腹腔镜下阑尾切除术临床应用探讨（附536例报告）

目的探讨腹腔镜下阑尾切除术在外科领域的价值和手术技巧的。方法收集我院2004～2007年完成阑尾切除术536例，腹腔镜下阑尾切除286例和开腹阑尾切除250例进行对照分析。结果两组病例在年龄、性别、病情等方面的构成差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），与开腹手术相比，腹腔镜下阑尾切除创伤小，出血少，术后肠功能恢复快，而且并发症少，住院时间缩短，同时具有腹腔内直视下探查作用。结论阑尾切除术应用腹腔镜技术优于开腹手术，具有一定的临床价值。     

肥胖病人行腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹手术的疗效对比分析

目的对比分析腹腔镜阑尾切除术和开腹阑尾切除术治疗肥胖病人阑尾炎的手术效果。方法回顾性分析2003年1月-2007年11月我院行阑尾切除术治疗肥胖病人阑尾炎104例的临床资料。其中,行腹腔镜阑尾切除术73例,开腹阑尾切除术31例。比较两种术式的手术时间、切口感染和残余脓肿的发生率、住院时间和住院费用的差异。结果比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术组和开腹阑尾切除术组以上各项指标（除住院时间外）差异均无显著性意义（P〉0．05）。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗肥胖病人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,是治疗肥胖病人阑尾炎较理想的手术方式。     

��������β���и�ǻ���뿪����������Ч�Աȷ���

目的　对比分析腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术在治疗穿孔性阑尾炎中的手术效果。方法　 2 0 0 0年 1月至 2 0 0 4年 1月行阑尾切除术治疗穿孔性阑尾炎 12 8例 ,其中腹腔镜阑尾切除术 5 6例 ,开腹阑尾切除术 72例。比较两种术式的手术时间、下床活动时间、术后排气时间、疼痛评分、止痛药使用率、切口感染率、置管引流率、残余脓肿发生率、住院时间和综合费用。结果　比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术组和开腹阑尾切除术组以上各指标 (除手术时间和综合费用外 )差异均有显著意义 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论　腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗穿孔性阑尾炎和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 ,是治疗穿孔性阑尾炎较理想的手术方式。     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的临床比较

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹手术切除阑尾的优缺点。方法:回顾性分析我院2010年1月1日—2012年3月31日292例行阑尾切除术患者的临床资料,根据手术方法分为单孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组、多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组和开腹阑尾手术组,比较手术时间、出血量、术后排气时间、术后住院时间切口愈合等级及感染率。结果:单孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组中1例转为多孔法,多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组中1例中转开腹,其余患者均完成手术。2例多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术患者术后并发粘连性肠梗阻,经保守治疗后好转。与传统开腹手术相比,腹腔镜阑尾切除术手术时间短、出血量少、术后排气快、术后住院时间短;对于急性单纯性阑尾炎,单孔腹腔镜手术比多孔法出血更少,瘢痕更小。结论:腹腔镜阑尾切除术对腹部干扰少,单孔法切口更为隐蔽,在熟练掌握手术技术的前提下可以广泛应用。     

腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的前瞻性、随机化的对比研究

目的：评价电视腹腔镜对急性阑尾炎手术治疗的价值。方法：对183例患者进行随机化的腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的对比研究，78例被分配至行开腹阑尾切除术，而105例行腹腔镜阑尾切除术，比较手术时间、术后疼痛评分、运动功能指数、下床活动时间、住院活动时间、住院时间、切口美观指数、切口感染、腹腔残余脓肿及完全康复时间为观察指标。结果：腹腔镜阑尾切除术组和常规剖腹手术组相比，以上各指标（除手术时间外）均有显著的统计学意义（P＜0．05）。结论：腹腔镜阑尾切除术相比常规开腹手术具有术后疼痛轻、下床活动早、住院时间短、恢复快、切口感染少而且美观，可较早地恢复工作和学习等优点。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗阑尾周围脓肿的临床效果观察

目的比较开腹与腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗阑尾周围脓肿的效果。方法随机将52例阑尾周围脓肿患者分为2组,每组26例。腔镜组采用腹腔镜阑尾切除术,开腹组采用开腹阑尾切除术。比较2组的治疗效果。结果 2组患者均顺利完成手术。2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腔镜组术中出血量、并发症发生率、术后抗生素应用时间、住院时间均优于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论传统开腹与应用腹腔镜实施阑尾切除术治疗阑尾周围脓肿均有可靠效果。但腹腔镜手术微创性更好、患者术后并发症少、恢复时间更短,安全性更为可靠。在严格掌握手术适应证的基础上可作为阑尾周围脓肿的首选治疗方案。     

