Albrecht R, Bochmann C, Süße A, Jablonski L, Settmacher U
Klinik für Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, HELIOS Klinikum Aue, Deutschland.
Zentralbl Chir. 2013 Aug;138(4):449-55. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1327892. Epub 2012 Dec 14.
INTRODUCTION, AIM AND METHOD: Consecutive female patients undergoing hybrid NOS appendectomy (NA - with prospectively collected data) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA - with retrospectively registered data) were compared by means of a matched-pair analysis according to selected criteria such as patient age, BMI, ASA and previous operations showing a near-perfect congruence with the following aims to: 1) demonstrate the feasibility of NA and to estimate its general costs, and 2) elucidate the outcome of the two techniques using available perioperative parameters from daily clinical practice. In particular, operating time, complications, histopathological findings, postoperative hospital stay and analgesic scores were used for comparison. A gynaecological follow-up investigation was carried out on the day of discharge and after a medium-term time period of 4 weeks in the NA group, and 6 months postoperatively, patients of both groups were interviewed using a standardised questionnaire.
From 05/01/2008 to 02/28/2010, transvaginal NA (n = 30) was compared with the results of the conventional LA (n = 30) in 60 female patients with regard to the operative outcome. Overall, matched-pair analysis of LA with NA, the novel technique resulted in the assessment of basically comparable surgical procedures with regard to perioperative routine parameters and outcome. There were no intraoperative complications in either of the two approaches; conversion was not required in both techniques. In addition, there were no significant differences in operating time (p = 0.099), postoperative complications (p = 0.72) and analgesic scores (p = 0.33/0.46). Postoperative hospital stay was even slightly shorter in the NA group (p = 0.02). The costs of the two methods are almost identical if the same instruments are used. Patient interviews suggested a slightly faster recovery, greater satisfaction with the better cosmetic outcome as well as a reduced pain intensity in favour of transvaginal NA.
Provided that a well developed laparoscopic expertise exists, it turned out i) that there are no serious reasons to resist a quick inauguration and establishment of NA for selected cases as well as ii) even to facilitate further clinical distribution of NA. Further systematic data collection appears to be indicated to analyse long-term outcome as parameters of an appropriate quality assurance.
引言、目的与方法:通过配对分析,根据患者年龄、体重指数(BMI)、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级以及既往手术情况等选定标准,对连续接受杂交非气腹阑尾切除术(NA - 前瞻性收集数据)和腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA - 回顾性登记数据)的女性患者进行比较,以期实现以下近乎完美匹配的目标:1)证明NA的可行性并估算其总体成本,以及2)利用日常临床实践中可得的围手术期参数阐明两种技术的结果。特别地,将手术时间、并发症、组织病理学结果、术后住院时间和镇痛评分用于比较。在NA组出院当天及中期4周后进行妇科随访调查,术后6个月,使用标准化问卷对两组患者进行访谈。
从2008年1月5日至2010年2月28日,在60例女性患者中,将经阴道NA(n = 30)与传统LA(n = 30)的手术结果进行比较。总体而言,对LA与NA进行配对分析,就围手术期常规参数和结果而言,新技术导致对基本可比的手术程序进行评估。两种方法均未发生术中并发症;两种技术均无需中转。此外,手术时间(p = 0.099)、术后并发症(p = 0.72)和镇痛评分(p = 0.33/0.46)均无显著差异。NA组术后住院时间甚至略短(p = 0.02)。如果使用相同器械,两种方法的成本几乎相同。患者访谈表明,经阴道NA恢复稍快、对更好的美容效果满意度更高且疼痛强度降低。
倘若具备成熟的腹腔镜技术专长,结果显示:i)对于特定病例,没有严重理由抵制NA的快速开展和建立,以及ii)甚至有助于NA在临床上的进一步推广。似乎需要进一步系统收集数据,以分析长期结果作为适当质量保证的参数。