Tu Yuliang, Jiao Huabo, Tan Xianglong, Sun Liyuan, Zhang Wenzhi
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chinese PLA General Hospital, 51 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, China,
Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):4217-23. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3026-0. Epub 2013 Jun 21.
The aim of this study was to compare laparotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), and to evaluate the curative efficacy and the timing of retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement drainage (RLDD) for SAP patients.
We performed a retrospective analysis of 50 SAP cases, including 18 patients in the RLDD group and 32 patients in the laparotomy group. Observed indices included gender, age, CT severity index, Ranson score, APACHE II score, preoperative course, length of stay, operation time, mortality, postoperative complications, drainage tube indwelling time, and change of body temperature and peripheral white blood cell (PWBC) count between the time before the operation and at 48 h after surgery.
Between the RLDD group and the laparotomy group, there was a significant difference in operation time (130 ± 15 vs. 148 ± 25 h; P = 0.007), length of stay [40.8 (6-121) vs. 55.9 (28-133) days; P = 0.053], and preoperative course [14.7 (5-31) vs. 18.3 (6-31) days; P = 0.05], but no significant difference in average drainage tube indwelling time [44.4 (2-182) vs. 49.8 (2-175) days; P = 0.663]. More improvement in body temperature and PWBC count was observed in the patients of the RLDD group. There was one death (1/18) in the RLDD group and four (4/32) in the laparotomy group. Fourteen cases (14/32) in the laparotomy group had postoperative complications, including pancreatic fistula (n = 11), intestinal fistula (n = 2), retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 2), infection of incision (n = 9), and 5 cases (5/18) in the RLDD group, including pancreatic fistula (n = 4) and retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 1).
RLDD, as minimally invasive surgery, is technically feasible, safe, and effective in the treatment of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in SAP patients, in contrast to the laparotomy technique, and can be performed in the early phase of SAP to prevent the deterioration of the disease.
本研究旨在比较开腹手术与腹膜后腹腔镜手术在重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)腹膜后感染性坏死清创引流中的应用,并评估腹膜后腹腔镜清创引流(RLDD)对SAP患者的疗效及时机。
我们对50例SAP病例进行回顾性分析,其中RLDD组18例,开腹手术组32例。观察指标包括性别、年龄、CT严重指数、Ranson评分、APACHE II评分、术前病程、住院时间、手术时间、死亡率、术后并发症、引流管留置时间以及手术前与术后48小时体温和外周血白细胞(PWBC)计数的变化。
RLDD组与开腹手术组在手术时间(130±15 vs. 148±25小时;P = 0.007)、住院时间[40.8(6 - 121)vs. 55.9(28 - 133)天;P = 0.053]和术前病程[14.7(5 - 31)vs. 18.3(6 - 31)天;P = 0.05]方面存在显著差异,但平均引流管留置时间无显著差异[44.4(2 - 182)vs. 49.8(2 - 175)天;P = 0.663]。RLDD组患者体温和PWBC计数改善更明显。RLDD组有1例死亡(1/18),开腹手术组有4例死亡(4/32)。开腹手术组有14例(14/32)发生术后并发症,包括胰瘘(n = 11)、肠瘘(n = 2)、腹膜后出血(n = 2)、切口感染(n = 9);RLDD组有5例(5/18),包括胰瘘(n = 4)和腹膜后出血(n = 1)。
与开腹手术技术相比,RLDD作为微创手术,在治疗SAP患者腹膜后感染性坏死方面技术上可行、安全且有效,并且可在SAP早期进行以防止病情恶化。