腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗小儿急性阑尾炎的对比研究

目的：对比腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗小儿复杂急性阑尾炎的临床疗效。方法：2004年1月至2009年1月收治小儿复杂阑尾炎253例,分别行腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy,LA）123例,开腹阑尾切除术（open appendectomy,OA）130例,比较两组术中出血量、恢复进食时间、术后住院时间、抗生素使用时间及术后并发症。结果：LA组术中出血量、恢复进食时间、腹腔引流管拔除时间、术后住院时间、抗生素使用时间均明显少于OA组,LA组术后切口感染、肠梗阻、腹腔脓肿发生率低于OA组。结论：腹腔镜治疗小儿复杂急性阑尾炎的疗效明显优于开腹手术。     

急性阑尾炎腹腔镜下阑尾切除术疗效观察

目的分析腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的临床疗效。方法将80例符合手术指征的急性阑尾炎患者随机分为对照组(行传统开腹手术)和腹腔镜组(腹腔镜阑尾切除术)两组,每组40例。比较两组平均手术时间、术后并发症、术后排气时间及住院时间。结果两组术后并发症、术后排气及住院时间差异有统计学意义(P0.05),平均手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎术后并发症发生率及住院时间均优于开腹手术。     

腹腔镜与小切口开腹手术治疗急性阑尾炎的比较

目的探讨腹腔镜手术与小切口开腹手术治疗急性阑尾炎疗效比较。方法对2013年9月至2014年9月期间进行小切口开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)89例和腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparosocpic appendectomy,LA)85例进行回顾性分析,比较2组患者的手术时间、术后排气时间、住院时间及术后并发症等。结果腹腔镜组术后排气时间、术后并发症、平均住院时间均少于小切口组(P0.05),小切口组平均手术时间短于腹腔镜组(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜手术治疗阑尾炎临床疗效优于小切口阑尾切除术,具有推广应用的价值。     

比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术与常规开腹阑尾切除术的效果

目的比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术的效果。方法随机将2016-03—2017-03间收治的106例急性阑尾炎患者分为2组,各53例。对照组实施开腹阑尾切除术,观察组实施腹腔镜阑尾切除术。比较2组的手术时间、术中出血量和术后肛门恢复排气时间、切口感染发生率及住院时间。结果观察组手术时间、术中出血量和术后肛门恢复排气时间、切口感染发生率及住院时间均少于或短于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与开腹阑尾切除术比较,腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎,创伤小,术后患者恢复快。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术对老年急性化脓性阑尾炎患者术中出血量及术后切口感染发生率的影响

目的探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术对老年急性化脓性阑尾炎患者术中出血量及术后切口感染发生率的影响。方法按照不同手术方法将60例老年急性化脓性阑尾炎患者分为2组,各30例。对照组行传统开腹阑尾切除术,观察组采用腹腔镜阑尾切除术。比较2组治疗效果。结果观察组术中出血量、手术时间、肛门排气时间、术后VAS评分及并发症发生率均少于或短于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗老年急性化脓性阑尾炎,术中出血量少,术后切口感染发生率低,有利于患者恢复。     

腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗小儿复杂阑尾炎的疗效对比分析

目的:对比分析复杂阑尾炎患儿行腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹手术的临床疗效。方法:选取2015年1月至2017年10月收治的60例复杂阑尾炎患儿作为研究对象,纳入患儿家属签署知情同意书,按入组奇偶顺序分为腹腔镜组(偶数)与开腹组(奇数),每组30例,腹腔镜组行腹腔镜阑尾切除术,开腹组行开腹阑尾切除术。记录两组手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生情况、术后恢复进食时间、住院时间。结果:腹腔镜组手术时间、术中出血量、术后恢复进食时间、住院时间、并发症发生率均优于开腹组(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗小儿复杂阑尾炎并发症发生率低,术后康复快,可有效缩短住院时间,可考虑作为小儿复杂阑尾炎的首选术式。     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的临床比较

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹手术切除阑尾的优缺点。方法:回顾性分析我院2010年1月1日—2012年3月31日292例行阑尾切除术患者的临床资料,根据手术方法分为单孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组、多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组和开腹阑尾手术组,比较手术时间、出血量、术后排气时间、术后住院时间切口愈合等级及感染率。结果:单孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组中1例转为多孔法,多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组中1例中转开腹,其余患者均完成手术。2例多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术患者术后并发粘连性肠梗阻,经保守治疗后好转。与传统开腹手术相比,腹腔镜阑尾切除术手术时间短、出血量少、术后排气快、术后住院时间短;对于急性单纯性阑尾炎,单孔腹腔镜手术比多孔法出血更少,瘢痕更小。结论:腹腔镜阑尾切除术对腹部干扰少,单孔法切口更为隐蔽,在熟练掌握手术技术的前提下可以广泛应用。     

