Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜Roux-en-Y胃旁路手术中线性吻合器的前瞻性随机对照研究

Prospective randomized comparison of linear staplers during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

作者信息

Champion J Kenneth, Williams Michael D

机构信息

Videoscopic Institute of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA.

出版信息

Obes Surg. 2003 Dec;13(6):855-9; discussion 860. doi: 10.1381/096089203322618641.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The development of laparoscopic linear staplers has enabled minimally invasive approaches to bariatric surgery, but there have been no comparison studies of the two current 6-row devices. We report our experience with a prospective randomized comparison of 6-row linear staplers during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP).

METHODS

From January to March 2003, 100 patients were randomly assigned to undergo LRYGBP with either an Endo-GIA Universal 6-row stapler (USSC) or the ETS-Flex 6-row stapler (Ethicon). Mean preoperative BMI was 49+/-8 for 50 Endo-GIA patients, and 49+/-7 for 50 ETS-Flex patients. Parameters measured included quantity of cartridges, handles, hemoclips, estimated blood loss, misfires, OR time, postoperative leaks and bleeds, and cost.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 135 days (range 90- 180). The ETS-Flex group experienced significantly more misfires (28% vs 2%, P <.001), hemoclips applied (30+/-9 vs 21+/-7, P <.001), estimated blood loss (132+/-56 vs 100+/-32 ml, P <.001) and OR time (66+/-19 vs 58+/-13 mins, P <.02) compared with the Endo-GIA group respectively. There was one postoperative leak associated with the ETS-Flex group and two postoperative bleeds with the Endo-GIA group, which were not a significant differences. The Endo-GIA group averaged $319 more per case for staple cost.

CONCLUSION

While the ETS-Flex stapler was less expensive, it was associated with more technical failures requiring surgeon intervention to reduce potential patient morbidity, compared with the Endo-GIA.

摘要

背景

腹腔镜线性缝合器的发展使减肥手术能够采用微创方法,但目前尚无对两种现有6排装置的比较研究。我们报告了在腹腔镜Roux-en-Y胃旁路术(LRYGBP)期间对6排线性缝合器进行前瞻性随机比较的经验。

方法

2003年1月至3月,100例患者被随机分配接受使用Endo-GIA通用6排缝合器(美国外科公司)或ETS-Flex 6排缝合器(爱惜康公司)的LRYGBP。50例使用Endo-GIA的患者术前平均体重指数为49±8,50例使用ETS-Flex的患者术前平均体重指数为49±7。测量的参数包括钉仓数量、手柄、止血夹、估计失血量、击发失败次数、手术时间、术后渗漏和出血以及成本。

结果

平均随访135天(范围90 - 180天)。与Endo-GIA组相比,ETS-Flex组分别出现明显更多的击发失败(28%对2%,P <.001)、使用的止血夹(30±9对21±7,P <.001)、估计失血量(132±56对100±32 ml,P <.001)和手术时间(66±19对58±13分钟,P <.02)。ETS-Flex组有1例术后渗漏,Endo-GIA组有2例术后出血,差异无统计学意义。Endo-GIA组每例的缝合成本平均高出319美元。

结论

虽然ETS-Flex缝合器成本较低,但与Endo-GIA相比,它与更多需要外科医生干预以降低潜在患者发病率的技术故障相关。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验