单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的病例对照研究

目的回顾性分析单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术（SILC）与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）的优劣性。方法19例SILC及46例LC患者的临床资料,比较两者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症、中转率、术后疼痛、住院时间、切口长度的差异。结果SILC手术耗时（49．00±8．34）min长于LC（P=0．000）。术中出血量差异无统计学意义。两组均无中转、术后无并发症;SILC与Lc术后患者第一天疼痛评分、术后第三天疼痛评分、总疼痛天数差异均无统计学意义。两者住院时间差异无统计学意义。SILC切口长度（22．5±3．5）mm短于LC切口长度（P=0．000）。结论SILC总切口长度短于LC总切口长度,切口效果更美观。SILC能安全地用于单纯胆囊结石、胆囊息肉。同时对于没有严重合并症和腹部手术史的胆囊疾病患者SILC也是一种理想的手术选择。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术适应证的探讨

目的　探讨不加选择的情况下腹腔镜胆囊切除术的适应证及临床疗效。　方法　总结 1998年～ 2 0 0 1年 8月未加选择连续实施的 2 4 3例腹腔镜胆囊切除术 ,分析其中转开腹率和手术疗效。　结果　全组 2 4 3例LC病人中共有 3例分别因胆囊床出血、胆管损伤、十二指肠与胆囊致密粘连胆囊三角解剖不清而中转开腹手术 ,中转开腹率为 1.2 %。术中并发症发生率为 1.2 % (3 2 4 3) ,术后并发症发生率为 0 .8% (2 2 4 3) ,总的手术并发症发生率为 2 .1% (5 2 4 3)。　结论　腹腔镜胆囊切除术对于规范化培训过的腹腔镜医师而言即使是急性期和萎缩性胆囊炎病人 ,也可在不明显增加手术并发症和中转开腹率的情况下安全地实施 ,所以LC适应证可以拓宽至 98%以上的有症状胆囊疾病患者。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术与开腹胆囊切除术的比较

按顺序抽取腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)病历110份，开腹胆囊切除术(OC)病历136份，笔者就两组病例的手术时间、切口长度、出血量及住院天数等资料进行回顾性分析和比较，结果显示：LC组在手术时间、切口长度、出血量及住院天数均短于或少于OC组。提示：LC优于OC，值得在基层推广与普及。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术常规

腹腔镜胆囊切除术已经是治疗胆囊良性疾病的首选方法。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术

Trocar采用“四孔法”布局。体位采用仰卧位,穿刺后头高足低30°,向左倾斜10°~15°。探查完毕后,可见胆囊大小约9 cm×3 cm×3 cm,与周围组织无粘连。助手无创钳下压网膜,术者左手提起胆囊,右手分离胆囊三角,钝性游离胆囊颈管和胆囊动脉,可见胆囊颈管直径约0.2 cm,胆总管直径约0.7 cm,肝右动脉发出胆囊动脉前后支。可吸收夹夹闭胆囊颈管及胆囊动脉,并切断,将胆囊从胆囊床剥离。自剑突下Trocar孔取出胆囊。电烙胆囊床,确认无活动性渗血后清点纱布、撤出腔镜器械。     

胆囊动脉变异与腹腔镜胆囊切除术

腹腔镜胆囊切除术（ｌａｐａｒｏｓｃｏｐｉｃｃｈｏｌｅｃｙｓｔｅｃｔｏｍｙ,ＬＣ）中胆囊动脉出血是一个紧急问题,而且增加了胆管损伤的危险性。因此,术中准确地辨认胆囊动脉的正常解剖及其变异是非常重要的。我们于１９９５年６月～１９９８年３月对５２１例择期Ｌ...     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy is commonly performed and has been presumed to offer economic benefits similar to those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study was done to examine that premise. METHODS: Two surgical groups contributed consecutively operated patients with a clinical diagnosis of appendicitis. One group did all appendectomies open and the other group did them laparoscopically. Hospital expenses were compared using a single billing formula. Hospital length of stay, time to return to work, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Operating room times were longer for the laparoscopic group, median 80 minutes, versus median 50 minutes for the open group. Hospital length of stay and return to work were the same, median 1 day and median 10 days, respectively. Wound complications were less common in the laparoscopic group, 0 of 30, than in the open group, 3 of 18; however, there was 1 intra-abdominal abscess in the laparoscopic group. Median cost of the laparoscopic group was $2,915 versus $1,747 for the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than appendectomy but does not reduce hospital length of stay nor change the time to return to work; however, wound complications are less common.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

