腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的对比研究

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的疗效。方法:回顾分析我院确诊为胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔52例患者的临床资料,其中28例行腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术(腹腔镜组),24例行开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术(开腹组),比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生率、术后肠道功能恢复时间、术后体温及住院时间。结果:腹腔镜组与开腹组手术时间分别为(78.75±25.178)min和(97.50±26.029)m in(P<0.05),术中出血量分别为(43.21±12.488)ml和(77.50±21.518)m l(P<0.001),并发症分别为3例和8例(P<0.05),术后体温>38℃分别为5例、11例,术后肠蠕动恢复时间分别为(2.33±0.816)d和(3.75±1.035)d(P<0.001),术后住院分别为(6.83±1.169)h和(10.00±1.309)h(P<0.001)。结论:胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者行腹腔镜手术与开腹手术一样安全,且具有创伤小、康复快、住院时间短等优点。     

腹腔镜消化性溃疡穿孔修补术的临床应用

目的:探讨腹腔镜手术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔的可行性。方法:自2006年初,对上消化道溃疡穿孔患者进行前瞻性随机对照研究,按照手术方式分为开腹手术组和腹腔镜手术组,至2010年末,有效病例160例。对比分析两组患者术后疼痛指数、住院时间及术后并发症发生率。结果:腹腔镜组术后疼痛指数、住院时间低于开腹组(P<0.05),两组术后并发症发生率无明显差异,术后随访半年均无复发。结论:腹腔镜上消化道溃疡穿孔修补术是安全有效的微创术式,在一定程度上优于传统开腹手术。     

腹腔镜在胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔治疗中的应用

目的　探讨腹腔镜在胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔治疗中的临床应用价值。　方法　回顾性分析腹腔镜手术组(99例)和开腹手术组(57例 )的临床资料和治疗效果。腹腔镜组包括医用ZT胶粘补溃疡穿孔 88例、穿孔缝合及大网膜覆盖修补术 11例,其中 6例同时行壁细胞迷走神经切断术 (partietalcellvagotomy, PCV);开腹手术组采用传统缝合修补术。　结果　腹腔镜组与传统开腹手术组在平均手术时间、术后一般恢复情况、腹腔平均引流量、术后并发症及治愈率上无显著性差异 (P>0. 05 )。而两组住院时间分别为(9. 2±4. 1)d和(11. 7±3. 2 )d,开腹手术组长于腹腔镜组 (P<0. 05 )。　结论　腹腔镜下行溃疡穿孔医用ZT胶粘补术、缝合修补术及PCV,具有微创的特点,操作较为简单,可望替代传统开腹溃疡穿孔修补术,但在手术方式上应注意适应证的选择。     

腹腔镜治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的应用体会

目的:探讨腹腔镜治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的应用价值及优越性。方法:回顾分析2005年1月至2008年12月我院应用腹腔镜手术治疗上消化道穿孔30例患者的临床资料。结果:30例中胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔28例,胃癌穿孔2例。28例腹腔镜手术成功,2例胃癌穿孔患者中转开腹。手术时间60～80min,平均(68.2±15.5)min。术后住院4～10d,平均6.2d。本组无并发症发生及死亡病例。结论:腹腔镜手术治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔具有患者痛苦小、损伤轻、康复快、并发症少、住院时间短等优点,疗效满意,值得临床推广应用。     

胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔腹腔镜与开腹手术的对比研究

目的探讨腹腔镜下胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的价值。方法比较2005年6月～2009年6月29例胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔行腹腔镜下穿孔修补(腔镜组)与33例行开腹穿孔修补(开腹组)的临床资料,2组术后均行正规抗溃疡治疗。结果腔镜组27例手术成功,2例因缝合困难中转开腹完成修补,术后无并发症发生。开腹组腹腔残余脓肿2例,切口感染2例,粘连性肠梗阻1例,并发症发生率为15.1%(5/33),显著高于腔镜组(P=0.043)。腔镜组手术时间(70.3±5.6)min与开腹组(67.7±5.8)min无统计学差异(t=1.754,P=0.085);腔镜组术后肠蠕动恢复时间(27.8±8.5)h,显著短于开腹组(62.2±11.2)h(t=-13.152,P=0.000);腔镜组住院时间(6.7±1.5)d显著短于开腹组(10.2±2.7)d(t=-6.013,P=0.000);腔镜组术后镇痛剂使用率7.4%(2/27)明显低于开腹组48.5%(16/33)(χ2=11.932,P=0.001)。结论腹腔镜下胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术比传统开腹修补术具有疼痛轻、恢复快、住院时间短、并发症少等优点,术后正规抗溃疡药物治疗,疗效满意。     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔修补术后治疗效果分析

