腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术对比分析

目的：对比分析艘腔镜和开腹手术治疗急性阑尾炎的手术效果和优缺点。方法：将150例急性阑尾炎患者分为腹腔镜组（75例）和开放组（75例）,比较两组手术的临床指标及术后随访情况。结果：两组手术均顺利完成。腹腔镜组和开放组手术时间分别为31．1±2．1min和31．1±1．8min（t=0．00,P〉0．05）;术中出血量分别为16．2±2．8mL和28．3±5．3mL（t=64．62,P〈0．05）;术后下床活动时间分别为25．1±3．1h及50．5±2．1h（t=69．02,P〈0．05）;术后排气时间分别为29．6±1．6h和52．1±4．6h（t=10．92,P〈O．05）;住院时间分别为3．1±0．8d及7．9±1,3d（t=73．42,P〈0．05）;综合费用分别为6393±42元和4861±33元（t=-12．19,P〈0．06）;切口感染率分别为0和2％（χ2=25．40,P〈0．05）;止痛药使用频率分别为4％和32％（χ2=31．63,P〈0．05）。随访时间为1～6月（平均3．1）月,切口疝的发生率均为0。结论：腹腔镜治疗急性阑尾炎具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和平均住院时间短等优点,是治疗急性阑尾炎较为理想的手术方式。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术和开腹阑尾切除术对比分析

目的：观察腹腔镜阑尾切除术的效果。方法：随机分组行腹腔镜阑尾切除术（ＬＡ）５６例，开腹阑尾切除术（ＯＡ）６０例。结果：ＬＡ优于ＯＡ，具有手术时间短（３９．４分对５０．１分）、术后疼痛轻、胃肠功能恢复快（３２．３小时对４４．１小时），术后恢复正常活动早（８．４天对１３．５天），住院时间短（４．２天对８．５天）。但住院费用高于开腹手术。     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的系统评价

目的评价腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的临床效果。方法按照Cochrane系统评价方法,计算机检索PubMed、Wiley Online Library、Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆及中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国学术期刊网全文数据库(VIP)、中文科技期刊全文数据库(CNKI),检索时间截至2011年11月,并手工检索相关文献,查找比较腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的随机对照文献。由2位研究者按照纳入和排除标准筛选文献,评价质量并提取资料后采用RevMan 4.2.2进行Meta分析。分析两种手术方法的伤口感染、住院时间、手术时间、住院费用及腹腔脓肿发生率。结果纳入8篇随机对照试验,Meta分析结果显示,腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的伤口感染〔OR=0.19,95%CI(0.09,0.38),P<0.000 01〕、手术时间〔WMD=3.66,95%CI(0.50,6.82),P=0.02〕及住院费用〔WMD=503.96,95%CI(337.23,670.70),P<0.000 01〕比较,差异均有统计学意义;二者的住院时间〔WMD=-0.11,95%CI(-3.64,3.43),P=0.95〕及腹腔脓肿发生率〔OR=1.40,95%CI(0.23,8.64),P=0.71〕比较,差异无统计学意义。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除手术较开腹阑尾切除术伤口感染率低,但手术时间长,费用高;二者住院时间和腹腔脓肿发生率差异无统计学意义。     

传统的开腹阑尾切除术与腹腔镜阑尾切除术的比较

阑尾炎是外科常见病 ,是最多见的急腹症。传统的治疗方法是开腹阑尾切除术。我院自 2 0 0 2年 1月至 2 0 0 2年 11月开展阑尾切除术 116例 ,其中开腹 6 3例 ,腹腔镜 5 3例 ,现就临床资料报告如下。临床资料1.一般资料 :腹腔镜阑尾切除术 (laparoscopicappendecto my,LA)组 :5 3例 ,男 36例 ,女 17例 ,年龄 5～ 72岁 ,平均 37岁。 5 3例中慢性阑尾炎 4例 ,急性单纯性阑尾炎 2 2例 ,急性化脓性阑尾炎 2 2例 ,急性坏疽性阑尾炎 5例。 5 3例中白细胞 <15× 10 9/L者 2 5例 ,>15× 10 9/L者 2 8例。开腹阑尾切除术 (openappendectomy,OA)组 :6…     

