• 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

单孔腹腔镜与标准腹腔镜超高位直肠前切除术的比较。

Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic high anterior resection with standard laparoscopic high anterior resection.

机构信息

North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

Colorectal Dis. 2013 Mar;15(3):329-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03178.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03178.x
PMID:22776407
Abstract

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is gaining momentum. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcome of SILS for high anterior resection with that of standard laparoscopic resection (StdLS).

METHOD

Patients undergoing laparoscopic high anterior resection were prospectively entered into an institutional approved database. Patients treated with SILS were compared with those undergoing StdLS.

RESULTS

Between April 2000 and April 2009, 327 (143 cancer) consecutive unselected patients underwent StdLS; there were three (1%) conversions and 12 (3.6%) covering ileostomies. After April 2009, 55 (29 cancer) consecutive, unselected patients underwent SILS; there were two conversions to a three-port technique (3.6%), no conversions to open resection and two (3.6%) covering ileostomies. There were no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, hospital of operation or American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade between the two groups. The operating time for SILS was significantly shorter (113 ± 44 min for StdLS vs 79 ± 37 min for SILS; P < 0.0001). SILS patients tolerated a normal diet earlier [10 (2-24) h for SILS vs 18 (2-96) h for StdLS] and were discharged faster [1 (1-8) days for SILS vs 3 (1-24) days for StdLS]. There were no significant differences in return to theatre, readmissions or 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

SILS for high anterior resection is feasible, safe and quicker to perform than standard three-port laparoscopic colectomy. It seems to be associated with a faster recovery and earlier discharge.

摘要

目的

单切口腹腔镜手术(SILS)正在兴起。本研究旨在比较 SILS 与标准腹腔镜手术(StdLS)治疗高位前切除术的结果。

方法

前瞻性地将接受腹腔镜高位前切除术的患者纳入机构批准的数据库中。将接受 SILS 治疗的患者与接受 StdLS 治疗的患者进行比较。

结果

2000 年 4 月至 2009 年 4 月,327 例(143 例癌症)连续未经选择的患者接受了 StdLS;有 3 例(1%)转为三孔技术,12 例(3.6%)行预防性回肠造口术。2009 年 4 月后,55 例(29 例癌症)连续未经选择的患者接受了 SILS;有 2 例(3.6%)转为三孔技术,无中转开腹,2 例(3.6%)行预防性回肠造口术。两组间在年龄、性别、体重指数、手术医院或美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级方面无显著差异。SILS 的手术时间明显缩短(StdLS 为 113±44min,SILS 为 79±37min;P<0.0001)。SILS 患者更早耐受正常饮食[10(2-24)h 用于 SILS 与 18(2-96)h 用于 StdLS],更快出院[SIL 为 1(1-8)d,StdLS 为 3(1-24)d]。两组在再次手术、再入院或 30 天死亡率方面无显著差异。