目的:探讨腹腔镜辅助下胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔修补术及术后疗效及安全性。方法:回顾性分析手术治疗的胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔58例患者的临床资料,根据患者手术方法不同分为腹腔镜组(32例)和开腹组(26例),腹腔镜组在腹腔镜辅助下行穿孔修补术,开腹组行开腹穿孔修补术,比较两组患者手术时间、切口长度、术后下床活动时间、术后镇痛药物应用、术后胃肠道功能恢复、术后并发症发生率。结果:腹腔镜组手术时间、切口长度、术后下床活动时间、术后镇痛药物应用情况均优于开腹组(P0.05);腹腔镜组术后肛门排气时间短于开腹组(P0.05),术后胃肠道不良反应发生率低于开腹组(P0.05);腹腔镜组术后并发症的发生率明显低于开腹组(P0.05)。结论:腹腔镜辅助下胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔修补术具有手术时间短、创伤性小、术后胃肠道功能恢复良好等优点,可作为胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的首选治疗方案。     

腹腔镜与开腹对胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔治疗的临床疗效分析

目的探讨腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的疗效。方法将2015年1月至2016年9月我院收治的80例胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔患者作为研究对象进行前瞻性研究。根据随机数字法分为腹腔镜组和开腹组,各40例患者,开腹组采取传统的开腹手术修补穿孔治疗,腹腔镜组采取腹腔镜手术修补穿孔治疗,应用SPSS 22.0统计学软件进行统计学处理,术中及术后相关指标以均数±标准差(x珋±s)表示,组间比较采用独立t检验;术后并发症的发生率及复发率采用卡方(χ2)检验,以P0.05表示差异具有统计学意义。结果与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组的手术时间、切口长度、术后下床活动时间、肛门排气时间和住院时间均显著缩短,术中出血量显著降低,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);腹腔镜组术后并发症的发生率和复发率分别为5例(12.5%)和1例(2.5%),开腹组分别为13例(32.5%)和6例(15.0%),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜手术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔患者具有损伤小、手术时间短、恢复快、安全性高等特点,临床上应大力推广应用。     

腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的对比研究

目的探讨腹腔镜与开腹修补上消化道溃疡穿孔的手术疗效。方法回顾性分析2001年1月至2008年12月我院急诊行消化性溃疡穿孔修补术119例（于腹腔镜下完成47例。传统开腹完成72例）的相关资料。比较两种手术的手术时间、术后恢复情况、平均住院时间等。结果2组患者手术时间及并发症发生率比较无差异：术后恢复情况、平均住院时间腹腔镜组优于开腹手术组（差异均有显著性）。结论腹腔镜手术修补具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少、美容效果好等优点,是较理想的治疗上消化道溃疡急性穿孔手术方式。     

两镜联合技术在上消化道穿孔手术中的应用32例

探讨腹腔镜联合胃镜在上消化道穿孔修补术中的应用优势。对32例上消化道穿孔患者术中联合应用胃镜及腹腔镜,术中取活检送快速冷冻病理,对良性溃疡行腹腔镜下修补术,记录溃疡穿孔部位、及大小、手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、并发症及住院时间等。32例患者均经胃镜证实为上消化道穿孔,对其中31例良性溃疡穿孔患者行腹腔镜手术修补术,手术顺利,无副损伤。手术时间25~62 min,平均31min。术中出血5~12 mL,平均7 mL;术后排气时间26~51h,平均32 h;住院时间5~9 d,平均6.8 d。术后无并发症。出院3个月后门诊胃镜复查30例,溃疡痊愈。腹腔镜联合胃镜行修补术治疗上消化道穿孔具有诊断准确率高、术中定位准确、疗效好、创伤小、出血小、术后恢复快及并发症少等优点。     

