腹腔镜阑尾切除术电凝处理阑尾系膜的体会

1983年Sernm报告首例腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy，LA）治疗非急性阑尾炎，直至1987年LA才开始用于治疗急性阑尾炎^[1]。随着腹腔镜外科技术的发展，目前IA已在我国广泛开展，但采取的手术方法，特别是对阑尾系膜的处理方式不尽相同。2006年8月至2007年4月我们于LA术中用电凝法处理阑尾系膜，临床效果满意，现报道如下。     

Lapro—Clip可吸收生物夹在腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的应用

目的探讨在腹腔镜阑尾切除术（1aparoscopicappendectomy,LA）中应用Lapro．Clip可吸收生物夹的优势。方法回顾性分析2011年7月至2013年4月期间于秦皇岛市抚宁县人民医院微创外科施行LA术的294例阑尾炎患者的临床资料,对其效果进行分析和评价。结果294例阑尾炎患者行LA术时,均采用Lapro．Clip可吸收生物夹（12mm）处理阑尾及其系膜。所有患者术中出血均〈10mL,手术时间13～48min（平均24min）。住院时间为2～7d（平均4d）。术后均无切口感染、肠瘘、腹腔出血、粘连性肠梗阻等并发症发生。术后以电话随访294例,随访时间为3～12个月,平均6个月,均无腹胀、腹痛等并发症发生。结论LA术中应用Lapro-Clip可吸收生物夹处理阑尾根部及其系膜的操作简单、安全,能节省手术时间。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术80例体会

目的 探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy,LA）的常见手术技巧.方法回顾分析我院近3年来80例阑尾炎患者行LA的临床资料.结果 76例在腹腔镜下顺利完成手术,4例中转开腹,其中阑尾周围脓肿1例,特殊位置阑尾1例,阑尾根部坏疽穿孔1例,系膜血管回缩引起大出血1例,手术时间35～130min,住院时间3～9d,1例戳孔感染经对症处理后痊愈,无术后出血、肠粘连等并发症发生.结论耐心、细致、熟练的腹腔镜外科技术是保证各种阑尾炎一期切除、减少并发症的关键.     

“优化三孔法”和“帆式”构型技术在腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的应用北大核心CSCD

目的探讨“优化三孔法”和“帆式”构型技术在腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)中的应用。方法2017年1月~2022年1月对我院收治的130例阑尾炎采用脐部切口、麦氏点及反麦氏点切口,以及调整反麦氏点为观察孔和脐部切口为主操作孔为特点的“优化三孔法”和将阑尾系膜提起形成“帆式”构型技术施行LA。结果130例均顺利完成手术,术后均未发生并发症。手术时间(56.9±23.6)min。术中出血量1~30 ml,中位出血量5 ml。术后病理:急性单纯性阑尾炎19例,急性化脓性阑尾炎72例,急性坏疽性阑尾炎25例,慢性阑尾炎14例。术后1、3、6个月规律随访,除2例合并慢性肠道疾病和4例合并右侧附件炎或盆腔炎的女性患者术后仍有右下腹隐痛不适以外,其余124例(95.4%)未再出现右下腹痛症状。结论优化的LA安全可行,值得临床上推广。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术63例分析

目的:总结腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)的经验并探讨手术适应证.方法:总结分析LA 63例的临床资料.结果:63例中急性单纯性阑尾炎8例,急性化脓性阑尾炎38例,其中急性阑尾炎合并卵巢囊肿1例.急性坏疽性阑尾炎14例,坏疽穿孔并急性弥漫性腹膜炎1例,阑尾黏液性囊肿1例,慢性阑尾炎1例.中转开腹1例,平均住院时间为4.5天.无术后出血、肠粘连、肠梗阻、腹腔脓肿、穿刺孔感染、粪漏等并发症发生.结论:合理使用腹腔镜技术,妥善处理阑尾系膜及残端,掌握阑尾移出腹腔的方法,可避免戳孔感染,减少肠粘连、肠梗阻的发生,并且创伤小、康复快,尤其适用于肥胖、小儿、老年病人     

适于基层医院开展的改良腹腔镜阑尾切除术(附390例报告)

目的探讨适于基层医院开展的改良腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)的应用技术。方法2009年12月～2012年1月采用适宜的麻醉方式、规范化三孔法操作、阑尾系膜单极电凝、自制简易圈套器结扎阑尾根部、自制标本袋阑尾取出等改良的LA技术操作,行LA 390例。结果 390例均成功完成LA,无一例中转开腹。手术时间15～120 min,平均30 min。术后病理:急性单纯性阑尾炎102例,急性化脓性阑尾炎199例,慢性阑尾炎58例,穿孔坏疽性阑尾炎25例,阑尾周围脓肿6例。异位阑尾16例:肝下2例,盲肠壁内3例,腹膜后位8例,盆腔低位3例;微型短小阑尾1例。390例术后随访2～24个月,平均6个月,无出血、肠瘘、肠粘连梗阻等并发症。结论改良的LA适于基层医院开展。     

