全身麻醉联合硬膜外麻醉在老年高血压患者腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的应用

目的 探讨全身麻醉联合硬膜外麻醉在老年高血压患者腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）中的麻醉效果。方法 将择期行LC的老年高血压患者64例分为对照组32例和观察组32例,分别采用全身麻醉和全身麻醉联合硬膜外麻醉,比较两组患者术中血流动力学情况[收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）、心率（HR）］、激素[生长激素（GH）、催乳素（PRL）和皮质醇（Cor）］水平及术后麻醉恢复情况。结果 在T1、T2 和T3 时,观察组SBP和DBP均显著低于对照组（P<0.05）,HR显著快于对照组（P<0.05）;观察组GH分别为（11.44±2.27） mg/L、（8.03±2.56） mg/L和（9.34±2.82） mg/L,显著低于对照组的[（13.25±3.56） mg/L、（9.51±3.14） mg/L和（10.92±3.25） mg/L,P<0.05或P<0.01];PRL分别为（70.76±5.55） mg/L、（60.43±7.85） mg/L和（64.36±7.59） mg/L,显著低于对照组的[（81.32±4.03） mg/L、（73.01±8.04） mg/L和（76.39±6.65） mg/L,P<0.05或P<0.01]; Cor分别为（480.33±26.16） mg/L、（469.27±28.76） mg/L和（477.91±21.78） mg/L,显著低于对照组的[（511.45±27.69） mg/L、（484.21±23.13） mg/L和（495.40±26.67） mg/L,P<0.05或P<0.01];观察组患者术后呼吸恢复时间、睁眼时间、拔管时间、定向力恢复时间分别为（7.81±3.12） min、（8.25±3.23） min、（16.73±4.28） min和（19.55±5.23） min,均显著短于对照组的[（10.20±3.87） min、（10.21±3.84） min、（21.45±4.50） min和（23.29±5.41） min,P<0.05或P<0.01];对照组苏醒期8例（25.0%）发生烦躁,明显高于观察组2例（6.3%,P<0.05）。结论 全身麻醉联合硬膜外麻醉用于老年高血压患者行LC 时血流动力学指标更稳定,激素应激反应更轻,麻醉恢复快。     

Synchronous vs sequential laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

AIM: To compare synchronous laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and sequential LC combined with EST for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis. METHODS: A total of 150 patients were included and retrospectively studied. Among these, 70 were selected for the synchronous operation, in which the scheme was endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combined with EST during LC. The other 80 patients were selected for the sequential operation, in which the scheme involved first cutting the papillary muscle under endoscopy and then performing LC. The indexes in the two groups, including the operation time, the success rate, the incidence of complications, and the length of the hospital stay, were observed.RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the numbers of patients, sex distribution, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, serum bilirubin, γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, mean diameter of common bile duct stones, and previous medical and surgical history (P = 0.54, P = 0.18, P = 0.52, P = 0.22, P = 0.32, P = 0.42, P = 0.68, P = 0.70, P = 0.47 and P = 0.57). There was no significant difference in the surgical operation time between the two groups (112.1 ± 30.8 min vs 104.9 ± 18.2 min). Compared with the sequential operation group, the incidence of pancreatitis was lower (1.4% vs 6.3%), the incidence of hyperamylasemia (1.4% vs 10.0%, P < 0.05) was significantly reduced, and the length of the hospital stay was significantly shortened in the synchronous operation group (3 d vs 4.5 d, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For treatment of cholecystocholedo-cholithiasis, synchronous LC combined with EST reduces incidence of complications, decreases length of hospital stay, simplifies the surgical procedure, and reduces operation time.     