腹腔镜下修补术治疗十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的临床疗效与安全性分析

目的分析腹腔镜下修补术治疗十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的临床疗效与安全性。方法回顾性分析2013年6月至2015年6月行十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔修补术的124例患者临床资料,根据手术方法不同分为腹腔镜组(腹腔镜下进行穿孔修补手术,62例)和开腹组(传统开腹穿孔修复手术,62例),采用SPSS 17.0软件进行分析,围术期各种指标及住院时间等计量资料采用平均值±标准差表示,进行t检验;术后体温高于38℃例数、胃肠道不良反应、术后疼痛程度情况以及术后并发症发生情况等计数资料采用例数或率表示,进行χ~2检验;P0.05差异有统计学意义。结果腹腔镜组患者的手术时间、术后首次下床活动时间、首次排气时间及平均住院时间均短于开腹组(P0.05);腹腔镜组术中出血量为(7.7±1.1)ml,明显少于开腹组(P0.05);术后体温高于38℃例数、胃肠道不良反应发生情况和并发症的发生率、术后第1天和第3天疼痛降低程度均明显优于开腹组(P0.05);术后12个月,腹腔镜组复发率为9.7%明显低于开腹组25.8%,以上差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜下修补术治疗十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔具有安全性好、疗效好、并发症少、恢复快等优点,值得广泛推广和应用。     

经脐单一部位腹腔镜手术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔

目的探讨经脐单一部位腹腔镜手术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔的可行性。方法2010年10月～2012年2月对18例消化性溃疡穿孔行经脐单一部位腹腔镜手术。脐上缘做一长约2．5cm弧形切口,分别置人5、5、10mmtroear,腹腔镜下完成溃疡穿孔修补术。结果17例顺利完成穿孔修补;1例术中探查发现穿孔位于胃窦部,直径达1．2em,周缘胃壁组织菲薄,修补困难,改三孔法手术穿孔处胃窦前壁部分切除及修补。17例单纯行穿孔修补手术时间95～110min,平均103min;1例行胃窦前壁部分切除及修补手术时间145rain。1例发生右膈下脓肿,经彩超引导下穿刺引流及抗感染治疗后治愈;其余患者术后发热时间28—36h,体温最高达38．1℃。术后未使用镇痛药物。无穿孔再发,无切口并发症发生。住院时间6～14d,平均7．2d。13例随访2～4个月,复查胃镜提示溃疡愈合。结论经脐单一部位腹腔镜手术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔安全可行。     

生物蛋白胶在腹腔镜治疗消化性溃疡穿孔中的应用

目的 探讨生物蛋白胶在腹腔镜治疗消化性溃疡穿孔中的应用价值.方法 选择消化性溃疡穿孔患者126例,按入院次序随机分成观察组和对照组各63例.对照组作常规修补,观察组按对照组修补方法完成修补后在修补处喷涂生物蛋白胶.比较两组术后引流量、拔管时间、消化道瘘发生率、肠粘连发生率、过敏反应及平均住院天数.结果 观察组未发生过敏反应;其术后引流量为(65.3±7.5)mL,显著低于对照组的(110.2±9.6)mL(P＜0.01).观察组无肠瘘及肠粘连发生;对照组经口服造影剂证实修补处有渗漏4例(4/63),均经B超引导下穿刺引流后痊愈.对照组术后肠粘连2例(2/63),均经非手术治疗后好转.两组并发症比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).观察组拔管时间为(25.4±3.2)h,显著低于对照组的(49.4±3.5)h(P＜0.01).观察组平均住院天数为(4.3±1.2)d,显著低于对照组的(6.5±1.4)d(P＜0.01).结论 生物蛋白胶应用于腹腔镜消化性溃疡穿孔修补术中,在封闭创面、促进溃疡愈合、预防胃或肠瘘及肠粘连等方面的效果确切,且无不良反应,值得临床推广.     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补的临床对比研究

[摘要]目的探讨腹腔镜修补术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的临床效果和优势。方法收集我院2007年3月至2012年12月问用腹腔镜行胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的28例临床资料,并将其与同期行开腹穿孔修补的32例病例进行回顾性病例对照研究。结果腹腔镜与开腹手术相比,手术时间、切口感染率和腹腔积液感染率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。但腹腔镜术中出血量、术后胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间、镇痛剂使用率等指标均显著优于开腹组（P〈0．01）。对两组患者进行随访,平均随访时间为15（3—28）个月,经胃镜检查均未见溃疡复发。结论腹腔镜治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔安全有效,具有侵袭性小、腹腔干扰小、术后痛苦小、肠功能恢复快、住院时间短等优点。     