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。     

自制穿刺针在腹腔镜化脓性阑尾切除术中的应用

目前,腹腔镜阑尾切除术(Laparoscopic Appendectomy,LA)已成为治疗阑尾炎的首选方法.但对急性化脓性阑尾炎患者,阑尾增粗肿胀,系膜水肿增厚,阑尾腔内充满脓液,张力增高,镜下操作时或阑尾切除后取出过程中,易造成阑尾破溃,脓液外溢,污染腹腔或穿刺口,造成术后腹腔残余感染或穿刺口感染.     

两孔法无钛夹腹腔镜阑尾切除术的体会

目的:探讨两孔法无钛夹腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)的可行性。方法:回顾分析2008年10月至2010年10月为23例阑尾炎患者行LA的临床资料。选择两孔法,采用"防波堤"技术处理阑尾系膜,阑尾根部套扎。结果:23例均顺利完成两孔法无钛夹LA,无一例中转开腹。术后均恢复良好。结论:两孔法无钛夹LA术后切口疤痕更少,腹腔内无金属异物存留,无需使用昂贵手术器械,方法简单易行,值得推广应用。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术应注意的几个问题(附132例报告)

目的总结腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy,LA）治疗阑尾炎的经验。方法回顾性分析1999年8月至2006年8月我院行LA治疗的132例阑尾炎患者的临床资料,其中慢性阑尾炎急性发作19例,急性单纯性阑尾炎15例,急性化脓性阑尾炎93例,阑尾穿孔腹膜炎5例。结果2例中转开腹。130例成功完成LA,手术时间22～55min,平均30.5min;术中出血量2～10ml;住院2～12d,平均3.4d。术后出现早期炎性肠梗阻1例,经非手术治疗治愈。结论LA操作简便可行,操作得当可在基层医院推广。     

������β�׸�ǻ������ָ��������

??Indications and surgical techniques of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis XU Da-hua, LIU Dong-bin. Department of General Surgery??Xuanwu Hospital??Capital Medical University??Beijing 100053??China
Corresponding author??XU Da-hua??E-mail??dr_xdh@163.com
Abstract Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical acute abdomen. Currently??laparoscopic appendectomy has become the preferred surgical appendectomy. Mesoappendix treatment and stump closure are key points in laparoscopic appendectomy. For perforated appendicitis??irrigation and drainage issues still are in dispute. With the improvement of the minimally invasive concept and surgical instruments??single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy will be more extensive in clinical application.     

急性阑尾炎腹腔镜手术指征及技巧

急性阑尾炎是外科最常见的急腹症,腹腔镜阑尾切除术已成为阑尾切除的首选方法。阑尾系膜与残端的处理是腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的关键环节。对于穿孔性阑尾炎,腹腔脓液的处理及引流问题仍存在争论。随着微创观念提高及手术器械的进步,单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术临床应用将更加广泛。     

Epidemiologic features of acute appendicitis in Ontario, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the epidemiology of acute appendicitis in the Province of Ontario, we carried out a retrospective population-based cohort study of all patients with acute appendicitis. METHODS: Using hospital discharge abstracts of patients with acute appendicitis from all acute care hospitals in Ontario for the fiscal years 1991-1998 coded for the Canadian Institute for Health Information, we studied the demographic features, particularly age and sex, length of hospital stay (LOS), incidence, and seasonal variation of acute appendicitis. RESULTS: During the observation period, 65,675 cases of acute appendicitis occurred in Ontario. Of these, 58% of the patients were male and 35.5% had perforation. The mean (and standard deviation [SD]) LOS for patients with perforation was 6.2 (5.3) days versus 3 (1.8) days for patients with no perforation (p < 0.001). The age-specific incidence of acute appendicitis followed a similar pattern for males and females, but males had higher rates in all age groups. The incidence was highest in those aged 10-19 years. The annual age and sex-adjusted incidence of acute appendicitis was 75 per 100,000 population. The female:male age-adjusted rate ratio was 1:1.4. During the study period, the rate of acute appendicitis decreased by 5.1%, but the rate of appendicitis with perforation increased by 13%. A significant seasonal effect was also observed, with the rate of acute appendicitis being higher in the summer months. CONCLUSIONS: Appendicitis is more common in males, in those aged 10-19 years, and during the summer months. The frequency of acute appendicitis appears to be decreasing whereas the proportion of cases with perforation appears to be increasing. This may reflect a change in the population structure in Ontario and restrictions placed on the patient access to the health care system.     

