Suppr超能文献

[根据NOTES入路方式评估腹膜内器官的可及性]

[Accessibility of peritoneal organs according to the routes of approach in NOTES].

作者信息

Kim Chul Young, Chun Hoon Jai, Kim Ju Young, Jang Jin Su, Kwon Yong Dae, Park Sanghoon, Keum Bora, Seo Yeon Seok, Kim Yong Sik, Jeen Yoon Tae, Lee Hong Sik, Um Soon Ho, Lee Sang Woo, Choi Jai Hyun, Kim Chang Duk, Ryu Ho Sang

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Korean J Gastroenterol. 2008 Nov;52(5):281-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a new era of minimally invasive surgery which has the potential to offer scarless surgery. So far, numerous reports on various routes to peritoneal organs in NOTES have been published. In case of transgastric approach, it is more inconvenient than transcolonic approach to access upper abdominal organs because of retroflexion. However, most data were subjective and there was no report examining the best access route for the exploration of peritoneal organs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the best access route according to the abdominal organs objectively.

METHODS

Six female pigs weighing 30 to 35 kg were placed under general anesthesia. Incisions were made on both anterior wall of stomach body and rectosigmoid colon 15 to 20 cm above anal verge, respectively. Then, via each incision site, we evaluated the endoscopic visibility and checked the elapsed time to access abdominal organs in sequence [(gallbladder (GB), spleen, bladder, uterus, and ovary)].

RESULTS

On comparison of the mean time to approach each organs, GB and ovary showed statistical difference in the mean time to approach between transgastric and transcolonic approaches. It took relatively shorter time to access GB via transcolonic route than transgastric route (352.3+/-80.1 sec vs. 222.2+/-82.0 sec, p=0.021). Next, we evaluated the time to access upper organs (GB and spleen) and lower organs (bladder, uterus and ovary). In case of lower organs, it showed no difference in time between transgastric and transcolonic approaches. However, to explore upper organs, transcolonic route was more favorable than transgastric route (351.8+/-80.7 sec vs. 273.3+/-110.3 sec, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

For exploration of lower organs, there is statistically no significant difference in time between transgastric and transcolonic approaches. But, in case of upper organs, transcolonic approach is superior to transgastric approach.

摘要

背景/目的:经自然腔道内镜手术(NOTES)是微创手术的一个新时代,有实现无痕手术的潜力。到目前为止,已经发表了许多关于NOTES中进入腹腔器官的各种途径的报告。在经胃途径中,由于需要反转,进入上腹部器官比经结肠途径更不方便。然而,大多数数据是主观的,并且没有报告研究探索腹腔器官的最佳进入途径。本研究的目的是客观地评估根据腹部器官的最佳进入途径。

方法

将6只体重30至35公斤的雌性猪置于全身麻醉下。分别在胃体前壁和距肛门边缘15至20厘米的直肠乙状结肠上做切口。然后,通过每个切口部位,我们依次评估内镜视野,并检查进入腹腔器官的用时([胆囊(GB)、脾脏、膀胱、子宫和卵巢])。

结果

比较进入每个器官的平均时间,GB和卵巢在经胃和经结肠途径进入的平均时间上显示出统计学差异。经结肠途径进入GB的时间比经胃途径相对更短(352.3±80.1秒对222.2±82.0秒,p = 0.021)。接下来,我们评估了进入上腹部器官(GB和脾脏)和下腹部器官(膀胱、子宫和卵巢)的时间。对于下腹部器官,经胃和经结肠途径在时间上没有差异。然而,对于探索上腹部器官,经结肠途径比经胃途径更有利(351.8±80.7秒对273.3±110.3秒,p = 0.002)。

结论

对于探索下腹部器官,经胃和经结肠途径在时间上无统计学显著差异。但是,对于上腹部器官,经结肠途径优于经胃途径。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验