浏览全部资源
扫码关注微信
腹腔镜下荷包包埋与可吸收夹夹闭处理阑尾残端的临床对照研究
Comparison of purse-string suture and absorbable clip clamping in closing appendiceal stump under laparoscope
- 局解手术学杂志 2023年32卷第5期 页码：444-446
- 作者机构：
四川大学华西公共卫生学院/四川大学华西第四医院微创外科,四川 成都 610041
- 作者简介：
龙飞伍，E-mail：longfw1978@sina.com
- 基金信息：
DOI：10.11659/jjssx.01E023009
中图分类号： R614.2纸质出版日期：2023-05-25，
收稿日期：2023-01-03，
扫 描 看 全 文
潘刚,谢国伟,龙飞伍.腹腔镜下荷包包埋与可吸收夹夹闭处理阑尾残端的临床对照研究[J].局解手术学杂志,2023,32(05):444-446.
PAN Gang,XIE Guo-wei,LONG Fei-wu.Comparison of purse-string suture and absorbable clip clamping in closing appendiceal stump under laparoscope[J].JOURNAL OF REGIONAL ANATOMY AND OPERATIVE SURGERY,2023,32(05):444-446.
潘刚,谢国伟,龙飞伍.腹腔镜下荷包包埋与可吸收夹夹闭处理阑尾残端的临床对照研究[J].局解手术学杂志,2023,32(05):444-446. DOI： 10.11659/jjssx.01E023009.
PAN Gang,XIE Guo-wei,LONG Fei-wu.Comparison of purse-string suture and absorbable clip clamping in closing appendiceal stump under laparoscope[J].JOURNAL OF REGIONAL ANATOMY AND OPERATIVE SURGERY,2023,32(05):444-446. DOI： 10.11659/jjssx.01E023009.
摘要
选取我院因急性阑尾炎而接受腹腔镜下阑尾切除术的患者525例，根据术中阑尾残端处理方式分为包埋组（腹腔镜下阑尾根部丝线结扎，荷包缝合包埋阑尾残端）及非包埋组（阑尾根部给予可吸收夹夹闭2次）。比较2组患者手术治疗情况及手术时间、住院时间、住院费用、术后1个月并发症发生率。
结果
2
2组患者均顺利完成腹腔镜下阑尾切除术，均无严重术后并发症。包埋组手术时间明显长于非包埋组（
t
=8.313，
P=
0.001），住院费用明显低于非包埋组（
t
=2.591，
P
=0.013）；2组患者住院时间、术后并发症发生率比较，无明显统计学差异（
P
>
0.05）。
结论
2
腹腔镜下阑尾切除术中两种阑尾残端的处理方法均安全有效，可吸收夹夹闭阑尾残端操作简单，手术时间更短，不会增加术后并发症风险，可作为推荐手术方法；腹腔镜下荷包包埋虽然可节省患者治疗费用，但对操作者要求较高，手术时间较长，术中需谨慎选择。
Abstract
Objective
2
To compare the clinical effects of purse-string suture and absorbable clip clamping for closing appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy.
Methods
2
A total of 525 patients of acute appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were selected and divided into the embedded group （appendiceal stump was closed by ligation and embedded by purse-string suture） and the unembedded group （appendiceal stump was clamped twice by absorbable clips） according to treatment of appendiceal stump during the surgery.The surgical treatment and the duration of operation，hospital stay，hospitalization cost，incidence of complications 1 month after operation of two groups were compared.
Results
2
Patients from both groups had successful laparoscopic appendectomy without severe postoperative complication.The duration of operation in the embedded group was longer than that in the unembedded group （t=8.313，P=0.001），the hospitalization cost in the unembedded group was significantly lower than that in the embedded group （t=2.591，P=0.013）.There was no significant difference in the hospital stay or the incidence of postoperative complications （P>0.05）.
Conclusion
2
In laparoscopic appendectomy，the two methods for closing appendiceal stump are safe and effective.The absorbable clip for clamping appendiceal stump in appendectomy can be recommended as an operative method because it is more simple to operate and has shorter operation time，and does not increase the risk of postoperative complications.Laparoscopic purse-string suture of the appendiceal stump can save the treatment cost of patients，but has high requirements for the operation，and takes a long time of operation，which should be discreetly selected during the operation.
关键词
腹腔镜阑尾切除阑尾炎阑尾残端处理
Keywords
laparoscopeappendectomyappendicitisappendiceal stump closure
references
Goner RR，Heij HA，Eker HH，et al.Laparoscopic appendectomy：state of the art.Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy［J］.Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol，2014，28（1）：211-224.doi：10.1016/j.bpg.2013.11.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2013.11.016.
Dai L，Shuai J.Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults and children：a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials［J］.United European Gastroenterol J，2017，5（4）：542-553.doi：10.1177/2050640 616661931http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050640616661931.