Acute appendicitis in late adulthood: incidence, presentation, and outcome. Results of a prospective multicenter acute abdominal pain study and a review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the second most common cause of surgical abdominal disease in late adulthood. It is a serious condition: major errors in management are made frequently and the condition is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Data collected within a multicenter prospective trial and a literature review were used to analyze diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties in detail. METHODS: In a multicenter intervention study (MEDWIS A 70) data from 2,280 patients with acute abdominal pain were collected prospectively. Patients with histologically proven acute appendicitis, aged 50 years and older (n=102), were compared with younger patients (n=417) to determine differences in presentation, clinical course, and outcome. The basis for the literature review was a Medline search for appendicitis in late adulthood and in the elderly, covering the years 1980-1998. In addition, studies on clinical presentation of acute appendicitis in all age groups were also reviewed and appropriate data were extracted. RESULTS: Patients aged 50 years and older with acute abdominal pain had a significantly higher incidence of surgery. Fourteen percent had acute appendicitis (27% in younger patients), with an increased complication rate (20% vs. 8%) and mortality (3% vs. 0.2%). Significantly more signs and symptoms suggestive of acute abdominal disease and peritonitis were recorded among older patients, reflecting the higher perforation rate (35% vs. 13%). Clinical presentation of appendicitis in younger patients was far more ambiguous. There were no significant differences in outcome between older and younger patients as regards perforations. Perforations are directly associated with treatment delay. Overall delay is a result of late presentation of older patients to hospital and postadmission delay. CONCLUSIONS: Appendicitis in late adulthood is characterized by a delay in treatment, high perforation rates, and unfavorable outcome parameters, all mutually correlating. Older patients with acute abdominal pain are high-risk patients, unlike their younger counterparts. They have to be clinically evaluated by experienced surgeons within a narrow time margin. The problem of late presentation and/or referral should be addressed, perhaps by education of primary care physicians and the public.     

Timing of intervention does not affect outcome in acute appendicitis in a large community practice

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of acute appendicitis remains one of the most frequent problems faced by gastrointestinal surgeons. Traditional management has emphasized urgent surgical care. Recent literature suggests delayed surgery for acute appendicitis does not affect outcome. The outcomes of patients undergoing urgent and delayed appendectomy in a large community surgical practice are compared. METHODS: All patients undergoing appendectomy between August 2002 and May 2007 were reviewed retrospectively. The data were gathered from a large community surgical practice. Patient demographics, treatment times, and surgical, pathologic, and postsurgical outcomes were documented. RESULTS: A total of 1,198 patients underwent appendectomy (575 female/623 male). The mean time to surgical intervention was 7.1 hours (range, 1-24 h). The percentage of patients undergoing laparoscopy versus open versus surgical conversion was 63%, 33%, and 4%, respectively. The percentage of patients with acute appendicitis versus perforated acute appendicitis versus negative exploration was 77%, 14%, and 8.5%, respectively. Postoperative wound or intra-abdominal septic complications were observed in 5.3% and 2.6% of patients, respectively. There was no correlation between the duration of symptoms or time to surgical intervention and surgical approach, pathologic outcome, length of stay, or postoperative septic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome variables documented in this study were independent of duration of symptoms or time to surgical intervention. This would suggest that short delays in surgical intervention for acute appendicitis are well tolerated. Outcome is related more clearly to the severity of the acute appendicitis at presentation.     

Leucocyte count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present work was to study the preoperative leucocyte counts and C-reactive protein (CRP) values in three groups of patients operated on for a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis with different findings at appendicectomy: an uninflamed appendix, uncomplicated acute appendicitis or complicated acute appendicitis. In particular, patients with acute appendicitis but a normal leucocyte count and CRP level were sought. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the mean preoperative leucocyte count and CRP value in 100 consecutive patients with an uninflamed appendix (group A), in 100 consecutive patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis (group B) and in 100 consecutive patients with complicated acute appendicitis (group C) were calculated. The numbers of patients with (1) both values normal, (2) only leucocyte count raised, (3) only CRP level raised and (4) both values raised were calculated in each of the three groups. Results: The increase in leucocyte count was an early marker of appendiceal inflammation, whereas the CRP value increased markedly only after appendiceal perforation or abscess formation. Group A (uninflamed appendix) contained 24 patients in whom both values were normal. Neither group B (uncomplicated acute appendicitis) nor group C (complicated acute appendicitis) contained any patient with both values in the normal range. CONCLUSION: Acute appendicitis is very unlikely when both the leucocyte count and CRP value are normal.     

