腹腔镜全子宫切除与开腹全子宫切除术的并发症比较

目的比较腹腔镜全子宫切除术(total laparoscopic hysterectomy,TLH)与开腹全子宫切除术(total abdominal hysterectomy,TAH)的手术并发症。方法回顾性分析我院2004年7月~2008年12月379例TLH与187例TAH的临床资料,比较两者手术并发症。结果除有盆腔手术史者比例TAH组较高外,两种术式患者术前基本特征一致,总的并发症发生率差异无显著性[11.6%(44/379)vs9.6%(18/187),χ2=0.505,P=0.477],但TLH组出现2例术后大出血而再次开腹手术,并且阴道残端炎发生率显著高于TAH组[7.1%(27/379)vs2.7%(5/187),χ2=4.649,P=0.031];在TAH组,发生腹部切口感染8例,下肢静脉血栓2例,而TLH组无此并发症发生。结论两种手术方式各有优势,虽然总的并发症率无显著性差异,但对于盆腔粘连严重、大子宫肌瘤、特殊部位肌瘤,选择TAH较为安全。     

腹腔镜子宫次全切除术

<正> 1992年5月至1995年底,我们利用腹腔镜完成子宫肌瘤子宫次全切除218例,现将体会介绍如下。 1 临床资料 1.1 本组218例,最大50岁,最小28岁,平均40岁,均有生育史。患者均在术前经B超或CT检查和阴道直肠腹壁三合诊确诊。术中经腹腔镜探查均确定肌瘤。其中28例作过经腹绝育手术。69例合并单侧卵巢囊肿,21例合并双侧卵巢囊肿,5例合并输卵管积水。术前均放置导尿管,常规冲洗阴道。 1.2 手术过程 手术均在全麻下进行,麻醉成功后留置胃管,术毕即拔除。术者与持腹腔镜者站在患者左侧,后者站头侧,助手站患者右侧。患     

腹腔镜下子宫次全切除术的手术技巧

目的 探讨腹腔镜下子宫次全切除术的各种手术技巧和安全性.方法 回顾性分析2008年9月至2010年12月,我院妇科完成较高难度(子宫大小超过孕13周)腹腔镜下子宫次全切除术( LSH) 157例.结果 157例均在腹腔镜下完成,手术过程顺利,无一例中转开腹,无术中大出血及周围脏器副损伤.结论 腹腔镜下较高难度的子宫次全切除术是安全、可行的.但应具备良好的腹腔镜手术器械,丰富的腹腔镜手术经验及镜下缝合技术.     

腹腔镜辅助的次全子宫切除手术与传统开腹手术的比较研究

目的探讨腹腔镜辅助的子宫外置次全切除手术的可行性。方法同一手术组医生选择患妇科良性疾病、有次全子宫切除手术指征者86例,分为两组分别进行常规经腹次全切除手术及在腹腔镜辅助下耻骨联合上小切口子宫外置次全子宫切除手术,比较术中、术后及两组患者切口愈合情况。结果腹腔镜辅助手术组术中出血少于开腹手术组[(99.05±30.35)m l vs(121.36±42.57)m l,t=-2.788,P=0.09],两组在处理附件时间[(14.35±3.15 m in)vs(13.11±2.85)m in,t=1.916,P=0.059]、手术总时间[(70.71±8.42)m in vs(73.30±11.91)m in,t=-1.159,P=0.250]无统计学差异。两组均无术中及术后严重并发症发生。腹腔镜辅助组但术后病率(5 vs 2,2χ=14.479,P=0.000),肠功能恢复时间[(18.40±5.98)h vs(22.70±5.82)h,t=-3.379,P=0.001]。结论腹腔镜辅助下耻骨联合上小切口子宫外置次全子宫切除手术较传统开腹手术出血量少,损伤小,恢复快,腹腔镜手术对盆腔干扰小以结合小切口将子宫外置处理子宫血管的安全及方便的优点。     