Background: Although laparoscopic appendectomy is widely practiced in developed countries, still there are many questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this approach in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Several controlled trials have been conducted, some in favor of laparoscopic appendectomy others not. The aim of this study was to evaluate laparoscopic appendectomy in comparison with open appendectomy, with special emphasis on postoperative septic complications. Methods: For this study, 227 consecutive patients (159 males and 68 females) with a diagnosis of suspected appendicitis between 1995 and 1999 were assigned either to laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 108) or open appendectomy (n = 119). The patients were assigned according to insurance company approval and patient preference. There were no exclusion criteria and no age limits in this study. Results: Wound infection was significantly higher in the open group (incidence, 7.6%) than in the laparoscopic group (incidence, 0%; p < 0.003). Intraabdominal infections were equal in both groups. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.046), but operative time was little longer than in the open group (p < 0.002). Conversion to open surgery was necessary in one case. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as the open procedure. It significantly reduces the rate of postoperative wound infection. However, it is still acceptable to perform the open procedure, especially in hospitals without a large amount of laparoscopic experience.     

Laparoscopic versus open hemicolectomy

AIM: In the last decade, laparoscopic procedures are applied to the treatment of almost all colonic diseases, including both benign and malignant lesions. Focusing our attention to the laparoscopic operative technique, we compare the perioperative results and the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic hemicolectomy with those after open conventional hemicolectomy. METHODS: This prospective non randomized study is based on a series of 469 consecutive patients (73.6% with malignant lesions) operated on by the same surgical team following the same type of surgical technique, for laparoscopic and open approach, to perform right (RH) and left (LH) hemicolectomy, respectively, excluding segmental resections, emergency operations as well as transverse colon, splenic flexure and recurrent carcinomas. The treatment modality was selected by the patients after reading the informed consent form. Conversion rate to open surgery (for the laparoscopic group) and causes were assessed. Statistical significance (p) for operative time, resumption of gastrointestinal functions, length of stay, complications, perioperative mortality, as well as length of specimen, number of lymph-nodes harvest, incidence of local recurrences and distant metastases, and survival probability analysis in malignant cases, was assessed between the 2 groups (laparoscopic and open). RESULTS: From March 1992 to February 2003, 166 patients underwent RH and 303 LH. In the RH group, 108 patients underwent laparoscopic approach and 58 underwent open surgery (26 vs 13 for benign lesions and 82 vs 45 for adenocarcinomas, respectively). LH was performed by laparoscopy in 202 patients and by laparotomy in 101 (55 vs 30 for benign lesions and 147 vs 71 for adenocarcinomas, respectively). There were no conversions to open surgery in laparoscopic RH, while 10 patients (4.9%) in the laparoscopic LH group required conversion: 3 of 34 performed for diverticular disease and 7 of 147 performed for malignancy. Mean operative time for laparoscopic surgery was longer than for open surgery (182 vs 140 min for RH and 222 vs 190 min for LH, respectively), but with increasing experience this decreased significantly. Mean hospital stay in patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures was significantly shorter both in RH and LH groups (9.2 vs 13.2 days and 9.9 vs 13.2 days, respectively). Similar major complication rates were observed between the 2 laparoscopic and open groups (1.8% vs 1.7% for RH and 4.1% vs 4.9% for LH, respectively). Follow-up time ranged between 12 and 109 months (mean, 57.3 months) in RH groups and between 12 and 111 months (mean, 57.5 months) in LH groups. The follow-up dropout was of only 3 patients after RH (in the laparoscopic group) and 5 after LH (3 in the laparoscopic group and 2 in the open group). The local recurrence rate was lower after laparoscopic surgery in both arms (7% vs 8.8% for RH and 3.3% vs 7% for LH, respectively), but the differences were not statistically significant. Two port site recurrences were observed in the laparoscopic groups, 1 after a Dukes D palliative RH and 1 after a Dukes C LH converted to open surgery (1.7% and 0.9%, respectively). Metachronous metastases rates were similar between the laparoscopic and open groups (20.9% vs 17.6% for RH and 4.4% vs 5.3% for LH, respectively). Cumulative survival probability (CSP) at 72 months after laparoscopic RH was 0.791 as compared to 0.765 after open surgery (p=0.326) and 0.956 after laparoscopic LH as compared to 0.877 after open surgery (p=0.115). CSP for Dukes stage A, B and C in the laparoscopic RH group was 0.875, 0.846, and 0.727 as compared to 0.9 (p=0.815), 0.889 (p=0.87), and 0.6 (p=0.183) after open surgery, respectively. CSP for Dukes stage A, B and C in the laparoscopic LH group was 0.1, 0.966, and 0.885 as compared to 0.1 (p=0.936), 0.944 (p=0.466), and 0.7 (p=0.072) after open surgery, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that laparoscopic hemicolectomy for both benign and malignant lesions can be performed safely. Oncological outcomes were comparable with those of open surgery.     