Di Saverio S，Podda M，De Simone B，et al.Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis：2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines［J］.World J Emerg Surg，2020，15（1）：27.doi：10.1186/s13017-020-00306-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-020-00306-3.
Zaman S，Mohamedahmed AYY，Stonelake S，et al.Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis in children：a systematic review and meta-analysis［J］.Pediatr Surg Int，2021，37（1）：119-127.doi：10.1007/s00383-020-04776-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00383-020-04776-z.
Wu SH，Shen YY，Wang J，et al.Conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus transumbilical and suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy using only conventional laparoscopic instruments［J］.Langenbecks Arch Surg，2022，407（8）：3623-3629.doi：10.1007/s00423-022-02683-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02683-6.
Jin SG，Cho SH，Kim KY，et al.Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy （TULAA） is useful in adults and young adolescents：comparison with multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy［J］.Medicina，2019，55（6）：248.doi：10.3390/medicina550 60248http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina55060248.
Roviaro GC，Vergani C，Varoli F，et al.Video laparoscopic appendectomy：the current outlook ［J］.Surg Endosc，2006，20（10）：1526-1530.doi：10.1007/s00464-005-0021-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0021-0.
Raakow J，Klein D，Barutcu AG，et al.Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery comparing long-term patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome［J］.Surg Endosc，2020，34（12）：5533-5539.doi：10.1007/s00464-019-07351-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07351-3.
Sauerland S，Jaschinski T，Neugebauer EA.Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis［J］.Cochrane Database Syst Rev，2010（10）：CD001546.doi： 10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub3http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub3.
Ates M，Dirican A，Ince V，et al.Comparison of intracorporeal knot-tying suture （polyglactin） and titanium endoclips in laparoscopic appendiceal stump closure： a prospective randomized study ［J］.Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech， 2012，22（3）：226-231.doi：10.1097/SLE.0b013e31824f25cdhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e31824f25cd.
Monrabal Lezama M，Casas MA，Angeramo CA，et al.Conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy：trends，risk factors and outcomes.A 15-year single-center analysis of 2193 adult patients［J］.World J Surg， 2022，46（11）：2642-2647.doi：10.1007/s00268-022-06670-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06670-2.
田晓寒，晁宏伟，胡筱壮.阑尾系膜Hem-o-lok结扎夹处理辅助腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗阑尾炎患者的疗效评价［J］.中国医学工程，2022，30（2）：135-137.doi：10.19338/j.issn.1672-2019.2022. 02.035http://dx.doi.org/10.19338/j.issn.1672-2019.2022.02.035.
Partecke LI，Kessler W，von Bernstorff W，et al.Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single polymeric clip to close theappendiceal stump［J］.Langenbecks Arch Surg，2010，395（8）：1077-1082.doi：10.1007/s00423-010-0671-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0671-9.
Al-Temimi MH，Berglin MA，Kim EG，et al.Endostapler versus Hem-O-Lok clip to secure the appendiceal stump and mesoappendix during laparoscopic appendectomy［J］.Am J Surg，2017，214（6）：1143-1148.doi： 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.031http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.031.
Förster S，Bernhardt J，Ludwig K.Appendectomy： open versus laparoscopic versus single port： evidence for choice of surgical procedure［J］.Chirurg，2019，90（3）：186-193.doi： 10.1007/s00104-018-0758-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00104-018-0758-3.
Gomes CA，Nunes TA，JrSoares C，et al.The appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopy： historical，surgical，and future perspectives［J］.Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech，2012，22（1）：1-4.doi： 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31823fbf15http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e31823fbf15.
杨有名，赵建民，刘冰.单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中应用荷包缝合包埋阑尾残端的临床疗效［J］.当代医学，2022（15）：147-149.
张明，曾久平，余小强.阑尾残端不同处理方式对单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术效果、安全性的影响［J］.中国当代医药，2021，28（21）：80-83.doi：10.3969/j.issn.1674-4721.2021.21.022http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-4721.2021.21.022.
赵吉存，公红磊，赵庆凯，等.Hemolok应用于儿童腹腔镜阑尾切除术的效果分析［J］.大医生，2022（12）：58-61.
0
浏览量
2
下载量
0
CSCD
- 网络PDF下载
- WORD下载
- Meta-XML下载
- BibTeX下载
- Endnote下载
- RefMan 下载
- NoteExpress下载
- NoteFirst下载
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
- 技术支持由北京北大方正电子有限公司提供 京ICP备09064830号-19
京公网安备11010802024621 - 本系统建议在Chrome、 IE9+ 以上版本浏览器阅读本站内容，360浏览器请切换至极速模式
- Cookies帮助我们提供服务并提供个性化体验。使用本网站，即表示您同意我们使用Cookies
