脐缘三孔与传统三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的对比研究

目的:对比脐缘三孔与传统三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床疗效及可行性。方法:将96例胆囊结石合并胆囊炎择期手术的患者随机分为两组,采用普通腹腔镜手术器械分别行脐缘三孔与传统三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术,对比两组手术时间、并发症、术后切口疼痛程度、住院时间、美容效果及患者满意度。结果:脐缘三孔组2例因严重粘连、胆囊三角区显露困难改为传统三孔法完成,两组均无中转开腹,术后均无严重并发症发生。与传统三孔组相比,脐缘三孔组手术时间长、术后切口疼痛程度轻、住院时间短、切口美容效果更好,且患者满意度更高(P<0.05)。结论:脐缘三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术虽较传统三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术手术时间稍长,但术后切口疼痛程度轻、住院时间短、美容效果好、患者满意度高,可为患者带来更大的受益。     

改良三孔法与常规三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术的对比研究

目的:比较改良三孔法与常规三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)的临床疗效。方法:58例行改良三孔法LC,146例行常规三孔法LC;对比两组手术时间、术中出血量、中转率、术后疼痛、患者满意度、术后住院时间及并发症发生情况。结果:两组均无中转开腹及严重并发症发生。改良组1例中转为4孔法LC,常规组3例中转为4孔法LC,两组中转4孔率分别为1.7%与2.1%(P0.05);改良组与常规组手术时间分别为(45.9±10.6)min与(39.8±9.4)min(P0.05);术中出血量分别为(24.7±5.4)ml与(23.4±6.6)ml(P0.05);术后疼痛评分分别为(2.1±0.6)与(2.8±0.5)(P0.05);术后平均住院(2.4±0.6)d与(2.5±0.5)d(P0.05);术后满意度评分分别为(94.3±4.9)与(89.8±4.6)(P0.05)。结论:改良三孔法与常规三孔法LC一样安全、有效,但改良法术后疼痛更轻,患者满意度更高,可为患者带来更大受益。     

Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study

Background: The efficacy of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RLC). Surgical trainees performed the LC to avoid the surgeons experience bias. Methods: Two surgical trainees performed 10 CLCs and 10 RLCs at random with a Zeus-Aesop Surgical Robotic System. The primary efficacy parameters were the total time and the number of actions involved in the procedure. The secondary parameters were setup and dissection times, and the number of grasping and dissection actions. Surgical complications were evaluated. Results: For CLC and RLC, respectively, the total times were 95.4 ± 28 min and 123.5 ± 33.3 min and the total actions were 420 ± 176.3 and 363.5 ± 158.2. For CLC, the times required for setup (21 ± 10.4 min) and dissection (50.2 ± 17.7 min) were less than for RLC (33.8 ± 11.3 min and 72 ± 24.3 min, respectively). The numbers of grasping and dissection actions were not significantly different: 41.4 ± 26.5 and 378 ± 173.7, respectively, for CLC versus 48.9 ± 27 and 314.6 ± 141.9, respectively, for RLC. Conclusion: Although feasible, RLC requires significantly more time than CLC because of slower performed actions.     

经脐单孔与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较研究

目的探讨传统器械经脐入路单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy,TSPLC)的可行性、安全性并总结初步经验。方法回顾性分析我院2010年5月～2011年8月行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparo-scopic cholecystectomy,LC)60例患者的临床资料,其中行TSPLC患者36例,行传统LC24例;所有病例都经过B超或CT确诊为慢性结石性胆囊炎,手术指征包括:①非急性炎症期的胆囊炎或胆囊结石;②胆囊息肉;③非急性炎症期的胆囊良性病变。观察两组中体重指数、手术时间、出血量、疼痛指数、肩背部疼痛发生率、恢复进食时间、住院时间及切口并发症。结果TSPLC组36例成功施行手术,LC组24例成功施行手术。平均手术时间TSPLC组(56.0±16.7)min长于LC组(36.7±6.0)min(P<0.05),两组术中出血量相似(P>0.05),两组术后疼痛指数、肩背部疼痛发生率、住院时间相似(P>0.05),患者满意度TSPLC组高于LC组(P<0.05),两组均未置腹腔引流管,无出血及胆漏、胆道损伤等重大并发症,平均住院时间为3天。术后随访1～3月,TSPLC组腹部未见明显手术疤痕。结论①使用传统器械经脐入路单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术是安全可行的,具有优于传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的美容效果;但手术操作难度较大,初学者需要经过一定量的练习方能熟练掌握。     

单切口与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的随机对比研究

目的:对比分析单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy,SILC)与传统四孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)的近期疗效。方法:2011年6月至8月将40例胆囊结石和胆囊息肉患者随机分为SILC组(n=20)和LC组(n=20)。对比分析两组患者一般资料、手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、并发症、切口长度、疼痛程度和C反应蛋白量(C-reactive protein,CRP)。结果:两组患者年龄、性别、ASA分期、体重指数和术前CRP无明显差别,手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、并发症、术后CRP差异无统计学意义,但SILC组切口更小,术后疼痛更轻微。结论:适当把握手术适应证,SILC安全可行,具有切口长度小、术后疼痛轻等优点。     

Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatric patients

Background: Despite increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery in the pediatric population during the past decade, reports of comparative analysis between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes between pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).Methods: A single institution retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing either RC or LC, between January 2015 and December 2018 was performed. Demographic data as well as clinical characteristics and related outcomes were abstracted and compared using univariate analysis. Related hospital costs were estimated using a charge to cost methodology.Results: The median age of the cohort was 15.5 years (IQR 14.0–17.0); 76% females and 70% white, with 74% (n = 220) undergoing LC and 26% (n = 79) undergoing RC. The majority of RC were performed using single-site technique and RC proportion increased with time (10% in 2015 vs. 41% in 2018, p<0.001). The majority of RC were more commonly attributed to patients with nonacute indications for cholecystectomy compared to acute clinical indications (87% vs. 13%). Median operative time was 98 min vs. 79 min for RC and LC respectively (p<0.001). Median postoperative LOS was similar between groups (22 h). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, in-hospital opioid utilization and 30-day readmissions. Average total hospital costs for RC were $15,519 compared to $11,197 for LC.Conclusions: Pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is feasible with similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it is associated with longer operative times and higher costs. The single-site RC technique may provide a potential cosmetic benefit.     

经脐单孔腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的对比研究

目的：探讨现阶段经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术（laparoscop ic cholecystectomy,LC）的安全性、可行性及优势。方法：回顾分析山东大学齐鲁医院开展的经脐单孔LC（A组,n=12）及同期完成的传统LC（B组,n=23）的临床资料。对比两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、并发症发生率及总住院费用等指标。结果：35例手术均获成功,术后无并发症发生。两组术中出血量差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,经脐单孔LC组术后住院时间及总住院费用明显优于传统LC组（P〈0.01）,而传统组手术时间则优于经脐单孔组（P〈0.01）。在经脐单孔组组内对比发现,手术时间随手术量的增加有逐渐减少的趋势,其中后4例手术时间明显少于前4例（P〈0.01）。结论：目前经脐单孔LC是安全可行的,术后住院时间及总住院费用明显优于传统LC,具有成为一定时期内主流LC的潜力。     

单孔与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较：随机对照试验的Meta 分析

目的：评价单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术（SILC）与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术（CLC）的安全性和有效性。方法：计算机检索各数据库中有关SILC与CLC的前瞻性随机对照试验。检索时限均为建库至2012年11月。按Cochrane系统评价员手册对纳入文献的方法学质量进行评价后,提取数据,采用RevMan 5.1统计软件行Meta分析。结果：筛选后最终纳入17个研究,共1 267例患者,其中SILC组654例,CLC组613例。Meta分析结果显示,手术时间SILC组长于CLC组（WMD=13.02,95%CI=7.95~18.09,P<0.001）;术后切口外观评分和患者满意度评分SILC组优于CLC组（WMD=1.21,95%CI=0.70~1.72,P<0.001;WMD=0.76,95%CI=0.53~1.00,P<0.001）;术后并发症、术后疼痛评分和住院时间两组间差异无统计学意义（RR=1.13,95%CI=0.87~1.48,P=0.35;WMD=0.03,95%CI= -0.82~0.88,P=0.95;WMD=-0.06,95%CI=-0.40~0.28,P=0.73）。结论：对于治疗非复杂性的胆囊良性疾病,SILC是一项安全而有效的手术操作;它具有良好的切口外观和患者满意的优点。     

Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

From November 2009 to August 2010, 51 patients with symptomatic gallstone or gallbladder polyps were randomized to SILC (n = 24) or 4-port LC (n = 27).

Results

Mean surgical time (43.5 vs 46.5 min), median blood loss (1 vs 1 mL) and mean hospital stay (1.5 vs 1.8 d) were similar for both the SILC and 4-port LC group. There were no open conversions and no major complications. The mean total wound length of the SILC group was significantly shorter (1.76 vs 2.25 cm). The median visual analogue pain score at 6 hours after surgery was similar (4.5 vs 4.0) but the SILC group had a significantly worse pain score on day 7 (1 vs 0). There was no difference in time to resume usual activity (mean, 5.6 vs 5.0 d). The median cosmetic score of SILC was significantly higher than at 3 months after surgery (7 vs 6).

Conclusions

SILC was feasible and safe for properly selected patients in experienced hands.     

Traditional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a minimally invasive procedure whereby the gallbladder is removed using laparoscopic techniques. The indications are similar to those for elective traditional cholecystectomy, but selection of patients is important for success. Contraindications are currently evolving. Patients with advanced cholecystitis, abdominal sepsis, ileus, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, and morbid obesity should not undergo this procedure. The procedure requires good traditional surgical skills, as well as additional laparoscopic (and laser) skills. Operative time is slightly longer than for traditional cholecystectomy, but decreases with experience. Morbidity is low, but there is a concern about bile duct injuries. Mortality is very low (0%) and is comparable to traditional cholecystectomy (0.4%). The major advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy are the short hospital stay (average: 2 days) and early return to normal activity (7 days). This results in a reduction in hospital costs. Adequate training and credentialing are important processes to foster good patient outcomes.     

Identification of bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

To identify patients with common bile duct stones, all patients considered for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in this unit undergo intravenous cholangiography (IVC) with tomography and, more recently, operative cholangiography. To date 100 consecutive patients with symptomatic gallstones have undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy with no specific exclusion criteria. Eight patients of 100 were found to have duct stones on IVC with one false-positive. These IVC data were compared with data from 52 patients who also had operative cholangiograms performed. One stone was detected on operative cholangiography that was not identified on IVC. No additional information was gained from operative cholangiography. These data suggest that preoperative IVC is adequate for the detection of duct stones in patients considered for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.