[1]王江华 吴黎明 刘小波 周晋航 王伟 陈先祥 徐兵*.Quill免打结缝合线与薇乔线在腹腔镜下胆总管连续缝合的应用比较[J].中国微创外科杂志,2014,14(6):503-515.
　Wang Jianghua,Wu Liming,Liu Xiaobo,et al.Quill Versus Vicryl Continuous Suturing in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2014,14(6):503-515.
点击复制

Quill免打结缝合线与薇乔线在腹腔镜下胆总管连续缝合的应用比较()
分享到：

《中国微创外科杂志》[ISSN:1009-6604/CN:11-4526/R]

卷:
14
期数:
2014年6期
页码:
503-515
栏目:
出版日期:
2014-06-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Quill Versus Vicryl Continuous Suturing in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration
作者:
王江华 吴黎明 刘小波 周晋航 王伟 陈先祥 徐兵*
湖北医药学院附属人民医院肝胆胰腺外科，十堰442000
Author(s):
Wang Jianghua;  Wu Liming;  Liu Xiaobo;  et al. Corresponding author:Xu Bing; Email: mht608119@163.com
Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Renmin Hospital Affiliated to Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan 442000, China
关键词:
免打结缝合线; 腹腔镜胆总管探查术; 连续缝合
Keywords:
Quill suture; Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration; Continuous suturing
分类号:
R657.4
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的探讨Quill免打结缝合线在腹腔镜下胆总管连续缝合的应用效果。方法2011年3月～2013年6月79例腹腔镜胆总管探查术Quill免打结缝合线连续缝合胆总管作为Quill线组，同期72例薇乔线连续缝合胆总管作为薇乔线组,比较2组胆漏发生率、胆总管缝合时间、术后肠功能恢复、住院费用、住院时间等。结果Quill线组缝合时间（6.1±16）min，显著短于薇乔线组（14.2±2.5）min (t=23.923,P=0.000)；Quill线组住院时间（8.4±1.2）d，显著短于薇乔线组（115±32）d (t=8.016,P=0.000)；Quill线组术后胆漏发生率0,显著低于薇乔线组6.9%(5/72) (Fisher’s检验，P=0023)。2组术后肠功能恢复时间、住院费用无统计学差异（P>0.05）。结论腹腔镜胆总管探查术Quill线连续缝合可预防胆漏的发生，比薇乔线缝合更简单、快捷。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo explore the effects of continuous suturing by Quill suture in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. MethodsFrom March 2011 to June 2013, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with continuous suturing were performed either by Quill sutures (79 cases) or by Vicryl sutures (72 cases). The biliary leakage incidence, suturing time, postoperative recovery of intestinal function, cost of hospitalization, as well as interval of hospitalization were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe Quill group had shorter suturing time［(6.1±1.6) min vs. (14.2±2.5) min, t=23.923, P=0.000］, shorter interval of hospitalization ［(8.4±1.2) d vs. (11.5±3.2) d, t=8.016, P=0.000］ than those of the Vicryl group. The biliary leakage incidence of the Quill group was significantly less than that of the Vicryl group ［0 vs. 6.9% (5/72), Fisher’s test, P=0023］. There was no significant difference in recovery of intestinal function and cost of hospitalization between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionQuill suture in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is easier and faster to use than conventional suture material, with the advantage of less biliary leakage.

参考文献/References:

[1]周晓初，熊沛，付红华，等．腹腔镜与开腹胆总管切开取石的前瞻性临床对比研究．中国微创外科杂志，2002，2(6)：390-391.
[2]陆昌友，李自刚，黄君.腹腔镜胆道探查术取石技巧探讨.肝胆胰外科杂志，2012，24（1）：75-76.
[3]Xu DH. Complications of laparoscopic biliary operation and processing points. J Laparosc Surg,2010,15(12):881-884.
[4]蔡庆和，陈先祥，王江华，等．有上腹部手术史者腹腔镜联合纤维胆道镜胆总管探查62例分析．中国微创外科杂志，2010,10(6)：535-536.
[5]陈先祥，王江华，蔡庆和，等.腹腔镜在再次胆道手术中的应用．腹部外科，2010,23(1)：26-27.
[6]朱江帆，主编．普通外科内镜手术学．青岛：山东科学技术出版社，2001.64．
[7]翁辞海,洪德飞.腹腔镜胆总管探查一期缝合与置T管引流的对比研究.中国微创外科杂志,2007,7(9):861-862.
[8]叶晓明,洪晓明,倪开元,等.两种微创治疗方案治疗急性结石性胆管炎的临床对照研究. 中国微创外科杂志,2013,13(1):38-41.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
*通讯作者，普外科，Email: mht608119@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2014-12-08