腹腔镜下全子宫切除与腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除的比较

目的对比分析腹腔镜全子宫切除术（total laparoscopic hysterectomy,TLH）和腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫切除术（1aparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy,LAVH）的临床价值。方法回顾性比较2007年1月-2012年1月1034例TLH和LAVH的手术时间、出血量、排气时间、住院时间、子宫重量及术后病率、泌尿系损伤、肠管损伤、血管损伤等并发症。结果1034例手术均顺利完成,无中转开腹。TLH组手术时间（80．4±19．2）min与LAVH组（80．2±17．8）min无显著性差异（t=0．166,P=0．868）;LAVH组出血量（53．4±14．3）ml显著多于TLH组（49．84-16．8）ml（t=-3．596,P=0．000）;LAVH组排气时间（27．1±5．5）h显著长于TLH组（24．6±5．1）h（t=-7．059,P=0．000）;LAVH组住院时间（5．4±1．2）d显著长于TLH组（5．1±1．4）d（t=-3．581,P=0．000）。LAVH组切除的子宫重量（286．1±28．2）g,与TLH组（279．6±27．4）g有显著性差异（t=-3．528,P=0．000）。术后病率TLH组1．4％和LAVH组1．7％无显著性差异（∥=0．122,P=0．727）。术后泌尿系统损伤1例（LAVH组）、肠管损伤1例（TLH组）、血管损伤2例（2组各1例）,2组并发症发生率无统计学差异[0．6％（2／345）vs．0．3％（2／689）,X2=0．031,P=0．861]。术后随访0．5～5年,平均3．9年,无切口感染、切口疝、出血等并发症发生。结论TLH和LAVH均是安全可行的。     

腹腔镜子宫次全切除与开腹子宫次全切除对照研究

子宫肌瘤是女性最常见的良性生殖器肿瘤，35岁以上的女性约20％患有子宫肌瘤，对于需要手术治疗的子宫肌瘤患者，传统的方法为行剖腹肌瘤切除术及子宫切除术。传统手术恢复时间较长，术后瘢痕明显，随着电视腹腔镜技术的飞速发展，外科手术已进入具有化时代意义的微创手术时代，越来越多的妇科手术采用腹腔镜手术，各基层医院也逐步开展了电视腹腔镜手术，     

腹腔镜和经腹子宫全切除术效果分析

目的比较腹腔镜和开腹子宫全切除术的临床效果。方法选取2014-09—2016-02间在永城市人民医院接受子宫全切手术的96例患者。随机分为2组,每组48例。观察组实施腹腔镜下子宫全切术,对照组给予经腹子宫全切术。比较2组治疗效果。结果 2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组术中出血量及术后肛门排气时间、住院时间和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)。结论与经腹子宫全切术比较,腹腔镜子宫全切术创伤小、术后并发症发生率低,患者恢复快,可在严格掌握手术适应证的前提下选择应用。     

改良腹腔镜下大子宫全切除160例报告

目的探讨腹腔镜下巨大子宫全切除术的安全性及手术技巧。方法回顾性分析2005年1月~2010年1月160例子宫12~18孕周行改良腹腔镜下全子宫切除术的临床资料。置镜位置在宫底上至少3 cm。使用自制加长举宫器;处理完双侧附件后即下压子宫体打开子宫膀胱腹膜反折,下推膀胱后向两侧分离阔韧带,游离子宫动静脉约0.8~1 cm后离断;阻断子宫血管后先旋切大部分宫体。结果 160例全部在腹腔镜下完成手术,无一例中转开腹。1例术中皮下气肿,余无严重并发症发生。平均手术时间90.8 min（86~138 min）,术中出血量103.8 ml（70~302 ml）,术后住院时间4.2 d（4~5d）。160例随访3~6个月,无术后并发症。结论选择合适的置镜孔,选择加长举宫器,处理好附件及子宫血管,子宫旋切器粉碎出大部分子宫体,腹腔镜下巨大子宫全切除术是安全、可行的,不会增加手术危险性和手术并发症。但要求术者具备丰富的镜下手术经验。     

