Suppr超能文献

在儿童中使用电灼法分离阑尾系膜是安全、有效且具有成本效益的。

Division of the mesoappendix with electrocautery in children is safe, effective, and cost-efficient.

作者信息

Ponsky Todd A, Rothenberg Steven S

机构信息

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children, Denver, CO, USA.

出版信息

J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Apr;19 Suppl 1:S11-3. doi: 10.1089/lap.2008.0101.supp.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is one of the most common procedures performed in children. There are several techniques available for dividing the mesoappendix including the using an endostapler, a LigaSure (Covidien, Boulder, CO), a harmonic scalpel (Ethicon Endosurgery, Cincinnati, OH), or electrocautery. Although it is the least expensive approach, many feel that electrocautery is an unsafe method of dividing the mesoappendix. Here we present our experience with the use of solely electrocautery to divide the mesoappendix.

METHODS

Over a period of 12 years, a total of 442 laparoscopic appendectomies were logged into our database. Each appendectomy was performed by coagulating and dividing the mesoappendix with a Maryland dissector or in some cases a hook electrocautery. Three 0-PDS Endoloops (Ethicon Endosurgery, Cincinnati, OH) were then used to ligate the base of the appendix, two proximal and one distal. Patient weight, age, operative time, perforated versus nonperforated, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were queried.

RESULTS

Of the 442 cases, 71 were perforated (16%). The mean time for nonperforated appendectomies was 26 minutes and 38 minutes for perforated. There was one case of postoperative bleeding managed nonoperatively in a patient with previously undiagnosed factor VIII deficiency. The cost of each endoloop was $22.

CONCLUSION

Although some have questioned the safety of using electrocautery alone to divide the mesoappendix for fear that it may not be adequate to seal the appendiceal artery, may take excessive time, or may cause collateral tissue injury, this has not been our experience. Therefore, the use of more costly instruments to divide the mesoappendix such as the endostapler, LigaSure, or harmonic scalpel seems unwarranted. This study demonstrates that electrocautery for the mesoappendix and endoloops for the appendix is safe, effective, and cost-efficient.

摘要

引言

腹腔镜阑尾切除术是儿童中最常见的手术之一。有多种用于离断肠系膜阑尾的技术,包括使用内镜吻合器、血管闭合系统(柯惠医疗,博尔德,科罗拉多州)、超声刀(爱惜康内镜外科,辛辛那提,俄亥俄州)或电灼术。尽管电灼术是最便宜的方法,但许多人认为电灼术是离断肠系膜阑尾的不安全方法。在此,我们介绍仅使用电灼术离断肠系膜阑尾的经验。

方法

在12年的时间里,共有442例腹腔镜阑尾切除术被录入我们的数据库。每例阑尾切除术均通过使用马里兰解剖器或在某些情况下使用钩形电灼器凝固并离断肠系膜阑尾来进行。然后使用三个0号聚对二氧环己酮内镜套扎器(爱惜康内镜外科,辛辛那提,俄亥俄州)结扎阑尾根部,两个在近端,一个在远端。查询了患者的体重、年龄、手术时间、穿孔性与非穿孔性以及术中及术后并发症。

结果

在442例病例中,71例为穿孔性(16%)。非穿孔性阑尾切除术的平均时间为26分钟,穿孔性的为38分钟。有1例术后出血的患者因先前未诊断出的凝血因子VIII缺乏而未进行手术处理。每个内镜套扎器的成本为22美元。

结论

尽管有些人质疑仅使用电灼术离断肠系膜阑尾的安全性,担心其可能不足以封闭阑尾动脉、可能耗时过长或可能导致周围组织损伤,但我们并未有此经验。因此,使用更昂贵的器械如内镜吻合器、血管闭合系统或超声刀来离断肠系膜阑尾似乎没有必要。本研究表明,用电灼术处理系膜阑尾以及用内镜套扎器处理阑尾是安全、有效且具有成本效益的。

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