Quilltm可吸收线与薇乔线在腹腔镜保留肾单位手术中的应用比较（附视频）

目的评价Quilltm可吸收线在腹腔镜保留肾单位手术（LNSS）的临床疗效。方法回顾分析同一时期腹腔镜下保留肾单位手术中15例采用Quilltm可吸收线（Quill组）和13例采用微乔可吸收线及Hem-o—lok（对照组）的临床资料，比较两种方法的手术时间、失血量、热缺血时间及肾实质缝合材料费用的差异。结果Quill组和对照组平均手术时间分别为（126．9±35．9）和（138．2±26．7）min（P〉0．05），平均失血量分别为（147．5±42．9）和（161．3±54．8）ml（P〉0．05），差异无统计学意义。平均热缺血时间分别为（24．1±3．8）和（27．4±3．1）min（P〈0．05），肾实质缝合材料平均费用分别为（1289．3±309．7）和（2409．2±336．7）ml（P〈0．01），差异有统计学意义。所有患者术后均无继发出血、感染或漏尿。结论LNSS采用Quilltm可吸收线安全可靠，在减少术中热缺血时间、节约医疗费用方面，优于普通缝合材料。

Comparison of Quilltm absorbable suture and VICRYL suture in laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery

Objective To evaluate the clinical value of Quilltm absorbable suture in laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery. Methods The clinical data of 15 cases receiving Quilltm absorbable suture （Quill group） and 13 cases receiving Vicryl absorption suture sith Hem-o-lok （control group） were retrospectively analyzed in laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery during the same period. Operating time, blood loss, warm ischemia time and the material cost difference of renal parenchymal suture were compared between Quill group and control group. Results The respective mean operating time were （126.9±35.9） and （138.2±26.7）min （P〉0.05） in Quill group and control group, the mean estimated blood loss were （147.5±42.9） and （161.3±54.8） ml （P〉0.05）, the respective mean warm ischemia time were （24.1±3.8） and （27.4±3.1） min（P〈0.05）, and the material cost of renal parenchymal suture were （1289.3±309.7） and （2409.2±336.7）ml （P〈0.01）. No post-operative bleeding, inflammation or leakage of urine occured. Conclusions The application of Quilltm absorbable suture in laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery could shorten warm isebemia time, with good safety and feasibility.