腹腔镜下同时行胆囊切除及子宫次全切除76例分析

腹腔镜手术具有微创、术后恢复快、住院时间短等优点，随着腹腔镜手术的日益推广及普及．腹腔镜手术的适应证不断扩大．不同种类的盆腹腔手术在腹腔镜下同时完成的需求也见增多。本院在腹腔镜下行胆囊切除＋子宫次全切除术76例，取得满意效果，现报道如下。     

腹腔镜子宫次全切除术的临床价值

目的探讨腹腔镜子宫次全切除术（1aparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy,LSH）的临床价值。方法回顾分析我院2006年7月～2007年9月78例LSH与59例开腹子宫次全切除术（abdominal supracervical hysterectomy,ASH）的临床资料,比较2种手术方式术中出血量、手术时间、肠功能恢复、术后下床时间及术后住院时间等情况。结果LSH组术中出血量（65．1±25．5）ml与ASH组（72．9±23．6）ml比较差异无显著性（t=-1．830,P=0．069）;LSH组手术时间（80,3±29．6）min明显长于ASH组（62．4±13．1）min（t=4．332,P=0．000）;LSH组术后肛门排气时间（26．5±8．5）h明显早于ASH组（30．9±6．7）h（t=-3．232,P：0．001）;LSH组术后下床时间（32．8±6．7）h明显早于ASH组（40．4±9．7）h（t=-5．421,P=0．000）;LSH组术后住院时间（7．1±0．6）d短于ASH组（7．9±0．5）d（t=-8．291,P=0．000）。2组无手术并发症发生。结论LSH较ASH的优势明显,如果腹腔镜下操作技巧熟练,腹腔镜子宫次全切除术是一种理想的术式。     

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.     

LigaSure与超声刀在全腹腔镜子宫切除术中的应用

目的探讨LigaSure与超声刀在全腹腔镜子宫切除术中的应用价值。方法回顾分析2002年1月～2006年12月225例腹腔镜全子宫切除术的临床资料,其中应用LigaSure手术152例、应用超声刀手术73例。结果LigaSure组手术时间为（104.9±29.2）min,显著短于超声刀组（152.4±46.6）min（t=-9.329,P=0.000）;LigaSure组术中出血量为（32.9±14.9）ml,显著少于超声刀组（126.4±12.1）ml（t=-46.710,P=0.000）。2组均无中转开腹,无术中副损伤及术后并发症。结论采用LigaSure和超声刀行腹腔镜子宫切除术均安全、可靠。LigaSure在处理子宫血管方面更具有优势,超声刀在打开膀胱反折和离断主韧带方面效果理想。     

Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Uteri Over One Kilogram

Introduction:

Laparoscopic hysterectomy for large fibroid uteri is technically a difficult procedure. In this article, we report our experience with fibroid uteri >1 kg in weight.

Materials and Methods:

An intent-to-treat study.

Results:

From 2003 to 2009, 13 patients were successfully treated for large fibroid uteri with postoperative specimens weighing >1000 g. Four patients had total abdominal hysterectomy, one patient had laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and 8 patients had total laparoscopic hysterectomy. The last 6 cases were total laparoscopic hysterectomy cases.

Conclusion:

With experience and specialized techniques, total laparoscopic hysterectomy can replace abdominal hysterectomy for large uteri.     

Robotic-Assisted Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Versus Conventional Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

Objectives:

To compare patient characteristics, operative variables, and outcomes of 24 patients who underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with 44 patients who underwent conventional TLH. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 44 patients with TLH and 24 patients with robotic TLH.

Results:

Robotic TLH was associated with a shorter hospital stay (1.0 vs 1.4 days, P=0.011) and a significant decrease in narcotic use (1.2 vs 5.0 units, P=0.002). EBL and drop in hemoglobin were not significantly different. The operative time was significantly longer in patients undergoing robotic TLH (142.2 vs 122.1 minutes, P=0.027). However, only need for laparoscopic morcellation, BMI, and uterine weight, not robotic use, were independently associated with increased operative times.