开腹小切口阑尾切除与腹腔镜阑尾切除对比研究

我们对2006年1月至2009年6月收治的123例阑尾炎患者实施了腹腔镜阑尾切除术,并将其与同期收治的98例开腹小切口阑尾切除术进行临床综合比较,现报道如下。     

开腹阑尾切除术与腹腔镜阑尾切除术的对比研究

目的比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术（LA）与开腹阑尾切除术（OA）的临床疗效。方法本院通过预期的随机双盲研究来进行腹腔镜阑尾切除术（LA）与开腹阑尾切除术（OA）以及多临床外科中心资料的Meta分析（荟萃分析），在手术安全性与两种手术方式在各自优越性方面的比较。结果两种手术方式的术后并发症发生率相近（腹腔镜阑尾切除术组为18．5％，而开腹阑尾切除手术组为17．1％）。但腹腔镜术后的一些早期并发症需要再次手术，腹腔镜阑尾切除术的手术时间较长（LA：80min，OA：60min，P=0．000）。而2周后两种手术方式术后的恢复情况开始有差异：在活动能力及伤口疼痛方面差异无显著性，而身体的健康状况和生活质量比较（SF-36评分）方面，LA组显得比OA组要稍好一些。对于发生了急性期并发症（阑尾穿孔或阑尾周围脓肿形成）的急性阑尾炎患者行阑尾切除术的术后并发症相似（抛开技术因素，P=0．181）。多临床外科中心资料的Meta分析（荟萃分析）。两种手术方式的手术时间相近。但住院时间LA组明显短于0A组，切口感染率LA组少于OA组。结论与其他的微创手术过程不同，LA并没有表现出在各个方面都优于OA，除了在2周后的生活质量方面稍优于OA。同时LA组的手术时间相对长一些，而且费用较开腹阑尾切除组高。所以手术方式的选择还是基于外科医生对何种手术方式更熟练，及患者更喜爱选择何种手术方式。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术的对比研究

目的:探讨现阶段腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)相对开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)的优势与不足。方法:回顾分析2013年1月至2014年12月手术治疗的228例阑尾炎患者的临床资料,分别施行LA(LA组)与OA(OA组),对比分析两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后胃肠道功能恢复时间、术后下床活动时间、住院时间、总住院费用、切口长度、切口愈合不良与腹盆腔积液形成的发生率等指标。结果:两组手术时间、术中出血量差异无统计学意义,术后胃肠道功能恢复时间、下床活动时间、住院时间、总住院费用、切口长度、切口愈合不良与腹盆腔积液形成的发生率差异有统计学意义。结论:LA具有术中探查视野好、手术创伤小、术后胃肠道功能恢复快、下床活动时间早、住院时间短的优势,但也有住院费用增加、手术技术要求高的不足,限制了其广泛开展。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术的对比研究

目的比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)与开腹阑尾切除术(OA)治疗急性阑尾炎的疗效和手术安全性。方法回顾性分析2010年7～12月期间的50例LA患者的临床资料,与同期55例施行OA的患者进行比较。结果 LA组与OA组在手术时间及术中出血量方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);LA组术后肠功能恢复时间、下床活动时间及住院时间均明显短于OA组(P<0.05),LA组镇痛药使用率及术后并发症发生率明显少于OA组(P<0.05);但住院费用LA组高于OA组(P<0.05)。结论 LA在治疗阑尾炎方面有明显优势,值得推广。     

腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术的临床对比研究

目的 比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术的临床治疗效果。方法 采用我院2008年1月至2011年6月间腹腔镜阑尾切除术的患者62例与传统开腹阑尾切除术102例做对比,比较两者在手术时间、术后胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间和术后并发症等方面的发生率有无显著性差异。结果 两者在术后胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间和术后并发症发生率上有显著性差异。结论 腹腔镜阑尾切除术相对于开腹阑尾切除术,术后胃肠功能恢复时间快,住院时间短,术后并发症少。     

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。     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in acute appendicitis: A randomized prospective study

Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure, as both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool. It seems to be more effective than the corresponding open procedure. Aim of this study is to evaluate a group of patients randomly allocated either to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) or to open appendectomy (OA). Methods: From January 1998 to December 2002, 252 consecutive and nonselected patients, 155 women and 97 men, were randomized either to LA or OA. Recorded data were operative time, postoperative length, of stay and complications. Results: Mean operative time was 45 min (range 30–120) for OA and 36 min (25–60) for LA, mean postoperative stay was 5.5 days (4–12) for OA and 3.4 days (2–8) for LA. Complication occurred in 20 patients (14.5%) for OA and in four patients (2.6%) for LA. Conclusion: We believe that LA is effective in any kind of clinical situation, with low traumatic impact and best comfort for the patient.     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的疗效分析

目的 比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)和开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)治疗急性阑尾炎的结果.方法 将2005年5月至2010年5月收治的396例行阑尾切除术的急性阑尾炎病人按手术方法分为LA组和OA组,比较分析两组病人的临床资料.结果 LA组与...     

