Suppr超能文献

单切口与三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术:前瞻性随机研究。

Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.

机构信息

Second Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510282, Guangdong Province, China.

出版信息

World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan 21;19(3):394-8. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i3.394.

Abstract

AIM

To compare the clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC).

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2011, one hundred and two patients with symptomatic benign gallbladder diseases were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or TPLC (n = 53). The primary end point was post operative pain score (at 6 h and 7 d). Secondary end points were blood loss, operation duration, overall complications, postoperative analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, cosmetic result and total cost. Surgical techniques were standardized and all operations were performed by one experienced surgeon, who had performed more than 500 laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

RESULTS

One patient in the SILC group required conversion to two-port LC. There were no open conversions or major complications in either treatment groups. There were no differences in terms of estimated blood loss (mean ± SD, 14 ± 6.0 mL vs 15 ± 4.0 mL), operation duration (mean ± SD, 41.8 ± 17.0 min vs 38.5 ± 22.0 min), port-site complications (contusion at incision: 5 cases vs 4 cases and hematoma at incision: 2 cases vs 1 case), total cost (mean ± SD, 12 075 ± 1047 RMB vs 11 982 ± 1153 RMB) and hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.0 ± 0.5 d vs 1.0 ± 0.2 d) , respectively. TPLC had a significantly worse visual analogue pain score at 8 h after surgery (mean ± SD, 3.5 ± 1.6 vs 2.0 ± 1.5), however, the scores were similar on day 7 (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 1.4 vs 2.0 ± 1.3). Cosmetic satisfaction, as determined by a survey at 2 mo follow-up favored SILC (mean ± SD, 8 ± 0.4 vs 6 ± 0.2).

CONCLUSION

SILC is a safe and feasible approach in selected patients. The main advantages are a better cosmetic result and less pain.

摘要

目的

比较单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(SILC)与三孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(TPLC)的临床疗效。

方法

2009 年至 2011 年,102 例有症状的良性胆囊疾病患者随机分为 SILC 组(n = 49)和 TPLC 组(n = 53)。主要终点为术后疼痛评分(术后 6 小时和 7 天)。次要终点为出血量、手术时间、总并发症、术后镇痛需求、住院时间、美容效果和总费用。手术技术标准化,所有手术均由一位经验丰富的外科医生完成,该医生已完成超过 500 例腹腔镜胆囊切除术。

结果

SILC 组中有 1 例患者需要转为两孔 LC。两组均无中转开腹或严重并发症。术中出血量(均值 ± 标准差,14 ± 6.0 毫升比 15 ± 4.0 毫升)、手术时间(均值 ± 标准差,41.8 ± 17.0 分钟比 38.5 ± 22.0 分钟)、切口部位并发症(切口挫伤:5 例比 4 例和切口血肿:2 例比 1 例)、总费用(均值 ± 标准差,12075 ± 1047 人民币比 11982 ± 1153 人民币)和住院时间(均值 ± 标准差,1.0 ± 0.5 天比 1.0 ± 0.2 天)无差异。TPLC 术后 8 小时视觉模拟疼痛评分明显较差(均值 ± 标准差,3.5 ± 1.6 比 2.0 ± 1.5),但 7 天后评分相似(均值 ± 标准差,2.5 ± 1.4 比 2.0 ± 1.3)。2 个月随访时的美容满意度调查结果表明 SILC 更优(均值 ± 标准差,8 ± 0.4 比 6 ± 0.2)。

结论

SILC 是一种安全可行的方法,适用于特定患者。其主要优点是美容效果更好,疼痛更小。

相似文献

1
Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan 21;19(3):394-8. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i3.394.
2
3
Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory setting.
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2019 Jun;18(3):273-277. doi: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2019.04.008. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
5
Ultrasound-guided rectus sheath block for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2015 May;8(2):148-52. doi: 10.1111/ases.12178. Epub 2015 Feb 26.
9
Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis.
Br J Surg. 2017 Aug;104(9):1141-1159. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10574. Epub 2017 Jun 1.

引用本文的文献

5
Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Surg Open Sci. 2022 Aug 18;10:116-134. doi: 10.1016/j.sopen.2022.08.003. eCollection 2022 Oct.
7
Analogies between medusa and single port surgery in gastroenterology and hepatology: A review.
World J Gastroenterol. 2021 Dec 21;27(47):8058-8068. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i47.8058.
9
Is single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy superior to standard cholecystectomy in post-operative pain?
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Jan 30;63:102123. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.01.071. eCollection 2021 Mar.

本文引用的文献

4
Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)-a matched pair analysis.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011 Aug;396(6):819-24. doi: 10.1007/s00423-011-0817-4. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
5
Our early experiences with single-incision laparoscopic surgery: the first 32 patients.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2010 Oct;20(5):306-11. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181f20cf6.
6
Transumbilical single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a simple technique: initial experience of 33 cases.
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2010 Dec;19(6):340-4. doi: 10.3109/13645706.2010.527772. Epub 2010 Oct 22.
7
Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy.
Br J Surg. 2010 Oct;97(10):1476-80. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7189.
9
[Single-port transumbilical endoscopic cholecystectomy: a new standard?].
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010 Jul;135(27):1363-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1262419. Epub 2010 Jun 29.
10
Initial experience with single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 May;210(5):620-4, 624-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.12.030.

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