Conclusions:

Robotic hysterectomy can be performed safely with comparable operative times to those of conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Postoperative measures were improved over measures for conventional laparoscopy.     

吸耳球在腹腔镜全子宫切除术阴道残端处理中的应用

目的 探讨吸耳球在腹腔镜全子宫切除术阴道残端处理中的应用价值.方法 2010年1月-2012年3月行腹腔镜全子宫切除术102例,术中将子宫处理后将吸耳球放入阴道残端处,协助阴道残端缝合.结果 102例均在腹腔镜下完成全子宫切除术,无中转开腹手术,无术中并发症.手术时间45-110 min,平均60 min;术中出血量60-150 ml,平均80 ml.102例随访1-6个月,平均3.5月,均无切口感染、阴道残端出血、手术切口疝等发生.结论吸耳球在腹腔镜子宫全切术中应用安全、可行,值得推广使用.     

Effect of a Disposable Automated Suturing Device on Cost and Operating Room Time in Benign Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Procedures

Background and Objectives:

To determine the effect of a disposable automated laparoscopic suturing device, the Endo Stitch (ES) (Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA), on hospital cost and surgical time in patients undergoing a benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure compared with the use of the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) or traditional laparoscopic suturing technique.

Methods:

The Premier Perspective Database (Premier, Charlotte, NC, USA) was used to identify all inpatient hospital discharges with the primary procedure of a total laparoscopic hysterectomy (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 68.41) for benign conditions between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011. Patients were further categorized into 3 groups: (1) those for whom the ES was used during the laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure, (2) those for whom robotic assistance (RA) was used, and (3) those for whom neither ES nor RA (NER) was used. Multivariate analysis was performed to examine the association among the ES, RA, and NER groups with respect to hospital cost, length of stay, and surgery time. The multivariate analysis controlled for the patient''s age, race, severity of illness, and comorbid conditions, as well as hospital characteristics, such as bed size, region, and teaching status.

Results:

A total of 9308 patients undergoing an inpatient total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011, were eligible for the study. The ES was used in 974 of the patients (10%), RA was used in 3971 (43%), and neither technique was used in 4363 (47%). After adjusting for confounding variables, the mean hospital cost was $1769 (P = .0332) lower, with a 42-minute (P < .001) surgery time savings, for the ES group compared with the RA group. The mean hospitalization cost for the ES group was also $634 (P < .0879) less expensive, with a 21-minute (P = .0131) surgery time savings, compared with the NER group.

Conclusion:

Use of a disposable automated laparoscopic suturing device, the ES, is significantly more cost-effective than the use of the da Vinci surgical system or traditional laparoscopic suturing techniques for the performance of a total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedure for benign conditions.     

腹腔镜下大子宫切除术86例报告

目的 探讨腹腔镜下巨大子宫切除术的手术技巧. 方法 回顾性分析1998年2月～2005年12月86例子宫超过12孕周行腹腔镜子宫切除手术的临床资料,其中12例腹腔镜下全子宫切除术（total laparoscopic hysterectomy,TLH））,59例腹腔镜子宫次全切除术（laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, LSH）和15例腹腔镜辅助阴式子宫全切除术（laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, LAVH）.手术中置镜位置采取在宫底上至少3～5 cm.手术关键步骤是处理附件及子宫血管,其中TLH和LAVH在阻断子宫血管后先旋切大部分宫体. 结果 86例全部在腹腔镜下完成手术,无一例中转开腹.1例术中出现皮下气肿,余无严重并发症发生.手术时间（92.3±33.5） min,术中出血量（113±31） ml,术后住院时间（4.1±0.3） d.86例随访6个月,无一例出现术后并发症. 结论 选择合适的置镜孔,处理好附件及子宫血管,腹腔镜下巨大子宫切除术安全、可行,不会增加手术危险性和手术并发症.