急性阑尾炎患者实施腹腔镜阑尾切除术的疗效观察

目的分析急性阑尾炎腹腔镜阑尾切除术的疗效。方法将72例急性阑尾炎患者随机分为2组,各36例。对照组行开腹阑尾切除术,观察组行腹腔镜阑尾切除术。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间及切口感染率和术后住院时间。结果 2组均顺利完成手术,观察组无中转开腹手术。2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、切口感染率及术后住院时间均少于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎,创伤小、并发症少、患者术后恢复快。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎效果分析

目的比较腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗急性阑尾炎的效果。方法将50例接受阑尾切除术的急性阑尾炎患者随机分为2组,各25例。对照组采用开腹手术,观察组采用腹腔镜治疗。比较2组术中出血量、下床活动时间、肛门排气时间、住院时间、术后并发症发生率。结果观察组术中出血量、下床活动时间、肛门排气时间、术后并发症发生率及住院时间均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎,创伤小、术后并发症发生率低,患者恢复快。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎效果分析

目的比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的效果。方法将120例接受阑尾切除术的急性阑尾炎患者根据手术方法不同分成2组,每组60例。对照组实施开腹手术,观察组实施腹腔镜手术。结果 2组均顺利完成手术。2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组患者术中出血量及术后下床活动时间、镇痛药物使用率、并发症发生率、住院时间均优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎,创伤小、术后恢复快,并发症发生率低,安全性高。     

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.     

急性阑尾炎行腹腔镜手术与开腹手术的比较

目的对比分析腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术在治疗急性阑尾炎中的手术效果。方法回顾性分析2009年1月至2011年10月58例行腹腔镜阑尾切除术（LA组）和同期55例行开腹阑尾切除术（OA组）的急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,比较两种术式手术时间、下床活动时间、术后排气时间、止痛药物使用率、并发症发生率、住院时间及综合费用等指标。结果 LA组与OA组相比上述指标除手术时间外差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和住院时间短等优点,可作为治疗急性阑尾炎的理想选择。     

Laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis: a comparison with open appendectomy

Background The role of laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis remains controversial. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy outcomes for children with perforated appendicitis. Methods Over a 36-month period, 111 children with perforated appendicitis were analyzed in a retrospective review. These children were treated with either laparoscopic (n = 59) or open appendectomy. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, time to adequate oral intake, wound infection, intraabdominal abscess formation, and bowel obstruction. Results The demographic data, presenting symptoms, preoperative laboratory values, and operative times (laparoscopic group, 61 ± 3 min; open group, 57 ± 3 were similar for the two groups (p = 0.3). The time to adequate oral intake was 104 ± 7 h for the laparoscopic group and 127 ± 12 h for the open group (p = 0.08). The hospitalization time was 189 ± 14 h for the laparoscopic group, as compared with 210 ± 15 h for the open group (p = 0.3). The wound infection rate was 6.8% for the laparoscopic group and 23% for the open group (p < 0.05). The wounds of another 29% of the patients were left open at the time of surgery. The postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation rate was 13.6% for the laparoscopic group and 15.4% for the open group. One patient in each group experienced bowel obstruction. Conclusions Laparoscopic appendectomy for the children with perforated appendicitis in this study was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of wound infection. Furthermore, on the average, the children who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy tolerated enteral feedings and were discharged from the hospital approximately 24 h earlier than those who had open appendectomy.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis

PURPOSE: There is persistent controversy regarding the optimal surgical therapy for children with appendicitis. We have recently adopted laparoscopic appendectomy in lieu of the open technique for children with perforated appendicitis. We hypothesized that laparoscopic appendectomy would be as effective as open appendectomy in preventing postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of children admitted to our hospital over a 5-year period with the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Patients were divided into two groups based on the operative approach: laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy. Demographic data, duration of presenting symptoms, initial white blood cell (WBC) count, length of stay, and complications were abstracted. Data were compared using appropriate statistical analyses. RESULTS: There was no difference between the laparoscopic (n = 43) and open (n = 77) groups with respect to gender, duration of presenting symptoms, initial WBC, or length of stay. However, patients in the laparoscopic group had a significantly lower complication rate than those in the open group (6/43 vs. 23/77, P = 0.05). Infectious complications were no different between groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group tended to be older than patients in the open group (10.6 +/- 3.3 years vs. 8.5 +/- 4.1 years, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis has the same infectious complication rate and a lower overall complication rate than open appendectomy. A prospective study with standardized postoperative care would be needed to determine whether laparoscopic appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis is the treatment of choice, but until then it remains an attractive alternative.     