Local anesthesia with ropivacaine for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

AIM： To investigate the effect of pain relief after infusion of ropivacaine at port sites at the end of surgery.METHODS： From October 2006 to September 2007, 72 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy （LC） were randomized into two groups of 36 patients. One group received ropivacaine infusion at the port sites at the end of LC and the other received normal saline. A visual analog scale was used to assess postoperative pain when the patient awakened in the operating room, 6 and 24 h after surgery, and before discharge. The amount of analgesics use was also recorded. The demographics, laboratory data, hospital stay, and perioperative complications were compared between the two groups.RESULTS： There was no difference between the two groups preoperatively in terms of demographic and laboratory data. After surgery, similar operation time, blood loss, and no postoperative morbidity and mortality were observed in the two groups. However, a significantly lower pain score was observed in the patients undergoing LC with local anesthesia infusion at 1 h after LC and at discharge. Regarding analgesic use, the amount of meperidine used 1 h after LC and the total used during admission were lower in patients undergoing LC with local anesthesia infusion. This group also had a shorter hospital stay.CONCLUSION： Local anesthesia with ropivacaine at the port site in LC patients significantly decreased post-operative pain immediately. This explains the lower meperidine use and earlier discharge for these patients.     

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy in elderly patients

AIM: To investigate the comparative effect of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in elderly patients.METHODS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has induced a revolution in the treatment of gallbladder disease. Nevertheless, surgeons have been reluctant to implement the concepts of minimally invasive surgery in older patients. A systematic review of Medline was embarked on, up to June 2013. Studies which provided outcome data on patients aged 65 years or older, subjected to laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy were considered. Mortality, morbidity, cardiac and pulmonary complications were the outcome measures of treatment effect. The methodological quality of selected studies was appraised using valid assessment tools. Τhe random-effects model was applied to synthesize outcome data.RESULTS: Out of a total of 337 records, thirteen articles (2 randomized and 11 observational studies) reporting on the outcome of 101559 patients (48195 in the laparoscopic and 53364 in the open treatment group, respectively) were identified. Odds ratios (OR) were constantly in favor of laparoscopic surgery, in terms of mortality (1.0% vs 4.4%, OR = 0.24, 95%CI: 0.17-0.35, P < 0.00001), morbidity (11.5% vs 21.3%, OR = 0.44, 95%CI: 0.33-0.59, P < 0.00001), cardiac (0.6% vs 1.2%, OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.38-0.80, P = 0.002) and respiratory complications (2.8% vs 5.0%, OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.51-0.60, P < 0.00001). Critical analysis of solid study data, demonstrated a trend towards improved outcomes for the laparoscopic concept, when adjusted for age and co-morbid diseases.CONCLUSION: Further high-quality evidence is necessary to draw definite conclusions, although best-available evidence supports the selective use of laparoscopy in this patient population.     

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).METHODS: PubMed (Medline), EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library were searched systematically to identify relevant comparative studies reporting outcomes for both LLR and OLR for HCC between January 1992 and February 2012. Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.0 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects (Mantel-Haenszel method) or random effects models (DerSimonian and Laird method). Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirement), postoperative outcomes (liver failure, cirrhotic decompensation/ascites, bile leakage, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary complications, intraabdominal abscess, mortality, hospital stay and oncologic outcomes (positive resection margins and tumor recurrence).RESULTS: Fifteen eligible non-randomized studies were identified, out of which, 9 high-quality studies involving 550 patients were included, with 234 patients in the LLR group and 316 patients in the OLR group. LLR was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, based on six studies with 333 patients [WMD: -129.48 mL; 95%CI: -224.76-(-34.21) mL; P = 0.008]. Seven studies involving 416 patients were included to assess blood transfusion requirement between the two groups. The LLR group had lower blood transfusion requirement (OR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.26-0.91; P = 0.02). While analyzing hospital stay, six studies with 333 patients were included. Patients in the LLR group were found to have shorter hospital stay [WMD: -3.19 d; 95%CI: -4.09-(-2.28) d; P < 0.00001] than their OLR counterpart. Seven studies including 416 patients were pooled together to estimate the odds of developing postoperative ascites in the patient groups. The LLR group appeared to have a lower incidence of postoperative ascites (OR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.16-0.61; P = 0.0006) as compared with OLR patients. Similarly, fewer patients had liver failure in the LLR group than in the OLR group (OR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.02-0.95; P = 0.04). However, no significant differences were found between the two approaches with regards to operation time [WMD: 4.69 min; 95%CI: -22.62-32 min; P = 0.74], bile leakage (OR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.10-3.12; P = 0.50), postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.20-1.45; P = 0.22), pulmonary complications (OR: 0.43; 95%CI: 0.18-1.04; P = 0.06), intra-abdominal abscesses (OR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.01-4.53; P = 0.32), mortality (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.14-1.51; P = 0.20), presence of positive resection margins (OR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.21-1.62; P = 0.31) and tumor recurrence (OR: 0.95; 95%CI: 0.62-1.46; P = 0.81).CONCLUSION: LLR appears to be a safe and feasible option for resection of HCC in selected patients based on current evidence. However, further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to ascertain these findings.     