老年急性阑尾炎腹腔镜阑尾切除术体会

目的总结腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗老年急性阑尾炎的治疗效果。方法将108例老年急性阑尾炎患者分为2组,各54例。治疗组行腹腔镜阑尾切除术,对照组采用传统开腹阑尾切除术。比较2组患者的切口感染率、手术时间、排气时间、术中出血量以及术后疼痛评分等。结果 2组均顺利完成手术。治疗组疗效优于对照组,差异有统计学意义。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术具有疼痛轻、切口小、出血量少、术后恢复快及感染并发症少,值得临床中推广。     

腹腔镜下阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性穿孔性阑尾炎对患者胃肠功能恢复情况及炎症反应的影响

目的 分析腹腔镜下阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性穿孔性阑尾炎的疗效.方法 选取2018年2月至2021年1月肇庆高新区人民医院普外科收治的63例急性穿孔性阑尾炎患者,随机分为开腹组(30例)和腹腔镜组(33例).开腹组采用开腹阑尾切除术进行治疗,腹腔镜组采用腹腔镜下阑尾切除术进行治疗.比较两组肠胃功能恢复情况、炎症...     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术临床价值再探讨

目的再次探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术的手术价值。方法收集川北医学院附属医院普通外科2009年4月至2010年12月期间收治的已行阑尾切除术的阑尾炎患者共200例的临床资料,比较行腹腔镜阑尾切除术(腹腔镜组)和开腹阑尾切除术(开腹组)患者的手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、术后肛门排气时间、术后疼痛得分、手术并发症等。结果腹腔镜组8例患者中转开腹。腹腔镜组住院费用高于开腹组(P<0.05);慢性阑尾炎、急性单纯性阑尾炎、发病36 h内的急性化脓性阑尾炎在腹腔镜组较开腹组手术时间短、术后住院时间短、肛门排气时间较早、术后疼痛轻(P<0.05);超过36 h的急性化脓性阑尾炎及急性坏疽性阑尾炎2组在术后住院时间、肛门排气时间、术后疼痛方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);急性坏疽性阑尾炎在腹腔镜组手术时间较开腹组长(P<0.05),但腹腔镜组切口感染率较开腹组低(P<0.05)。结论慢性阑尾炎、急性单纯性阑尾炎、发病36 h内的急性化脓性阑尾炎经腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗效果确切,优点突出,应用价值明确;而对于发病超过36 h的急性化脓性阑尾炎及急性坏疽性阑尾炎腹腔镜阑尾切除术手术操作困难,中转率高,术后恢复较开腹手术没有明显优势,并且增加了医疗费用,应用价值不大。     

基层医院老年急性阑尾炎腹腔镜手术疗效观察

目的 比较腹腔镜手术与开腹手术对治疗老年急性阑尾炎的临床疗效。方法 将2008年10月至 2010年10月间收治的83例老年急性阑尾炎患者分为腹腔镜阑尾切除术组(1aparoscopic appendectomy, LA) 43例,开腹阑尾切除术组(open appendectomy, OA) 40例,对比两组在两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后下床活动时间、术后进食时间、住院时间、使用止痛药、切口感染情况。结果 腹腔镜手术组和开腹手术组以上各指标(除术中出血量外)比较差异均有统计学意义。结论 腹腔镜治疗老年阑尾炎安全可靠,具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和住院时间短等优点,应在基层医院推广与应用。     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis

Purpose

To address whether laparoscopic appendectomy could be an alternative to conventional open appendectomy in children with complicated appendicitis as well as uncomplicated appendicitis, a retrospective study comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies was performed.

Methods

One hundred patients who were treated by immediate appendectomy, either laparoscopically or by the open method, between May 2000 and August 2003 were included in the study. There were 53 patients in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 47 patients in the open appendectomy group.

