种手术方法治疗肾上腺肿瘤的比较

目的比较小切口腹腔镜与后腹腔镜、开放性手术治疗肾上腺肿瘤的临床价值。方法2003年1月-2006年7月我院对95例肾上腺肿瘤分别采用小切口腹腔镜手术（n=12）,后腹腔镜手术（n=23）,开放性手术（n=60）,比较3组术中、术后情况。结果后腹腔镜手术组手术时间（142.6±41.3）min明显长于小切口腹腔镜组（72.9±13.7）min和开放手术组（96.7±40.9）min（q=7.140,P〈0.05;q=6.827,P〈0.05）;开放手术组术中出血量（232.0±89.2）ml明显多于小切口腹腔镜组（125.0±58.4）ml和后腹腔镜手术组（119.6±63.5）ml（q=5.947,P〈0.05;q=8.055,P〈0.05）;开放手术组术后肠功能恢复时间（4.1±0.8）d明显长于小切口腹腔镜组（2.7±1.2）d和后腹腔镜手术组（2.7±0.9）d（q=7.106,P〈0.05;q=9.163,P〈0.05）;开放手术组术后住院时间（12.6±3.2）d明显长于小切口腹腔镜组（6.7±2.7）d和后腹腔镜手术组（6.3±1.4）d（q=9.383,P〈0.05;q=12.919,P〈0.05）。3组术后复发无统计学意义（χ^2=0.621,P=0.733）。结论与开放手术相比,小切口腹腔镜和后腹腔镜手术具有创伤小、出血少、恢复快等优点;小切口腹腔镜为巨大肾上腺肿瘤切除提供了微创手术的新方式。     

高频电铲在腹腔镜直肠癌保肛手术中的临床应用

目的评价腹腔镜直肠癌保肛手术中应用高频电铲的可行性和安全性。方法选取2005年3月至2007年5月间使用高频电铲成功进行腹腔镜保肛手术的直肠癌患者28例，分别对患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后盆腔引流量、肛门排气时间、疼痛程度以及手术并发症等指标进行观察和记录。结果手术时间（178．6±25．3）min、术中出血量（62．6±40．5）ml、术后盆腔引流量：术后1d（90．5±27．1）ml、术后3d（5．4±4．6）ml、肛门排气时间（33．0±5．4）h、疼痛程度（VAS）：术后1d（5．52±1．29）、术后3d（2．42±1．06）、吻合口瘘1例、切口感染1例。随访1～26月无肿瘤复发及肠梗阻患者。结论高频电铲是一种非常实用的工具，应用于腹腔镜直肠癌保肛手术是安全可行的，并可以降低医疗费用。     

腹腔镜与开放性离断式肾盂成形术的疗效比较

目的比较腹腔镜与开放性离断式肾盂成形术治疗肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻（UPJO）的手术疗效。方法采用经腹腔途径腹腔镜下离断式肾盂成形术38例（A组）。男21例，女17例。年龄8～67岁，平均34岁。病变位于左侧23例，右侧15例。重度肾积水21例，中度17例。经腹膜后开放性离断式肾盂成形术40例（B组）。男18例，女22例。年龄9～63岁，平均32岁。左侧26例，右侧14例。重度肾积水22例，中度18例。对2组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后恢复、临床疗效及并发症进行比较研究。结果A组手术均获成功，无中转开放手术者，手术时间（137．1±30．5）min，术中出血量（143．8±45．2）ml，术后止痛药应用时间（O．8±0．2）d，术后住院时间（7．1±1．2）d，恢复工作时间（24．3±5．6）d。术后发生漏尿1例，经B超引导下肾盂穿刺造瘘3d后痊愈。术后随访6～36个月，吻合口无狭窄，肾积水减轻，中度肾积水12例、轻度积水15例、肾积水消失11例。B组手术时间（135．2±34．6）min，术中出血量（245．3±80．9）ml，术后止痛药应用时间（1．5±0．5）d，术后住院时间（10．3±2．6）d，恢复工作时间为（43．2±11．4）d。发生漏尿2例，分别引流5d和8d治愈；切口感染2例，经换药加抗生素治疗2周后好转；1例腹膜后血肿形成者经再次手术清除腹膜后血肿、止血后于术后第21天出院。术后随访6～36个月，1例吻合口狭窄伴重度积水，其余肾积水减轻（中度肾积水9例、轻度积水16例、肾积水消失14例）。2组手术时间比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05），术中出血量、术后止痛药应用时间、术后住院时间、恢复工作时间比较差异均有统计学意义（P＜0．01）。结论腹腔镜与开放性离断式肾盂成形术相比，手术时间相当，前者出血少、创伤小、痛苦轻、并发症少、术后恢复快，术后长期疗效相当。     