右美托咪定用于妇科腹腔镜手术患者全麻苏醒期的有效性和安全性

目的探讨右美托咪定应用于妇科腹腔镜手术患者中对全麻苏醒期的效果及应用价值。方法选取该院进行腹腔镜手术治疗的104例子宫肌瘤或者卵巢囊肿患者,按随机数字表法将患者分为观察组(右美托咪定组)和对照组(生理盐水组)各52例,观察两组麻醉效果和苏醒期的有效性和安全性。结果观察组拔管时平均动脉压(MAP)(101.84±5.41)mm Hg,拔管后5 min MAP(91.38±5.06)mm Hg,拔管后10 min MAP(90.34±4.89)mm Hg,拔管后15 min MAP(86.47±4.32)mm Hg;拔管时心率(HR)(88.34±6.45)次/min,拔管后5 min HR(83.48±5.78)次/min,拔管后10 min HR(81.53±5.15)次/min,拔管后15 min HR(80.02±4.47)次/min;均优于对照组,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组呼吸恢复时间(5.32±1.83)min,意识恢复时间(9.22±2.36)min,拔管时间(11.89±2.88)min;对照组分别为(5.41±1.79)min、(9.19±2.41)min、(11.95±2.79)min,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组Riker镇静和躁动评分(4.03±0.57)分,躁动发生率为5.77%,对照组为(5.32±1.63)分、34.62%,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。结论右美托咪定应用于妇科腹腔镜手术患者中可以让血流动力学更加稳定,术后苏醒迅速、完全,值得临床推广应用。     

丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼静吸复合麻醉对老年腹腔镜下胆囊切除术患者术后认知功能的影响

目的探讨靶控静脉输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉与静吸复合麻醉对老年经腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后认知功能的影响。方法选取2009年1月至2014年1月该院收治的80例行胆囊切除术患者,随机分为靶控静脉麻醉组及静吸复合麻醉组各40例。观察两组患者术后恢复情况,并比较两组手术前后认知功能。结果两组患者苏醒时间、拔管时间比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);靶控静脉麻醉组患者自主呼吸恢复时间、定向力恢复时间均长于静吸复合麻醉组(P0.05)。两组术前24 h和拔管后12 h的简易智能量表(MMSE)评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);拔管后1、3 h靶控静脉麻醉组MMSE评分低于静吸复合麻醉组(P0.05)。结论丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼静吸复合麻醉较靶控静脉麻醉对老年腹腔镜下胆囊切除术后认知功能的恢复有更好的效果,且对术后认知功能影响较小,可降低老年患者术后认知功能障碍的发生,适用于老年患者。     

Abdominal pain and patient overall and cosmetic satisfaction one year after cholecystectomy: outcome of a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy

Background: Previous studies with long‐term follow‐up after cholecystectomy have shown that residual abdominal symptoms are common. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC) can both give a smoother, early postoperative course than conventional open cholecystectomy (OC). The present study concerns abdominal pain and patient overall and cosmetic satisfaction one year after LC and MC. Methods: In a prospective, single‐blind study, 724 patients were randomly allocated to LC or MC. Patients completed questionnaires including items concerning abdominal pain before and one year after surgery and overall and cosmetic satisfaction one year after surgery. Results: There was no difference in reduction of abdominal pain between LC and MC patients. For four different aspects of abdominal pain, 31%, 24%, 30% and 16% of patients operated with LC reported residual abdominal pain one year after surgery. The corresponding figures for MC were 28%, 20%, 27% and 18% (P values 0.55, 0.32, 0.55 and 0.63, respectively). According to questionnaire answers, there was no significant difference in the cosmetic result and overall patient satisfaction between LC and MC patients. Conclusions: There are no differences between laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy in long‐term outcome regarding abdominal pain and patient overall and cosmetic satisfaction. A large proportion of patients have abdominal pain one year after cholecystectomy. Future studies should include preoperative assessment and indications for cholecystectomy.     

