[1]梁俊杰,由田,刘志龙,等.瘢痕隐藏式与传统腹腔镜阑尾切除术的对比研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2018,18(6):517-520.
　Liang Junjie,You Tian,Liu Zhilong,et al.A Comparative Study Between Scar Hidden and Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2018,18(6):517-520.
点击复制

瘢痕隐藏式与传统腹腔镜阑尾切除术的对比研究()
分享到：

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

卷:
18
期数:
2018年6期
页码:
517-520
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2018-09-30

文章信息/Info

Title:
A Comparative Study Between Scar Hidden and Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy
作者:
梁俊杰; 由田; 刘志龙; 胡友主*
暨南大学附属第一医院普通外科，广州510630
Author(s):
Liang Junjie;  You Tian;  Liu Zhilong;  et al.
Department of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510630, China
关键词:
腹腔镜; 阑尾切除术; 阑尾炎; 瘢痕隐藏
Keywords:
Laparoscopy; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Scar hidden
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的探讨瘢痕隐藏式腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy, LA）的应用价值。方法回顾性分析2011年7月～2016年6月107例瘢痕隐藏式LA（瘢痕隐藏组）和134例传统LA（传统组）的临床资料，比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、疼痛评分、术后并发症、术后住院时间、美容评分。结果2组患者均手术成功，无中转开放。瘢痕隐藏组术后并发症1例（切口感染1例），传统组术后并发症2例（切口感染1例，切口脂肪液化1例）。瘢痕隐藏组与传统组手术时间［(48.0±15.9)min vs. (45.2±11.5)min, t=1.585，P=0.114］、术中出血量［(12.9±8.4)ml vs. (14.0±10.7)ml，t=-0.870，P=0.385］、术后排气时间［(1.3±0.7)d vs. (1.3±0.5)d，t=0.000，P=1.000］、疼痛评分［(4.9±1.2)分 vs. (5.2±1.5)分，t=-1.683，P=0.094］、术后并发症发生率［0.9% vs. 1.5%, χ2=0.000, P=1.000］、术后住院时间［(32±1.1)d vs. (3.5±1.4)d，t=-1.814，P=0.071］差异均无显著性，瘢痕隐藏组美容评分明显高于传统组［(4.4±0.6)分 vs. (4.0±0.9)分，t=3.949，P=0.000］。结论瘢痕隐藏式腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎安全可行，美容效果极佳。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo explore the application value of scar hidden laparoscopic appendectomy (SHLA).MethodsA retrospectively analysis was made on clinical data of 107 patients underwent SHLA and 134 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) from July 2011 to June 2016. The operative time, operative blood loss, postoperative exhaust time, pain score, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay and cosmetic score were compared between the two groups.ResultsAll the operations of both groups were successful without conversion to open surgery. There were 1 case of wound infection in the SHLA group and 1 case of wound infection and 1 case of incision fat necrosis in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in operative time ［(48.0±15.9) min vs. (45.2±11.5) min, t=1.585, P=0.114］, operative blood loss ［(12.9±84) ml vs. (14.0±10.7) ml, t=-0.870, P=0.385］, postoperative exhaust time ［(1.3±0.7) d vs. (1.3±0.5) d, t=0000, P=1.000］, pain score ［(4.9±1.2) points vs. (5.2±1.5) points, t=-1.683, P=0.094］, postoperative complications ［0.9% vs. 1.5%, χ2=0.000, P=1.000］, and postoperative hospital stay ［(3.2±1.1) d vs. (3.5±1.4) d, t=-1.814, P=0.071］ between SHLA and CLA. The cosmetic score in the SHLA group was higher than that in the CLA group ［(4.4±0.6) points vs. (4.0±0.9) points, t=3.949, P=0.000］.ConclusionSHLA is safe and feasible for acute appendicitis with favourable cosmetic results.

参考文献/References:

[1]Semm K. Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy,1983,15(2):59-64.
[2]乔唐,蒋国庆,陈平,等.腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术的对比研究.中国普外基础与临床杂志,2011,18(12):1327-1329.
[3]王家兴,林龙英,刘袁君,等.经脐三孔腹腔镜下阑尾切除56例体会.中国微创外科杂志,2011,11(3):278-279.
[4]刘兴军,吴硕东,陈永生.经脐单切口与传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的回顾性对比研究.中国微创外科杂志,2016,16(9):784-786.
[5]Kang BM, Hwang JW, Ryu BY. Single-port laparoscopic surgery in acute appendicitis: retrospective comparative analysis for 618 patients. Surg Endosc,2016,30(11):4968-4975.
[6]Vellei S, Borri A. Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: short- and long-term outcomes. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A,2017,27(8):804-811.
[7]Perigli G, Cortesini C, Qirici E, et al. Clinical benefits of minimally invasive techniques in thyroid surgery. World J Surg, 2008,32(1):45-50.
[8]胡友主,李国新,王存川.完全乳晕入路与胸乳入路腔镜甲状腺切除术的临床比较.中国内镜杂志,2013,19(10):1053-1056.
[9]Gray KD, Burshtein JG, Obeid L, et al. Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Minimally Invasive Surgery Training Improves Outcomes in Basic Laparoscopic Procedures. World J Surg,2017 Nov 15. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-4374-z. ［Epub ahead of print］
[10]Ward NT, Ramamoorthy SL, Chang DC, et al. Laparoscopic appendectomy is safer than open appendectomy in an elderly population. JSLS,2014,18(3):pii:e2014.00322.
[11]Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, Tsang AW, et al. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Ann Surg,2011,254(6):927-932.
[12]Horvath P, Lange J, Bachmann R, et al. Comparison of clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Surg Endosc,2017,31(1):199-205.
[13]郑宗珩,魏波,陈图锋,等.腹腔镜阑尾切除与开腹阑尾切除术的对比研究及Meta分析.中华普通外科学文献(电子版),2009,3(5):438-442.
[14]Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg,2013,216(6):1037-1047.
[15]Antoniou SA, Morales-Conde S, Antoniou GA, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the umbilicus is associated with a higher incidence of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia,2016,20(1):1-10.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
*通讯作者，E-mail:drhyz@hotmail.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2018-09-30