后腹腔镜在肾脏恶性肿瘤治疗中的应用

目的探讨后腹腔镜在肾癌、肾盂癌治疗中的手术方法及疗效。方法回顾性分析2004年1月至2009年4月间我院应用后腹腔镜技术行肾癌根治术和肾盂癌根治术的患者共254例,进行手术时间、出血量、中转开放情况、术中及术后并发症、住院时间、下床活动时间、术后肿瘤复发及转移例数等数据的统计,对术中操作步骤及手术经验进行总结。结果平均手术时间为（146±64）min,平均出血量为（230±120）ml,中转开放患者为29例（11.4%）,术中出现并发症的患者24例（9.4%）,术后出现并发症的患者14例（5.5%）,平均住院时间（8±2）d,下床活动时间（3.0±1.2）d。术后随访4～46个月,在随访期内肿瘤复发及转移者19例（7.5%）。结论后腹腔镜在上尿路肿瘤的治疗中具有创伤小、解剖层次清晰、术中出血少、术后恢复快等优势,治疗效果与开放手术相似。     

后腹腔镜与开放肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤手术的回顾性比较研究

目的 比较后腹腔镜与开放手术治疗肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤的临床效果,评价后腹腔镜肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤切除术的临床应用价值. 方法 回顾分析1998年1月～2005年12月我院50例单侧开放性肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤手术（开放手术组）和53例单侧后腹腔镜肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤手术（后腹腔镜组）的临床资料,比较2组手术情况（手术创伤相关指标、术中高血压波动、疗效等）. 结果 后腹腔镜组手术时间（52±22）min 显著短于开放手术组（120±42）min,（t=-11.692,P=0.000）;术中出血量（74±34）ml 显著少于开放手术组（187±64）ml （t=-7.511,P=0.000）;术后肠道功能恢复时间（中位数1 d vs 2 d, u= -5.018,P=0.000）和术后住院时间[（5.2±1.7）d vs （8.3±1.8）d, t=-10.714,P=0.000]均明显优于开放手术组.后腹腔镜组术中高血压发生例数（9例 vs 18例, χ^2=4.811,P= 0.028）、输血例数（1例 vs 8例, χ^2=6.426,P=0.011）、全身炎症反应综合征（systemic inflammatory response syndrome, SIRS）发生例数（11例 vs 21例, χ^2= 5.423,P=0.020）均显著低于开放组;2组SIRS持续时间（中位数1 d vs 1 d,u=-1.598,P=0.110）、手术并发症发生例数（2例 vs 6例,χ^2=1.418,P=0.234）无统计学差异.术后3个月血压恢复正常及症状消失者后腹腔镜组有45例（84.9%）,开放手术组43例（86.0%）,2组比较无统计学差异（χ^2=0.025,P=0.875）.103例随访5～36个月,平均21.3月,均未出现肿瘤复发和转移. 结论 后腹腔镜肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤手术不仅手术时间短、出血量少、对患者的创伤小,而且术中对血压的控制较好,具有与开放手术相似的疗效,是治疗肾上腺嗜铬细胞瘤安全、有效的方法.     