Technique of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with percutaneous papillary balloon dilatation under general anesthesia for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Since the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis has become a controversial issue among surgeons and endoscopists all over the world. We evaluated the effectiveness of LC combined with percutaneous papillary balloon dilatation (PPBD) under general anesthesia in the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis in 22 patients. All stones in the bile duct were successfully evacuated into the duodenum in all patients. The PPBD was feasible in all patients under general anesthesia. The mean postoperative stay was 9 days. The overall length hospital stay and the duration of PTBD were 19 ± 7 days and 16 ± 8 days, respectively. There were no deaths nor major complications, although a transient hyperamylasemia was found in 10 patients (45%). Cholecystocholedocholithiasis was able to be treated by means of LC combined with PPBD under general anesthesia without laparotomy, sphincterotomy or choledochotomy. This technique can be a choice for the treatment that enables a patient to avoid any discomfort arisen as a result of papillary dilatation.     

妇科腹腔镜手术全身浅麻醉术中患者知晓率调查及其影响因素分析

目的调查在全身浅麻醉下行妇科附件良性肿瘤腹腔镜手术中患者的知晓率并分析其影响因素。方法随机选择900例在全身浅麻醉下行腹腔镜手术的妇科附件良性肿瘤患者,术后第1天及第2天调查患者有无术中知晓情况并统计知晓率,采用多元Logistic回归对相关影响因素进行分析。结果 900例中有11例发生术中知晓,知晓率为1.22%。术中知晓的发生与年龄、术中低血压、过早停药、急诊手术等因素有关。结论妇科附件良性肿瘤腹腔镜手术全身浅麻醉知晓与年龄、术中低血压、过早停药、急诊手术等因素有关。预防术中知晓的根本措施在于合理监测麻醉深度。     

初期或后期经皮胆囊穿刺引流术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术序贯治疗急性胆囊炎患者疗效及安全性比较研究*

目的 比较初期与后期经皮经肝胆囊穿刺引流(PTGBD)与腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)序贯治疗急性胆囊炎患者的疗效与安全性。方法 2019年3月～2020年6月我院收治的145例急性胆囊炎患者均接受PTGBD联合LC序贯治疗,其中70例在起病后7 d内(初期组),而另75例患者在起病7 d后(后期组)接受PTGBD,在其后择期行LC手术。采用ELISA法检测血清C反应蛋白、白介素-6和肿瘤坏死因子-α。结果 在围LC手术期,后期组手术失血量为(26.8±9.3)mL,显著少于初期组【(46.2±16.3)mL,P＜0.05】,手术时间为(67.3±9.2)min,显著短于初期组【(83.2±8.3)min,P＜0.05】,肛门排气时间为(22.5±5.9) h,显著短于初期组【(28.2±6.2)h,P＜0.05】,腹腔引流时间为(3.3±1.1)d,显著短于初期组【(6.3±1.3)d,P＜0.05】;后期组血清谷草转氨酶和谷丙转氨酶水平显著低于初期组(P＜0.05);后期组血清C反应蛋白、白介素-6和肿瘤坏死因子-α水平显著低于初期组(P＜0.05);后期组术后胆漏、肺部感染等并发症发生率为5.3%,显著低于初期组的20.0%(P＜0.05)。结论 应用后期PTGBD联合LC序贯治疗急性胆囊炎患者疗效好,更安全,并发症更少。     

