• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

腹腔镜腹膜外与开放性腺瘤切除术的对比研究

[Comparative study between laparoscopic extraperitoneal and open adenomectomy].

作者信息

García-Segui A, Gascón-Mir M

机构信息

Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Mateu Orfila, Mahón, Menorca, España.

出版信息

Actas Urol Esp. 2012 Feb;36(2):110-6. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2011.09.002. Epub 2011 Dec 16.

DOI:10.1016/j.acuro.2011.09.002
PMID:22178347
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In spite of the development of endoscopic techniques, open adenomectomy continues to be the treatment of choice for large adenomas. Laparoscopic and robotic adenomectomy provides good results in specialized centers. The experience acquired with laparoscopic extraperitoneal adenomectomy (LEA) in a regional center is presented to evaluate its results and compare them prospectively with the results of open surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

46 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (prostate >80 g) and an indication for surgery were evaluated. The first 11 patients underwent LEA and were not included in the comparison. Thereafter, the cases were compared; 17 patients underwent LEA and 18, open surgery. In the extraperitoneal technique with 4 trocars, enucleation was performed with an ultrasonic scalpel.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups in age, prostate volume, uroflow (Qmax), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Quality of Life scale (QoLs). The operation time was significantly greater in the LEA group (135.2 vs. 101.2 minutes, p = 0.022). Intraoperative bleeding (250 vs. 493.3 ml, p = 0.004), irrigation time (22.2 vs. 39.1 hours, p = 0.038), catheter indwelling time (5.5 vs. 7.5 days, p = 0.030), hospital stay (3.7 vs. 6.6 days, p = 0.006) and transfusion rate (0 vs. 22.2%) were significantly less in the laparoscopy group. There was a greater incidence of hemorrhagic and surgical wound complications in the open surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

LEA is a relatively complex technique that requires laparoscopic skills, but it is a feasible and safe alternative to open surgery and has several advantages.

摘要

目的

尽管内镜技术有所发展,但开放性腺瘤切除术仍是大型腺瘤的首选治疗方法。腹腔镜和机器人腺瘤切除术在专业中心取得了良好效果。本文介绍了在一个地区中心开展腹腔镜腹膜外腺瘤切除术(LEA)的经验,以评估其效果,并将其结果与开放性手术的结果进行前瞻性比较。

患者与方法

对46例良性前列腺增生(BPH)(前列腺>80 g)且有手术指征的患者进行评估。前11例患者接受了LEA,未纳入比较。此后,对病例进行比较;17例患者接受了LEA,18例接受了开放性手术。采用4孔腹膜外技术,使用超声刀进行剜除术。

结果

两组在年龄、前列腺体积、尿流率(Qmax)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量量表(QoLs)方面无显著差异。LEA组的手术时间明显更长(135.2对101.分钟,p = 0.022)。腹腔镜组的术中出血量(250对493.3 ml,p = 0.004)、冲洗时间(22.2对39.1小时,p = 0.038)、导尿管留置时间(5.5对7.5天,p = 0.030)、住院时间(3.7对6.6天,p = 0.006)和输血率(0对22.2%)明显更少。开放性手术组的出血和手术伤口并发症发生率更高。

结论

LEA是一种相对复杂的技术,需要腹腔镜技能,但它是开放性手术的一种可行且安全的替代方法,具有多个优点。

相似文献

1
[Comparative study between laparoscopic extraperitoneal and open adenomectomy].腹腔镜腹膜外与开放性腺瘤切除术的对比研究
Actas Urol Esp. 2012 Feb;36(2):110-6. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2011.09.002. Epub 2011 Dec 16.
2
[Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (adenomectomy): experience in 59 consecutive patients].[腹腔镜单纯前列腺切除术(腺瘤切除术):59例连续患者的经验]
Actas Urol Esp. 2011 Jul-Aug;35(7):434-7. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2011.01.013. Epub 2011 Mar 29.
3
Transcapsular adenomectomy(Millin): a comparative study, extraperitoneal laparoscopy versus open surgery.经包膜腺瘤切除术(米林手术):一项比较研究,腹膜外腹腔镜手术与开放手术对比
Eur Urol. 2006 Jan;49(1):120-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.09.017. Epub 2005 Nov 2.
4
[Millin adenomectomy in the era of laser enucleation: results in a series of 240 cases].激光剜除术时代的米林腺瘤切除术:240例系列病例结果
Prog Urol. 2014 May;24(6):379-89. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2013.09.030. Epub 2013 Oct 29.
5
Holmium laser enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm.: comparison to open prostatectomy.钬激光剜除术治疗大于100克的前列腺腺瘤:与开放性前列腺切除术的比较。
J Urol. 2001 Feb;165(2):459-62. doi: 10.1097/00005392-200102000-00025.
6
Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: a comparative study.腹腔镜与开放性单纯前列腺切除术:一项对比研究。
J Urol. 2006 May;175(5):1691-4. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00986-9.
7
"Knotless" laparoscopic extraperitoneal adenomectomy.“免打结”腹腔镜腹膜外腺瘤切除术
Actas Urol Esp. 2015 Mar;39(2):128-36. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.05.011. Epub 2014 Jul 15.
8
Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP): does it make sense?机器人辅助单纯前列腺切除术(RASP):有意义吗?
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E972-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11192.x. Epub 2012 May 18.
9
Laparoscopic retropubic simple prostatectomy.腹腔镜耻骨后单纯前列腺切除术
J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):757-60. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000152651.27143.b0.
10
A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy.机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术与开放性耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术中阳性手术切缘的发生率及位置比较。
J Urol. 2007 Dec;178(6):2385-9; discussion 2389-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.008. Epub 2007 Oct 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative analysis between open transvesical and laparoscopic adenomectomy in the treatment of benigne prostatic hyperplasia in a tertiary hospital in Curitiba-PR: a retrospective study.在库里蒂巴-巴西南部的一所三级医院中,开放性经膀胱前列腺切除术与腹腔镜前列腺切除术治疗良性前列腺增生的对比分析:一项回顾性研究。
Rev Col Bras Cir. 2023 Apr 14;50:e20233450. doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-20233450-en. eCollection 2023.
2
Open prostatectomy with a rectal balloon: A new technique to control postoperative blood loss.带直肠球囊的开放性前列腺切除术:一种控制术后失血的新技术。
Arab J Urol. 2015 Jun;13(2):100-6. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2014.12.003. Epub 2015 Feb 7.
3
Endoscopic simple prostatectomy.
内镜下单纯前列腺切除术
Cent European J Urol. 2014;67(4):377-84. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2014.04.art12. Epub 2014 Dec 5.
4
Outcomes of minimally invasive simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.良性前列腺增生症微创单纯前列腺切除术的疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
World J Urol. 2015 Apr;33(4):563-70. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1324-3. Epub 2014 May 31.