腹腔镜手术治疗老年良性妇科疾病的价值

目的探讨腹腔镜手术在老年妇科良性疾病中的应用价值及安全性。方法比较2001年1月～2006年12月27例腹腔镜手术（腹腔镜组）与25例开腹手术（开腹组）的临床资料。结果腹腔镜组手术时间（20．0±7．9）min明显短于开腹组（44．0±7．2）min（t=-11．419，P：0．000）；腹腔镜组术中出血量（21．9±20．0）m1明显少于开腹组（62．6ml±29．4）（t=-5．875，P：0．000）；腹腔镜组术后病率3例明显少于开腹组12例（，：8．606，P：0．001）；腹腔镜组术后排气时间（13．9±2．9）h明显短于开腹组（23．4±4．3）h（t=-9．404，P=0．000）；腹腔镜组住院时间（7．6±0．9）d明显少于开腹组（10．2±1．2）d（t=-8．882，P=0．000）。结论重视老年患者术前合并症的治疗，术中术后加强监护，腹腔镜是老年妇科疾病手术治疗理想的术式。     

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。     

小肾癌手助腹腔镜和开放肾部分切除术的临床效果比较

目的比较小肾癌手助腹腔镜和开放肾部分切除术的临床效果。方法回顾分析30例行手助腹腔镜肾部分切除术和20例行开放肾部分切除术患者的病例资料,比较两种手术方法的失血量、手术时间、热缺血时间、切缘阳性率、患者住院时间、并发症及手术效果的差异。结果手助腹腔镜组和开放手术组平均肿瘤大小分别为（2．58±0．50）和（2．62±0．60）cm（P〉0．05）,平均出血量分别为（120．2±38．9）和（353．6±89．6）ml（P〈0．01）,平均手术时间分别为（158．2±27．6）和（196．2±39．6）min（P〈0．05）,平均热缺血时间分别为（26．1±3．2）和（35．2±2．8）min（P〈0．05）,平均住院时间分别为（7．8±2．0）和（12．3±3．0）d（P〈0．01）,两组的切缘阳性率、并发症发生率均无差异。随访3～28个月,两组均未出现局部复发。结论手助腹腔镜肾部分切除术较开放肾部分切除术手术时间短,出血少,住院时间短,且不增加热缺血时间,手术效果相当。     

腹腔镜下胃癌全胃切除术的临床应用

目的探讨腹腔镜下胃癌全胃切除术的可行性和效果。方法回顾性分析本科行腹腔镜下全胃切除术45例患者的资料。结果39例成功完成手术,其中腹腔镜根治性全胃切除37例,姑息性全胃切除2例;中转开腹全胃切除6例,其中根治性全胃切除3例,姑息性全胃切除3例。手术时间（335±45）min,术中出血量（270±150）ml,平均清扫淋巴结（35.6±12.2）枚,术后患者胃肠恢复平均时间（4.5±1.2）d,术后距下床活动时间（4.0±1.5）d,4例出现手术相关并发症,术后近期效果良好。结论腹腔镜胃癌全胃切除术安全、可行,能够达到与开腹手术相当的根治范围,具有创伤小、术后恢复快等优点。     