腹腔镜在慢性阑尾炎诊治中的应用价值(附296例报告)

目的:比较腹腔镜手术与开腹手术在慢性阑尾炎治疗中的应用价值。方法:回顾分析2000年1月至2008年12月我院施行296例慢性阑尾炎手术的临床资料,164例行开腹手术,132例行腹腔镜手术,对比两组手术时间、术中出血、住院时间、术中发现和处理情况,并随访患者术后慢性腹痛的改善情况。结果:手术时间开腹组(52.76±21.82)m in,腹腔镜组(49.78±18.01)m in,t=0.88,P>0.05;术中出血开腹组(16.60±8.28)m l,腹腔镜组(9.68±4.22)m l,t=3.48,P<0.05;住院时间开腹组(7.84±3.27)d,腹腔镜组(6.80±2.98)d,t=2.98,P<0.05。腹腔镜组30例(22.7%)术中发现不同程度的腹腔粘连,阑尾与周围粘连10例,回盲部与前侧腹壁粘连8例,大网膜与腹壁及肠管粘连6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;开腹组18例(11.0%)术中发现阑尾与周围粘连,松解粘连行阑尾切除术,两组比较χ2=8.06,P<0.05;成功随访122例开腹手术者术后26例(21.3%)仍有慢性腹痛,98例腹腔镜手术者术后10例(10.2%)仍有慢性腹痛,两组比较χ2=6.68,P<0.05。结论:腹腔镜对慢性阑尾炎的诊治有一定的优势。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术与传统手术疗效的比较

目的:比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)与传统开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)的临床疗效。方法:随机将223例阑尾炎患者分为两组,LA组115例行LA,OA组108例行OA。比较两种术式的手术时间、平均住院费用、住院时间、术后镇痛剂应用、术后24h内肛门排气例数、放置引流管率、切口感染率等。结果:LA组术后24h内肛门排气时间、放置引流管率、切口感染率、平均住院时间、粘连性肠梗阻、镇痛剂应用例数与OA组的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);LA组住院费用明显高于OA组(P<0.05)。结论:LA具有手术损伤小,患者疼痛轻、康复快、住院时间短、并发症少等优点,可作为多数阑尾炎患者的首选术式。     

A Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Appendectomy

Background and Objectives:

To compare laparoscopic appendectomy with traditional open appendectomy.

Methods:

Seventy-one patients requiring operative intervention for suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively compared. Thirty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, and 34 had open appendectomy through a right lower quadrant incision. Length of surgery, postoperative morbidity and length of postoperative stay (LOS) were recorded. Both groups were similar with regard to age, gender, height, weight, fever, leukocytosis, and incidence of normal vs. gangrenous or perforated appendix.

Results:

Mean LOS was significantly shorter for patients with acute suppurative appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (2.5 days vs. 4.0 days, p<0.01). Mean LOS was no different when patients classified as having gangrenous or perforated appendicitis were included in the analysis (3.7 days vs. 4.1 days, P=0.11). The laparoscopy group had significantly longer surgery times (72 min vs. 58 min, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative morbidity.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces LOS as compared with the traditional open technique in patients with acute suppurative appendicitis. The longer operative time for the laparoscopic approach in our study is likely related to the learning curve associated with the procedure and did not increase morbidity.     

Two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND: In order to reduce abdominal trauma and operative costs we have adopted a two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy for patients with acute appendicitis. In the current study, the proposed technique is prospectively evaluated against conventional laparoscopic appendectomy with respect to feasibility, safety, and postoperative outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2001 and July 2003, 83 consecutive patients were admitted with clinically diagnosed acute appendicitis and were randomly assigned to two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (n = 40, 48.2%) or conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 43, 51.8%). RESULTS: Two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy was successfully completed in 30 patients (80.1%). Four patients initially scheduled for two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (10.8%) were converted to laparotomy due to excessive body weight (BMI > or = 40), while an additional 5-mm infraumbilical trocar was inserted in another 3 patients (8.1%). The procedure was associated with decreased operative time and more rapid return to normal activity compared to laparoscopic appendectomy (P < 0.001 and P = 0.038, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference regarding the duration of hospitalization or the morbidity rate between the two groups. Conversion of the initial procedure was associated with increased wound infection rate and higher morbidity (P = 0.032 and P = 0.018, respectively). CONCLUSION: Two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy represents a promising minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis. It is fast and easy to perform, and it is expected to decrease the overall cost of laparoscopic appendectomy. Its only contraindication is excessive body weight; it remains to be evaluated in the setting of perforated appendicitis and retrocecally located appendices.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy. Our experience

The advantages and applications of the videolaparoscopic technique (VL) versus open surgery in the treatment of acute and complicated appendicitis are not well defined. Our study examined 150 patients, 67 males and 83 females. They underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in emergency. The choice between open or laparoscopic tecnique was due to patient's clinical conditions and surgeon's experience. Two of these patients had no infiammatory process. Eleven patients were affected by gynaecological diseases. The last 137 patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis and the diagnosis was confirmed. Among them, 35 (25%) were affected by a complicated appendicitis with diffuse or clearly defined peritonitis. In 134 patients the surgery was completed laparoscopically. The conversion rate was 2%. Morbility rate was 3%, due to intra abdominal abscesses secondary to acute complicated appendicitis. The mean operative time was 76 min and the mean hospital stay was 4.8 days. The death rate was 0%. In our experience, laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over traditional open surgery in both acute and complicated appendicitis, especially in young women. In this way, we can diagnose pelvic disease that could be characterized by the same symptoms of acute appendicitis, then we suggest laparoscopic appendectomy even just to complete the diagnostic iter. Laparoscopy is useful in terms of convalescence, postoperative pain, hospital stay, aesthetic outcome and an easier exploration of the peritoneal cavity.