Results

The operating time was significantly longer for laparoscopic appendectomy than for open appendectomy (P < .001). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (P = .001). Thirteen of the 100 patients (13.0%) had 15 postoperative complications including wound infection (n = 8), intraabdominal abscess (n = 4), stitch abscess (n = 2), and small bowel obstruction (n = 1). In both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, there was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open appendectomies in the complication rates, and the incidences of each complication did not differ between the procedures. Among the 14 patients with generalized peritonitis, postoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (35.7%). Although the presence of generalized peritonitis was associated significantly with postoperative complications (P = .017), there was no significant association between the procedure and complications. Overall treatment costs were increased by 26.0% in laparoscopic appendectomy.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic appendectomy should remain an option in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, and when laparoscopy is selected, consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure is essential.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis

PURPOSE: There is persistent controversy regarding the optimal surgical therapy for children with appendicitis. We have recently adopted laparoscopic appendectomy in lieu of the open technique for children with perforated appendicitis. We hypothesized that laparoscopic appendectomy would be as effective as open appendectomy in preventing postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of children admitted to our hospital over a 5-year period with the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Patients were divided into two groups based on the operative approach: laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy. Demographic data, duration of presenting symptoms, initial white blood cell (WBC) count, length of stay, and complications were abstracted. Data were compared using appropriate statistical analyses. RESULTS: There was no difference between the laparoscopic (n = 43) and open (n = 77) groups with respect to gender, duration of presenting symptoms, initial WBC, or length of stay. However, patients in the laparoscopic group had a significantly lower complication rate than those in the open group (6/43 vs. 23/77, P = 0.05). Infectious complications were no different between groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group tended to be older than patients in the open group (10.6 +/- 3.3 years vs. 8.5 +/- 4.1 years, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis has the same infectious complication rate and a lower overall complication rate than open appendectomy. A prospective study with standardized postoperative care would be needed to determine whether laparoscopic appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis is the treatment of choice, but until then it remains an attractive alternative.     

Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Although a number of trials have analyzed the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, the clinical advantages, and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic appendectomy in the management of acute and perforated appendicitis are still not clearly defined. The aim of this study was to examine utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy using a national administrative database of academic medical centers and teaching hospitals. METHODS: Using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes, we obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for all patients who underwent appendectomy for acute and perforated appendicitis between 1999 and 2003 (n = 60,236). Trends in utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy were examined over the 5-year period. The outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy were compared including length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, complications, observed and expected (risk-adjusted) in-hospital mortality, and costs. RESULTS: Overall, 41,085 patients underwent open appendectomy and 19,151 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. The percentage of appendectomy performed by laparoscopy increased from 20% in 1999 to 43% in 2003 (P <0.01). Compared with patients who underwent open appendectomy, patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were more likely female, more likely white, had a lower severity of illness, and were less likely to have perforated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (2.5 days vs 3.4 days), lower rate of 30-day readmission (1.0% vs 1.3%), and lower rate of overall complications (6.1% vs 9.6%). There was no significant difference in the observed to expected mortality ratio between laparoscopic and open appendectomy (0.5 vs 0.6, respectively). The mean cost per case was similar between the two groups (US$ 6,242 vs US$ 6,260). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy at academic centers has increased more than two-fold between 1999 and 2003. Patients selected for laparoscopic appendectomy have less advanced appendicitis and have a shorter length of stay and fewer complications without increasing the inpatient care cost.     

The surgeon on call is a strong factor determining the use of a laparoscopic approach for appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic and open approaches are commonly used for appendectomy. No previous studies have specifically examined which factors determine whether a laparoscopic or open approach is used for appendectomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 140 patients who underwent a laparoscopic (n = 60) or open (n = 80) appendectomy between January 2000 and April 2001 at our hospital. Medical records were reviewed, and the data were analyzed using chi-square analysis, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and multivariate logistic regression. We studied patient age, gender, type of surgeon on call, leukocyte count, pathology, and the use of diagnostic imaging to determine whether there was any association with the use of a laparoscopic approach. RESULTS: The type of surgeon on call was strongly correlated with a laparoscopic approach. Of the 61 appendectomies performed by laparoscopic surgeons (those who use laparoscopy for operations other than appendectomies and cholecystectomies), 55 (90%) were laparoscopic and 6 (10%) were open. Of the 79 appendectomies performed by nonlaparoscopic surgeons, 5 (6%) were laparoscopic and 74 (94%) were open (multivariate odds ratio, 136; 95% confidence interval, 39-475; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The surgeon on call when a patient is admitted is an important factor determining whether a patient will receive a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.     

