微创小切口与传统手术治疗急性阑尾炎的临床观察

目的比较微创小切口与传统手术治疗急性阑尾炎的临床疗效及安全性。方法收集符合标准的患者80例，采用随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组各40例，观察组应用微创小切口行阑尾切除术，对照组采用传统麦氏切口行阑尾切除术，比较二者临床疗效。结果观察组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后活动时间、术后排气时间及住院时间明显优于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。观察组临床疗效优26例、良12例和可2例；对照组临床疗效优19例、良15例、可5例和差1例（2．50％），差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。观察组术后并发症发生率7．50％，低于对照组的22．50％，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论微创小切口手术治疗急性阑尾炎具有创伤小，恢复快，临床效果确切，手术瘢痕不明显，值得临床广泛应用，尤其适合基层医院开展。

The Clinical Observation of Small Incision Minimally Invasive and Traditional Surgery for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

Objective To compare the clinical curative effect and safety of small incision minimally invasive and traditional surgery for acute appendicitis. Methods Collecting 80 standard patients, randomly divided into observation group and control group each with 40 cases, The observation group were treated with minimally invasive small incision appendectomy, the control group were treated with traditional McNamara line incision appendectomy, compare their clinical curative effect. Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative activity time and length of hospital stay, postoperative exhaust time of the observation group was better than that of the control group, which suggest statistically significance （P 〈 0.05）. Clinical curative effect of the observation group, 26 cases; But that of the control group only 19 cases were good, 15 cases were fine, 5 cases just up to the standard, and 1 case （2.50%） was poor, which suggsted statistically significance （P 〈 0.05）. Incidence of postoperative complications of observation group is 7.50%, less than that of the control group which is 22.50%, which suggsted statistically significance （P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion The small incision minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of acute appendicitis with small trauma, rapid recovery, precise clinical effect, little operation scar, is worth wide application in the clinical practice, especially for grass-roots hospitals.