结论

SILS 治疗高位前切除术是可行的、安全的,并且比标准三孔腹腔镜结肠切除术更快。它似乎与更快的恢复和更早的出院相关。

相似文献

1
Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic high anterior resection with standard laparoscopic high anterior resection.单孔腹腔镜与标准腹腔镜超高位直肠前切除术的比较。
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Mar;15(3):329-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03178.x.
2
A historical comparison of single incision and conventional multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.单切口与传统多端口腹腔镜右半结肠切除术的历史比较
Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(10):e618-22. doi: 10.1111/codi.12380.
3
Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic assisted right colectomy for cancer.全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助右半结肠癌根治术的比较。
Int J Surg. 2012;10(6):290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.04.020. Epub 2012 May 4.
4
A comparative study of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic ileocecal resection for Crohn's disease with strictures.单切口与传统多端口腹腔镜下克罗恩病狭窄肠段切除的对比研究
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2012 Aug;5(3):118-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5910.2012.00132.x. Epub 2012 Mar 13.
5
Laparoscopic versus conventional palliative resection for incurable, symptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer: impact on short-term results.腹腔镜手术与传统姑息性切除术治疗无法治愈的有症状的IV期结直肠癌:对短期结果的影响
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011 Jun;21(3):184-7. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31821db75e.
6
A safety study of transumbilical single incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.经脐单切口与传统腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠癌的安全性研究:一项随机对照试验的研究方案
Trials. 2015 Nov 30;16:539. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1067-5.
7
Single port laparoscopic right colonic resection using a 'vessel-first' approach.经端口腹腔镜右半结肠切除术采用“血管优先”方法。
Colorectal Dis. 2012 Sep;14(9):1138-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02898.x.
8
Single incision vs conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer: a case-matched study.单孔与传统腹腔镜乙状结肠癌前切除术的对比:一项病例匹配研究。
Am J Surg. 2013 Sep;206(3):320-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.11.007. Epub 2013 Apr 6.
9
Comparison of clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery using a simplified access system with conventional laparoscopic surgery for malignant colorectal disease.简化入路系统单孔腹腔镜手术与传统腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠恶性肿瘤的临床效果比较。
Colorectal Dis. 2012 Apr;14(4):e171-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02825.x.
10
Outcomes for case-matched single-port colectomy are comparable with conventional laparoscopic colectomy.病例匹配单端口结肠切除术的结果与传统腹腔镜结肠切除术相当。
Colorectal Dis. 2012 May;14(5):634-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02721.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and post-operative recovery between single-incision and multi-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.单切口与多端口腹腔镜远端胃癌切除术的短期手术结果及术后恢复情况比较
J Minim Access Surg. 2022 Oct-Dec;18(4):578-584. doi: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_219_21.
2
Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program Combined With Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.手术后加速康复计划联合单孔腹腔镜手术在结直肠癌手术中的比较效果:一项回顾性分析
Front Oncol. 2022 Jan 12;11:768299. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.768299. eCollection 2021.
3
Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial.
单孔腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠癌的短期疗效:一项单中心、开放标签、非劣效性随机临床试验
Front Oncol. 2021 Oct 25;11:762147. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.762147. eCollection 2021.
4
European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.欧洲内镜外科学会(EAES)关于单切口内镜手术的共识声明。
Surg Endosc. 2019 Apr;33(4):996-1019. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06693-2. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
5
Systematic review of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer.单切口与传统多孔腹腔镜手术治疗乙状结肠和直肠癌的系统评价。
World J Surg Oncol. 2018 Nov 10;16(1):220. doi: 10.1186/s12957-018-1521-4.
6
Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence.单切口与标准多切口腹腔镜结肠切除术治疗恶性或良性结肠疾病患者:一项系统评价、荟萃分析及证据评估
BMC Surg. 2016 Oct 18;16(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s12893-016-0187-5.
7
Learning curve for single-port laparoscopic colon cancer resection: a multicenter observational study.单孔腹腔镜结肠癌切除术的学习曲线:一项多中心观察性研究。
Surg Endosc. 2017 Apr;31(4):1828-1835. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5180-7. Epub 2016 Aug 23.
8
Transanal NOTES total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer: Is anatomy better preserved?经肛门自然腔道内镜手术全直肠系膜切除术(TME)治疗直肠癌患者:解剖结构是否能更好地保留?
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Aug;20(8):537-44. doi: 10.1007/s10151-016-1449-z. Epub 2016 Mar 18.
9
Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and multiport laparoscopic colectomy.比较单切口腹腔镜结肠切除术与多端口腹腔镜结肠切除术的研究的系统评价与荟萃分析
Surg Endosc. 2016 Nov;30(11):4697-4720. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4812-2. Epub 2016 Feb 23.
10
A safety study of transumbilical single incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.经脐单切口与传统腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠癌的安全性研究:一项随机对照试验的研究方案
Trials. 2015 Nov 30;16:539. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1067-5.