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Open versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Men

n = 31) or laparoscopic ( n = 33) appendectomy. Of the 64 men, 56 (87.5%) had appendicitis (27 open, 29 laparoscopic procedures). The mean operating times were 50.6 ± 3.7 minutes (± SEM) for open and 58.9 ± 4.0 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy ( p = 0.13). Five (15%) patients randomized to laparoscopic appendectomy had an open operation. The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer for open appendectomy (3.8 ± 0.4 days) than for laparoscopic appendectomy (2.9 ± 0.3 days) ( t = 2.05, df = 62, p = 0.045). The complication rate after open appendectomy (25.8%) was not significantly different from that after laparoscopic appendectomy (12.1%). There was a single postoperative death due to a pulmonary embolus in the laparoscopic group and a single death due to cardiac and renal failure in the open group. The mean time to return to normal activities was significantly longer following open appendectomy (19.7 ± 2.4 days) than after laparoscopic appendectomy (10.4 ± 0.9 days), ( t = 3.75, df = 49, p = 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic appendectomy in men has significant advantages in terms of a more rapid recovery compared to open appendectomy. There were no significant disadvantages to laparoscopic appendectomy compared to open appendectomy.     

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。     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database

OBJECTIVE: To compare length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and rate of routine discharge between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a representative, nationwide database. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Numerous single-institutional randomized clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The results, however, are conflicting, and a consensus concerning the relative advantages of each procedure has not yet been reached. METHODS: Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that approximates 20% of all US community hospital discharges. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted endpoints. RESULTS: Discharge abstracts of 43757 patients were used for our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent laparoscopic and 36139 patients (82.6%) open appendectomy. Patients had an average age of 30.7 years and were predominantly white (58.1%) and male (58.6%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter median hospital stay (laparoscopic appendectomy: 2.06 days, open appendectomy: 2.88 days, P < 0.0001), lower rate of infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5 [0.38, 0.66], P < 0.0001), decreased gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.8 [0.68, 0.96], P = 0.02), lower overall complications (OR = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94], P = 0.002), and higher rate of routine discharge (OR = 3.22 [2.47, 4.46], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.     

Institutioning a clinical practice guideline to decrease the rate of normal appendectomies

With the advent of laparoscopic appendectomy, the rate of normal appendectomies increased at our institution. To decrease our rate of normal appendectomies, we instituted a clinical practice guideline in January 1999 for the preoperative evaluation and treatment of patients with possible acute appendicitis. The medical records of 464 consecutive patients who underwent either open or laparoscopic appendectomy with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2000, were reviewed. The decision of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy was made at the time of surgery by the attending surgeon. Two hundred twelve patients (116 females, 96 males) underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis (142 open, 70 laparoscopic) from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998, prior to the institution of the guideline. Two hundred fifty-two patients (117 females, 135 males) underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis (193 open, 59 laparoscopic) from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000 (after the guideline was instituted). Prior to the guideline, the normal appendectomy rate was 21.7 per cent (18.3% open, 28.6% laparoscopic). After the guideline was instituted, the normal appendectomy rate was 16.7 per cent (14.5% open, 23.7% laparoscopic). In females, the normal appendectomy rate prior to the guideline was 31.0 per cent (26.6% open, 36.5% laparoscopic) while the normal appendectomy rate after the guideline was 23.1 per cent (19.0% open, 31.6% laparoscopic), P = 0.172. In males, the normal appendectomy rate prior to the guideline was 10.4 per cent (11.5% open, 5.6% laparoscopic) while the normal appendectomy rate after the guideline was 11.1 per cent (11.4% open, 9.5% laparoscopic), P = 0.861. By instituting a guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of possible acute appendicitis, we were able to decrease our rate of normal appendectomies. Although statistical significance was not reached, there is a trend toward decreasing the rate of normal appendectomies in females after the guideline was instituted.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with a body mass index of 25 or greater: results of a double blind, prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The reported advantages of the laparoscopic approach to appendectomy are shortened hospital stay, less postoperative pain, and earlier return to usual activities (work). However, a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy in active-duty males failed to disclose a benefit of laparoscopic appendectomy with regards to postoperative pain and return to work. The aim of our study was to compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in overweight patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to determine whether laparoscopic appendectomy or the open procedure in overweight patients offers a significant reduction in lost workdays, postoperative pain, or operative time from. Open appendectomy in overweight patients (those with a body mass index > or =25) may be more difficult due to excessive subcutaneous adipose tissue. The open incision may be of considerable size, which may result in increased postoperative pain and a prolonged convalescence. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in operative time for laparoscopic appendectomy of 11 minutes. As expected, the aggregate incision length for open appendectomy was twice that of the laparoscopic appendectomy. CONCLUSION: The data from this prospective, randomized, double-blind study failed to demonstrate any significant reduction in lost workdays, postoperative pain, or operative time with laparoscopic appendectomy.