腹腔镜与开放手术治疗急性阑尾炎的疗效比较

目的 对比分析腹腔镜和开腹手术治疗急性阑尾炎的手术效果和优缺点.方法 将1558例急性阑尾炎患者分为腹腔镜组(779例)和开放组(779例),比较两组手术的临床指标及术后随访情况.采用SPSS11.5软件,计量资料采用t检验,计数资料采用X~2检验.结果 两组手术均顺利完成.腹腔镜组和开放组手术时间分别为(30±2.2)min和(30±1.6)min(t=0.00,P>0.05);术中出血量分别为(15±2.9)ml及(29±5.2)ml(t=65.62,P<0.05);术后下床活动时间分别为(26±3.1)h及(51±2.1)h(t=69.95,P<0.05);术后排气时间分别为(29±1.6)h及(52±4.6)h(t=10.92,P<0.05);住院时间分别为(3±0.9)d及(7±1.2)d(t=74.42,P<0.05);综合费用分别为(6591±41)元及(4860±32)元(t=-12.19,P<0.05);切口感染率分别为0及2.8%(X~2=25.40,P<0.05);止痛药使用频率分别为3.8%和31.4%(X~2=30.63,P<0.05).随访时间为4.5～9.8(平均6.8)年,切口疝的发生率分别为0及0.64%(X~2=5.01,P<0.05).结论 腹腔镜手术治疗急性阑尾炎具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和平均住院时间短等优点,是治疗急性阑尾炎较为理想的手术方式.     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术在急性和慢性阑尾炎中应用疗效的比较

目的 通过探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术在治疗急性和慢性阑尾炎中疗效的优缺点,总结腹腔镜阑尾切除术的手术经验.方法 连续收集北京大学人民医院自2008年6月至2009年12月129例阑尾炎患者的资料,比较急性阑尾炎患者腹腔镜与开腹手术的临床效果,以及急性与慢性阑尾炎的腹腔镜治疗效果.结果 对于急性阑尾炎患者,接受腹腔镜手术患者术后住院时间明显少于开腹组[(4.8±2.6)d比(7.0±1.3)d,t=0.679,P=0.006].在接受腹腔镜组阑尾切除术的患者中,急性阑尾炎患者的平均手术时间[(77±33) min比(55±23) min,t=3.431,P＜0.01]、术后首次排气时间[(2.3±1.2)d比(1.4±0.9)d,t=4.665,P＜0.01]、术后首次进食时间[(2.3±1.4)d比(1.2±0.6)d,t=4.517,P＜0.01)]均长于慢性阑尾炎患者.结论 腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎安全可行;与慢性阑尾炎患者相比,急性阑尾炎患者行腹腔镜阑尾切除术可能导致更多的术后腹腔脓肿和小肠梗阻等并发症.     

肥胖患者行腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术疗效的对比研究

目的 对比分析肥胖患者行腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的临床效果.方法 回顾性分析2008-2010年因急性阑尾炎在中国医科大学附属盛京医院行阑尾切除术的肥胖患者153例的临床资料.153例中,腹腔镜阑尾切除术92例(其中4例转为开腹),开腹阑尾切除术61例,对两种术式的手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后止痛药使用频率、术后主要并发症的发生率、住院时间和住院费用进行比较.计数资料比较采用x2检验,计量资料采用t检验.结果 腹腔镜阑尾切除术组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后止痛药使用频率、术后主要并发症的发生率、住院时间方面均短于或少于开腹阑尾切除术组,差异有统计学意义(手术时间:t=14.0,P＜0.01;术中出血量:t =19.7,P＜0.01;术后排气时间:t=12.3,P＜0.01;术后止痛药使用频率:t=21.01,P＜0.01;术后主要并发症的发生率:x2=40.138,P＜0.01;住院时间:t=17.3,P＜0.01).两者在住院总花费上的差异无统计学意义(=1.434,P =0.154).结论 肥胖患者行腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗阑尾炎与开腹阑尾切除术相比具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和平均住院时间短等优点,是治疗肥胖阑尾炎患者理想的手术方式.     

Laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy

AIM: To compare laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy in light of recent data at our centre.METHODS: The data of patients who underwen appendectomy between January 2011 and June 2013 were collected. The data included patients' demographic data, procedure time, length of hospital stay, the need for pain medicine, postoperative visual analog scale o pain, and morbidities. Pregnant women and patients with previous lower abdominal surgery were excluded Patients with surgery converted from laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) to mini-incision open appendectomy(MOA) were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: LA and MOA done by the same surgeon. The patients were randomized into MOA and LA groups a computer-generated number. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made by the surgeon with physica examination, laboratory values, and radiological tests(abdominal ultrasound or computed tomography). Al operations were performed with general anaesthesia The postoperative vision analog scale score was recorded at postoperative hours 1, 6, 12, and 24. Patients were discharged when they tolerated normal food and passed gas and were followed up every week for three weeks as outpatients.RESULTS: Of the 243 patients, 121(49.9%) underwen MOA, while 122(50.1%) had laparoscopic appendectomy There were no significant differences in operation time between the two groups(P = 0.844), whereas the visua analog scale of pain was significantly higher in the open appendectomy group at the 1st hour(P = 0.001), 6th hour(P = 0.001), and 12 th hour(P = 0.027). The need for analgesic medication was significantly higher in the MOA group(P = 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of morbidity rate(P = 0.599)The rate of total complications was similar between the two groups(6.5% in LA vs 7.4% in OA, P = 0.599). Al wound infections were treated non-surgically. Six ou of seven patients with pelvic abscess were successfully treated with percutaneous drainage; one patient requiredsurgical drainage after a failed percutaneous drainage. There were no differences in the period of hospital stay, operation time, and postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy decreases the need for analgesic medications and the visual analog scale of pain.CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic appendectomy should be considered as a standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Mini-incision appendectomy is an alternative for a select group of patients.     

小儿复杂性阑尾炎的腹腔镜治疗

目的 对比分析腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)和开腹阑尾切除术( open appendectomy,OA)治疗伴有坏疽、穿孔及阑尾周围脓肿的儿童阑尾炎的疗效.方法 回顾性分析614例儿童复杂性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,比较LA组(267例)和OA组(347例)手术时间、住院时间、住院费用及术后并发症的发生率.结果 本组614例患者中无手术死亡发生,LA组有7例中转开腹手术,LA组术后住院时间较OA组短(4.6d比8.1d,P=0.00),Trocar孔或切口感染(5.3％比12.8％,P=0.03)、肠梗阻(5.0％比10.0％,P=0.04)及院内感染发生率(9.7％比18.3％,P=0.04)均较OA组低.术后LA组腹腔脓肿发生率较OA组高(4.1％比1.1％,P=0.04),差异有统计学意义.两组的手术时间及费用之间比较差异无统计学意义(均P＞0.05).结论 LA具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少、住院时间短等优点,是治疗儿童复杂性阑尾炎一种安全有效的手术方式,但术后腹腔脓肿发生率偏高.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy is superior to open appendectomy in obese patients

BACKGROUND: There are minimal data comparing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) in obese patients. METHODS: We reviewed consecutive adult patients from 2003 to 2005 who underwent an appendectomy at a University-affiliated teaching hospital. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of 30 or greater. Outcome measures included length of stay, surgical times, intra-abdominal abscesses, wound infections, and hospital charges. RESULTS: There were 116 patients with a mean body mass index of 35. Eighty-five patients underwent LA, 12 were converted to open, 4 of 12 (31%) were perforated. Thirty-one patients underwent OA. Overall, 21 (18%) were perforated. Length of stay for LA was better, 3.4 days versus 5.5 days for OA (P = .02), and wound closure rate was better, 90% for LA versus 68% for OA (P < .01). Other outcome measures were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: LA is associated with shorter lengths of stay, fewer open wounds, and equivalent hospital charges and intra-abdominal abscess rates; and should be considered the procedure of choice for obese patients with appendicitis.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

Background: Although laparoscopic appendectomy is widely practiced in developed countries, still there are many questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this approach in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Several controlled trials have been conducted, some in favor of laparoscopic appendectomy others not. The aim of this study was to evaluate laparoscopic appendectomy in comparison with open appendectomy, with special emphasis on postoperative septic complications. Methods: For this study, 227 consecutive patients (159 males and 68 females) with a diagnosis of suspected appendicitis between 1995 and 1999 were assigned either to laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 108) or open appendectomy (n = 119). The patients were assigned according to insurance company approval and patient preference. There were no exclusion criteria and no age limits in this study. Results: Wound infection was significantly higher in the open group (incidence, 7.6%) than in the laparoscopic group (incidence, 0%; p < 0.003). Intraabdominal infections were equal in both groups. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.046), but operative time was little longer than in the open group (p < 0.002). Conversion to open surgery was necessary in one case. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as the open procedure. It significantly reduces the rate of postoperative wound infection. However, it is still acceptable to perform the open procedure, especially in hospitals without a large amount of laparoscopic experience.