Laparoscopic vs open surgery

BACKGROUND: The purported advantages of laparoscopic surgery over conventional open techniques are less pain and faster return to normal functional status. Very few studies have included validated measures of quality of life as end points. This study prospectively assessed the health status outcomes of patients undergoing four types of laparoscopic and open operations. METHODS: Preoperatively, patients undergoing elective inguinal hernioplasty, esophageal surgery, cholecystectomy, and splenectomy completed the SF-36, a well-tested, validated health-status instrument. This instrument measures physical functioning (PF), role-physical (RP), role-emotional (RE), bodily pain (BP), vitality (VT), mental health (MH), social functioning (SF), and general health (GH) health status domains. Patients then underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery. Patients were reassessed with the instrument > or =6 weeks after surgery. A total of 100 patients underwent these procedures. RESULTS: Compared to preoperative values, median SF-36 scores for laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients were improved in the domains of PF (85 vs 95, p = 0.01), BP (42 vs 75, p = 0.002), and VT (47.5 vs 70, p = 0.04); open cholecystectomy patients did not show statistically significant improvements over preoperative values. In addition, laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients had a better score than open cholecystectomy patients in the BP domain (75 vs 41, p = 0.05). Laparoscopic esophageal surgery patients had better scores than open surgery patients in the domains of RP (100 vs 0, p = 0.02) and VT (65 vs 52.5, p = 0.05). Compared to preoperative values, laparoscopic splenectomy patients had an improved score in GH (52 vs 77, p = 0.02) and better scores than open splenectomy patients in PF (90 vs 45, p = 0.05) and BP (84 vs 55.5, p = 0.01). Compared to preoperative values, open mesh hernioplasty patients showed improved scores in PF (70 vs 92.5, p = 0.03) and MH (72 vs 84, p = 0.05). Laparoscopic hernioplasty did not produce improved scores compared to either preoperative values or open hernioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery has demonstrably better quality-of-life outcomes than open surgery for cholecystectomy, splenectomy, and esophageal surgery. However, open hernioplasty has at least as good, if not better, health status outcomes than laparoscopic repair.     

Laparoscopic vs open hernioplasty

Surgical Endoscopy -     

Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy

Background: A randomized clinical trial was performed to compare open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Methods: 201 patients with similar characteristics of appendicitis were randomized to either OA or LA. Operative time and technique, reintroduction of diet, postoperative pain, use of analgesia, hospital stay, and complications were documented. Results: 104 patients were allocated to the OA group and 97 to the LA group. Postoperative pain was significantly less in the LA group on the 1st (p < 0.001) and 2nd (p < 0.001) postoperative day, resulting in less use of analgesics on both days (p < 0.001). Restoration of diet was similar in both groups. Mean operative time was longer in the LA group: 61 vs 41 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications did not differ in either group, except for wound infections (six OA group vs zero LA group, p < 0.05). Mean hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conclusions: LA results in less postoperative pain and fewer wound infections. The laparoscopic procedure is technically more demanding to perform, resulting in longer operative time.