腹腔镜缝合修补消化性溃疡穿孔29例报告

目的:探讨腹腔镜缝合修补消化性溃疡的临床应用价值。方法:回顾分析2002~2007年我院应用腹腔镜缝合修补消化性溃疡穿孔29例患者的临床资料。结果:29例患者中胃窦部前壁穿孔9例,胃体部小弯侧穿孔7例,十二指肠球部前壁穿孔11例,2例病检诊断为癌性溃疡穿孔中转开腹。穿孔直径≤5mm 22例,>5mm 7例。27例手术成功,无术后并发症发生。手术时间和住院时间短,均痊愈出院,随访6~42个月,无复发。结论:腹腔镜缝合修补消化性溃疡治疗消化性溃疡穿孔安全可靠,是一种较理想的手术方法,术后继续正规内科治疗,效果满意。     

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of open versus laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Omental patch repair with peritoneal lavage is the mainstay of treatment for perforated peptic ulcers in many institutions. Laparoscopic repair has been used to treat perforated peptic ulcers since 1990, but few randomized studies have been carried out to compare open versus laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: From January 1994 to June 1997, 130 patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to undergo either open or laparoscopic omental patch repair. Patients were excluded for a history of upper abdominal surgery, concomitant evidence of bleeding from the ulcer, or gastric outlet obstruction. Patients with clinically sealed-off perforations without signs of peritonitis or sepsis were treated without surgery. Laparoscopic repair would be converted to an open procedure for technical difficulties, nonjuxtapyloric gastric ulcers, or perforations larger than 10 mm. A Gastrografin meal was performed 48 to 72 hours after surgery to document sealing of the perforation. The primary end-point was perioperative parenteral analgesic requirement. Secondary endpoints were operative time, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications and deaths, and the date of return to normal daily activities. RESULTS: Nine patients with a surgical diagnosis other than perforated peptic ulcer were excluded; 121 patients entered the final analysis. There were 98 male and 23 female patients recruited, ages 16 to 89 years. The two groups were comparable in age, sex, site and size of perforations, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. There were nine conversions in the laparoscopic group. After surgery, patients in the laparoscopic group required significantly less parenteral analgesics than those who underwent open repair, and the visual analog pain scores in days 1 and 3 after surgery were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group as well. Laparoscopic repair required significantly less time to complete than open repair. The median postoperative stay was 6 days in the laparoscopic group versus 7 days in the open group. There were fewer chest infections in the laparoscopic group. There were two intraabdominal collections in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the laparoscopic group and three patients in the open group died after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe and reliable procedure. It was associated with a shorter operating time, less postoperative pain, reduced chest complications, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and earlier return to normal daily activities than the conventional open repair.     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术

目的:探讨腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的临床应用及手术操作要点。方法:腹腔镜下缝合修补溃疡穿孔18例。结果:腹腔镜下缝合修补溃疡穿孔均获成功,无并发症发生。结论:腹腔镜溃疡穿孔修补术创伤小,术后并发症少,操作简单,且集诊断及治疗于一体,显示了微创外科的优越性,是目前最适合普及的治疗溃疡穿孔的腹腔镜手术方法。     

Laparoscopic vs open repair of gastric perforation and abdominal lavage of associated peritonitis in pigs

Background: Laparoscopy is increasingly used in conditions complicated by peritonitis, e.g., peptic ulcer perforation. Of some theoretical concern is the capnoperitoneum, which may aggravate peritonitis and induce septic shock due to increased intraabdominal pressure and distension of the peritoneum. This animal study was devised to analyze the effectiveness of laparoscopic versus traditional open repair of gastric perforation and abdominal lavage for associated peritonitis. Methods: To simulate gastric perforation, female Duroc pigs were subjects to standardized gastrotomy. Either 6 or 12 h after gastric perforation, the animals underwent either traditional open or laparoscopic repair of the gastric defect and peritoneal lavage. The subjects were divided into the following four groups: peritonitis for 6 h and open surgery (group I) or laparoscopic surgery (group II); peritonitis for 12 h and open surgery (group III) or laparoscopic surgery (group IV). After an observation period of 6 days, the surviving animals were killed. The main outcome criteria were survival, perioperative changes of hemodynamics suggestive for septic shock, bacteremia, and endotoxemia. Results: There were no significant differences between group I and II. Mortality was 22% in group III, as compared to 78% in group IV (p= 0.045). In group IV, the incidence of perioperative bacteremia and plasma endotoxin concentrations were significantly higher than in group III. Concomitantly, decreased mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output suggested a higher incidence of septic shock in group IV. Conclusion: Critical appraisal of laparoscopic surgery is warranted in conditions associated with severe, longstanding peritonitis. Received: 28 February 1997/Accepted: 1 July 1997