腹腔镜与开腹全子宫切除术的比较

目的 探讨腹腔镜全子宫切除（total laparoscopic hysterrectomy,TLH）的临床价值. 方法回顾分析我院2005年11月～2006年10月38例TLH与40例开腹全子宫切除术的临床资料,比较2种手术方式手术时间、术中出血量、术后病率、肠功能恢复、住院日情况. 结果 腹腔镜组手术时间（85.8±13.8）min明显短于开腹组（99.9±9.3 ）min（t=-5.293,P=0.000）;腹腔镜组出血量（105.8±32.4）ml明显少于开腹组（166.0±67.4）ml （t=-4.930, P=0.000）;腹腔镜组术后病率3例明显少于开腹组15例（χ^2=9.270, P=0.002）;腹腔镜组术后排气时间（26.2±4.2）h明显短于开腹组（40.5±4.9）h （t=-13.601, P=0.000）;腹腔镜组术后住院时间（6.8±0.9）d明显短于开腹组（10.6±0.8）d （t=-19.612, P=0.000）.术后6个月随访开腹组2例切口愈合不良,2例阴道残端肉芽增生,腹腔镜组1例阴道残端肉芽增生,余无并发症. 结论腹腔镜全子宫切除较开腹全子宫切除的优势明显,如果腹腔镜下操作技巧熟练,腹腔镜全子宫切除是一种理想的术式.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy

Hand-assisted surgery enjoys the benefits of open surgery while maintaining the post-operative advantages of laparoscopy. Logical indications for its application largely include those cases that require removal of a large amount of tissue intact. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery may find application in complex procedures such as radical, partial and difficult nephrectomies.     

保留肾单位的腹腔镜肾肿瘤切除术

随着影像学技术的发展，无症状的小肾癌及偶发肾癌明显增加，同时，腹腔镜设备的改进及医师手术技巧的提高，为选择性地开展腹腔镜保留肾单位的手术（1aparoscopic nephron—sparing surgery，LNSS）治疗小肾癌患者提供了新思路，是现代微创外科治疗肾肿瘤的最新进展。1993年McDougall等首次在动物实验中报道腹腔镜保留肾单位手术（LNSS），     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy

Introduction and objectivesTo present the number of cases of hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. This study evaluates our results and difficulties of starting a progresive programme of laparoscopy.Material and MethodBetween november 2003 and november 2005, 35 hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomies were carried out, of a total of 45 laparoscopic nephrectomies. 22 radical nephrectomies, 3 simple nephrectomies and 10 nephroureterectomies. The average age of patients was 66 years (47-89). On average, they were overweight (IMC 28,3), with approximately 38% being obese. ASA 2.3 (1-4). The tumors measured 4.8cm on average, and 80% of these were T1. In 28.6% of the cases, they had previously undergone abdominal surgery.ResultsOne was undertaken in 2003, 17 in 2004, and 17 in 2005. The surgery time was 140 minutes, 130 minutes (80-210) in radical nephrectomies, 135 minutes (120-150) in simple nephrectomies and 163 minutes (80-240) in the nephroureterectomy. Patients began an oral diet 1.7 days later, and were able to get up 1.7 days later. In the case of obese patients, they began an oral diet 2.3 days later and were able to get up (2.4 days) later than those non obese cases. (1.5 and 1.4 days respectively). The average stay has been 5.8 days (3-15). The average stay of the cases without complications was 4.2 days and those that encountered complications 9.7 days. In no cases was there a need for a blood transfusion. In 11.4% we had major complications with an average stay of 11.7 days. In 5.7% of cases there were reconversions, and 5.7% of cases were reoperated. 17.1% had minor complications, with an average stay of 8.8 daysConclusionsThe advantage of hand-assisted nephrectomy is that it allows one to begín a laparoscopy, with a reduced learning time, and with satisfactory results, allowing the incorporation of laparoscopy surgery in hospitals with a reduced annual volume.     

Radical laparoscopic nephrectomy

In this article, we review the different surgical approaches to carry out radical laparoscopic nephrectomy: transperitoneal approach, retroperitoneal approach and hand-assisted approach. We describe the advantages and drawbacks of each alternative and summarize the most important references in the medical literature. In spite of this being a relatively new surgical approach, less than 15 years old, it has become a standard treatment and, today, is considered as the elective surgical treatment for T1 and T2 renal tumours in many centres.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy

The introduction of hand-assisted laparoscopy should benefit every laparoscopic urologist. Hand assistance will shorten the learning curve for many urologists interested in performing laparoscopic renal procedures, including nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy. Advanced laparoscopists will be able to undertake more challenging procedures, including nephrectomies for inflamed, infected kidneys and live-donor nephrectomies. A step-by-step approach is presented for hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparison to pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is assumed to be easier to learn than the standard approach and simplifies intact kidney removal. Herein we have presented our experience performing hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) compared with contemporary pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). We retrospectively analyzed 55 patients who underwent LDN. Among the procedures, 21 were HALDN and 34 were pure LDN. We compared the two groups with regard to operative time, warm ischemic time (WIT), estimated blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative stay, and complications. For the HALDN group, the mean operative time was 191 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 11 minutes, and bleeding estimates varied from 100 to 4000 mL. The overall complication rate of 28.6% included: vessel injury, urinary leakage, and paralytic ileus. In the LDN group, the mean operative time was 184 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 10 minutes, and bleeding estimated varied 100 to 3000 mL. Three patients (8.8%) had complications including ureteral obstruction (n = 1) and vessel injury (n = 2). There was no significant difference between the two groups about the procedure and the complications. Our series suggested that HALDN and LDN were similar, with a tendency toward better results in LDN group, which also shows lower costs.     

腹腔镜下肾癌根治术

目的　探讨经腹入路腹腔镜下肾癌根治术的手术方法。方法　 3 8例肾癌患者施行了手术 ,患者采用全侧卧位 ,用 3～ 4个套管针 ,镜下切开侧腹膜显露肾周筋膜前面 ,在肾动静脉根部分别用线结扎及钛夹钳夹后切断 ,低位切断输尿管 ,沿肾筋膜外完整切除肾脏及肿瘤 ,清扫肾门旁、腹主动脉及下腔静脉旁淋巴结 ,小切口取出肾脏。结果　手术时间 75～ 2 5 0min ,平均 110min ;出血 5 0～ 3 0 0ml,均未输血。术后恢复良好 ,疼痛较轻 ,无明显并发症。结论　经腹入路腹腔镜下肾癌根治术 ,术中暴露良好 ,便于肾动静脉处理及淋巴结清扫 ,肾筋膜外切除肾脏完整取出符合肿瘤治疗原则 ,可减少种植转移。     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The indications for partial nephrectomy are expanding as newer and more complete data come forth. A partial nephrectomy has traditionally required a generous flank incision. We report our experience using hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) as a less-invasive approach to partial nephrectomies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1999 and May 2000, we performed 11 HAL partial nephrectomies. The average age of the patients was 55.7 years, the average body mass index was 25.6, and the average ASA class was 2.2. The indications for partial nephrectomy were enhancing solid renal lesions (N = 9) and nonfunctioning renal moiety in a duplicated system (N = 2). In the majority of cases, access to the renal pedicle was obtained prior to the partial nephrectomy. However, in no case did the renal artery or vein require occlusion. Several excisional techniques were employed, but all relied heavily on the Harmonic Scalpel in conjunction with the argon beam coagulator. Different hemostatic agents were applied to the renal defect, including Surgicel, Avitene, and fibrin-soaked Gelfoam activated by thrombin. In several instances, pledget reinforced sutures were placed in the renal capsule to aid with hemostasis. RESULTS: The average operative time was 273 minutes, the estimated blood loss 319 mL, and the change in hematocrit 7.3 points. No patient required a transfusion, and there was one conversion to open. Postoperatively patients, required an average of 35.6 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent and 8.2 narcotic tablets, resumed oral intake in 1.7 days, and were discharged home in 3.3 days. There were no major complications and only two minor complications. Postoperatively, five lesions were found to be benign, four lesions were confirmed to be malignant, and two lesions were consistent with a nonfunctioning duplicated renal moiety. Specimen size averaged 180 cc, and the tumor diameter averaged 1.9 cm. There were no positive surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is feasible and reproducible. The surgeon's hand in the operative field facilitates dissection, vascular control, hemostasis, and suturing. Further long-term and prospective studies are underway.