Suspected acute appendicitis: is ultrasonography or computed tomography the preferred imaging technique?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced spiral computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: University hospital, Germany. SUBJECTS: 120 consecutive patients with acute appendicitis as a differential diagnosis, whose clinical findings were not enough to make operation essential, but were too severe to send home. INTERVENTIONS: CT and US of the appendix. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. RESULTS: The results were correlated with surgical and histopathological findings at appendicectomy or clinical follow-up. 93 patients had acute appendicitis, 27 patients did not. The sensitivity of CT was 95% and of US 87%. The corresponding specificities were 89% and 74%, positive predictive values 97% and 92%, negative predictive values 83% and 63%. In the 27 patients who did not have acute appendicitis, the correct diagnosis was established with CT in 14 patients and with US in eight. CONCLUSION: CT is more sensitive and specific than US in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis, but in whom the presentation is equivocal. The use of unenhanced spiral CT led to a significant improvement in the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis and a lower negative appendicectomy rate.     

The role of computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND: Routine contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) has been described as an accurate diagnostic imaging modality in patients with acute appendicitis. However, most patients with acute appendicitis can be diagnosed by clinical findings and physical exam alone. The role of CECT in patients suspected of having appendicitis but with equivocal clinical exams remains ill defined. METHODS: One hundred and seven consecutive patients who were thought to have appendicitis but with equivocal clinical findings and/or physical exams were imaged by CECT over a 12-month period. Oral and intravenous contrast-enhanced, spiral abdominal and pelvic images were obtained using 7-mm cuts. CECT images were interpreted by a board-certified radiologist. Main outcome measures included CECT sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, comparing CECT with ultrasound, and determining the impact of CECT on the clinical management of this patient population. RESULTS: A group of 107 patients consisting of 44 males (41%) and 63 females (59%) with a median age of 33 years (range 13 to 89 years) were imaged with CECT to evaluate suspected appendicitis. Of the 107 CECTs performed, 11 false-positive and 3 false-negative readings were identified, resulting in a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 85%, PPV of 75%, NPV of 95%, and an overall accuracy of 90%. Forty-three patients were imaged with ultrasound and CECT, and CECT had significantly better sensitivity and accuracy (30% versus 92% and 69% versus 88%, P<0.01). With regard to clinical management, 100% (36/36) of patients with appendicitis, and 4.2% (3/71) of patients without appendicitis underwent appendectomy. Therefore, the overall negative appendectomy rate was 7.6% (3/39). CONCLUSIONS: CECT is a useful diagnostic imaging modality for patients suspected of having acute appendicitis but with equivocal clinical findings and/or physical exams. CECT is more sensitive and accurate than ultrasound and is particularly useful in excluding the diagnosis of appendicitis in those without disease.     

A 3-Year Study of Predictive Factors for Positive and Negative Appendicectomies

ABSTRACT

Background: Early and accurate identification or exclusion of acute appendicitis is the key to avoid the morbidity of delayed treatment for true appendicitis or unnecessary appendicectomy, respectively. We aim (i) to identify potential predictive factors for positive and negative appendicectomies; and (ii) to analyse the use of ultrasound scans (US) and computed tomography (CT) scans for acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: All appendicectomies that took place at our hospital from the 1st of January 2013 to the 31st of December 2015 were retrospectively recorded. Test results of potential predictive factors of acute appendicitis were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher exact test, logistic regression analysis, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values calculation. Results: 208 patients were included in this study. 184 patients had histologically proven acute appendicitis. The other 24 patients had either nonappendicitis pathology or normal appendix. Logistic regression analysis showed statistically significant associations between appendicitis and white cell count, neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, and bilirubin. Neutrophil count was the test with the highest sensitivity and negative predictive values, whereas bilirubin was the test with the highest specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). US and CT scans had high sensitivity and PPV for diagnosing appendicitis. Conclusions: No single test was sufficient to diagnose or exclude acute appendicitis by itself. Combining tests with high sensitivity (abnormal neutrophil count, and US and CT scans) and high specificity (raised bilirubin) may predict acute appendicitis more accurately.     

Stability in incidence of acute appendicitis. A population-based longitudinal study

BACKGROUND/AIM OF THE STUDY: During the past 50 years, a decrease in incidence of appendicitis has been reported. The various studies were retrospective and based on different data sources. In the present study, we analyze prospectively the incidence of acute appendicitis during a 10-year period in a well defined population of 265,000. METHODS: Prospective registration of all operations performed in patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the catchment area of a single institution. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis was based on histology in all cases. The annual incidence of acute appendicitis was calculated with regard to nonperforated and perforated acute appendicitis. MAIN RESULTS: Between 1989 and 1998, 2,861 patients underwent surgery for suspected acute appendicitis. In 2,232 (78%) patients, acute appendicitis was confirmed histologically. Mean annual incidence was 84/100,000 (95% confidence interval 80 to 88/100,000). Crude incidence remained stable during the study period, with the exception of a significant increase in 1991 followed by a significant decrease the next year. Nonperforated acute appendicitis showed a different incidence pattern as compared to perforated acute appendicitis. CONCLUSION: In our prospective study, the incidence of acute appendicitis remained stable in our well-defined study population during the study period of 10 years. This is in contrast to the majority of studies during the last decades.