双镜联合保胆取石术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗胆囊结石患者疗效对比分析*

目的 比较采取双镜联合保胆取石术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗胆囊结石患者的疗效。方法 2015年2月～2020年2月我院收治的78例胆囊结石患者,其中36例接受腹腔镜联合胆道镜保胆取石术,另42例接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术,术后随访12个月。采用ELISA法或双抗体夹心免疫发光法检测血清皮质醇(COR)和C反应蛋白(CRP)。结果 观察组手术时间和住院费用分别为(53.3±17.7)min和(3.2±0.5)万元,显著长于或高于对照组【(36.7±10.8)min和(2.3±0.4)万元,P＜0.05】,术后进食和肛门排气时间分别为(2.8±0.9)h和(14.9±3.2)h,均显著短于对照组【分别为(3.3±0.7)h和(19.3±4.1)h,P＜0.05】;在术后3 d,观察组血清CRP和COR水平分别为(11.2±3.1)mg/L和(195.6±30.8)ng/mL,显著低于对照组【分别为(19.0±4.9)mg/L和(211.6±32.7)ng/mL,P＜0.05】;术后2周行超声检查,发现观察组患者胆囊功能完好,无结石残留;随访3个月,观察组患者出现切口感染、腹泻、反流性胃炎、胆道出血和急性胰腺炎等并发症发生率为11.1%,显著低于对照组【31.0%,P＜0.05】;在随访12个月末,观察组结石复发为2.8%。结论 采取双镜联合保胆取石术治疗胆囊结石患者可能更有利于患者胃肠功能的恢复,减少术后并发症的发生,值得进一步探索。     

A randomized trial of topical anesthesia comparing lidocaine versus lidocaine plus xylometazoline for unsedated transnasal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND:

The optimal topical anesthesia regimen for unsedated transnasal endoscopy is unknown. The addition of a nasal decongestant, such as xylometazoline (X), to a topical anesthestic may improve patient comfort.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the effectiveness of lidocaine (L) versus L plus X (LX) for anesthesia in unsedated transnasal endoscopy.

METHODS:

Consecutive participants of the Aklavik Helicobacter pylori project were prospectively randomly assigned to receive LX or L for unsedated transnasal 4.9 mm ultrathin endoscopy. The primary outcome was overall procedure discomfort on a validated 10-point visual analogue scale (1 = no discomfort, 10 = severe discomfort). Secondary outcomes included pain, endoscope insertion difficulty, gagging, adverse events and encounter times. Results were presented as mean ± SD, difference in mean, 95% CI.

RESULTS:

A total of 181 patients were randomly assigned to receive LX (n=94) and L (n=87). Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar (mean age 40 years, 59% women). Overall, patient procedural discomfort with LX and L were 4.2±2.4 versus 3.9±2.1, respectively (0.29; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.96). Transnasal insertion difficulty was significantly lower with LX than with L (2.4±2.1 versus 3.2±2.8, respectively [−0.80; 95% CI −1.54 to −0.06]). Compared with L, the use of LX was associated with significantly less time needed to apply anesthesia (2.4±1.8 min versus 3.5±2.2 min, respectively [−1.10; 95% CI −1.71 min to −0.50 min]) and less time for insertion (3.2±1.8 min versus 3.9±2.2 min, respectively [−0.70 min; 95% CI −1.30 min to −0.10 min]). Epistaxis was rare but occurred less frequently with LX (1.1%) than with L (4.6%) (P=0.19).

CONCLUSIONS:

LX did not improve patient comfort for transnasal endoscopy compared with L alone. However, LX was associated with less difficulty with endoscope transnasal insertion and reduced insertion time. Further studies on the optimal regimen and dosing of anesthesia are required.     

Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits of robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for RS and LS for rectal cancer. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies matched the selection criteria and r...     

A combination therapy of ethanol injection and radiofrequency ablation under general anesthesia for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM： To summarize the effects of laparoscopic ethanol injection and radiofrequency ablation （L-EI-RFA）, thoracoscopic （T-EI-RFA） and open-surgery assisted EI-RFA （O-EI-RFA） under general anesthesia for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma （HCC）. METHODS： Time-lag performance of RFA after ethanol injection （Time-lag PEI-RFA） was performed in all cases. The volume of coagulated necrosis and the applied energy for total and per unit volume coagulated necrosis were examined in the groups treated under general （group G） or local anesthesia （group L）. RESULTS： The results showed that the total applied energy and the applied energy per unit volume of whole and marginal, coagulated necrosis were significantly larger in group G than those in the group L, resulting in a larger volume of coagulated necrosis in the group G. The rate of local tumor recurrence within one year was extremely low in group G. CONCLUSION： These results suggest that EI-RFA, under general anesthesia, may be effective for the treatment of HCC because a larger quantity of ethanol and energy could be applied during treatment under painfree condition for the patients.     

Comparison of results of transcatheter femoral aortic valve replacement under local and general anesthesia: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Traditionally, TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) has been performed under general anesthesia (GA). Thus GA facilitates the use of TEE (Transesophageal echocardiography), and the use of TEE is an important means to improve the quality of cardiac surgery and reduce postoperative complications. However, GA was also associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer hospitalization and intensive care unit hours, and the need for positive inotropic agents. With increasing clinical experience and advances in transcatheter techniques, transfemoral TAVR may also be feasible under local anesthesia (LA). Studies have shown that LA can avoid hemodynamic fluctuations caused by general anesthesia and lung damage caused by positive pressure ventilation, and can also reduce medical costs.Methods:Two researchers independently read the titles and abstracts of the literature obtained. After excluding the studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, they read through the full text of the remaining literatures to determine whether they truly met the inclusion criteria. When two researchers disagree on the included literature, the third researcher decides whether to include it or not. For literature with incomplete data, contact the author via email for unpublished data. The included studies were assessed by two researchers for the risk of bias, and cross-checked. Stata16.0 was used for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed by χ² test and I² quantification. Pooled analysis was performed by random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding references one by one. We will perform subgroup analysis based on data conditions.Results:In this study, high quality evidence was provided by selecting local anesthesia and general anesthesia during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with primary arterial stenosis.Conclusion:Local anesthesia provides anaesthetic-guided sedation that does not require intubation and is safe and effective. Local anesthesia may be a better alternative to TAVR under general anesthesia.Ethics and dissemination:The study does not require ethical approval.INPLASY registration number:INPLASY202170078     

Rouviere沟引导定向联合胆囊后三角入路腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗胆囊良性疾病研究*

目的 探讨Rouviere沟引导定向联合胆囊后三角入路与常规腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗胆囊良性疾病患者的临床效果。方法 2018年3月～2019年3月我院诊治104例胆囊良性疾病患者,被随机分为观察组52例和对照组52例,分别采取常规LC术或以Rouviere沟引导定向联合胆囊后三角入路行LC术治疗。结果 观察组中转开腹1例(1.9%),而对照组6例(11.5%),导致对照组手术时间、术中出血量、术后下床活动时间和住院时间与观察组比,均有显著性差异[分别为(113.5±5.1)min、(34.5±5.4)mL、(3.4±0.9)d和(8.0±1.2)d对(75.1±5.2)min、(13.4±5.1)mL、(1.4±0.8)d和(3.8±1.0)d,P＞0.05];术后12 h和24 h,对照组VAS评分分别为(4.8±1.0)分和(5.2±1.3)分,显著大于观察组【分别为(2.8±1.0)分和(3.1±1.2)分, P＞0.05】;手术前后,两组血清AST、ALT、TBIL和ALP水平无显著性差异(P>0.05);术后,观察组胆漏、胆管损伤、切口感染、腹腔感染和腹胀发生率分别为3.8%、0.0%、1.9%、1.9%和1.9%,显著低于对照组的3.8%、9.6%、3.8%、3.8%和3.8%(P<0.05)。结论 与常规LC术相比,以Rouviere沟引导定向联合胆囊后三角入路行LC术治疗胆囊良性疾病患者能够提供手术成功率,减轻疼痛,降低并发症发生风险,具有较高的临床应用价值。