• 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

单切口与传统多孔阑尾切除术的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport appendicectomy.

机构信息

Department of Laparoscopic and Upper Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust, Huntingdon.

出版信息

Br J Surg. 2013 Dec;100(13):1709-18. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9296.

DOI:10.1002/bjs.9296
PMID:24227355
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes following single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and conventional multiport laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases was performed. Publications were included if they were clinical trials randomizing patients with appendicitis to SILA or CLA. Outcome measures evaluated included operating time, length of hospital stay, total postoperative complications, and, specifically, wound infection, intra-abdominal collection and ileus. Weighted mean difference was calculated for the effect size of SILA on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for discrete variables.

RESULTS

The literature search identified seven randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. In total, 1108 appendicectomies were included, 555 SILA and 553 CLA procedures. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal collection, ileus or length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operating time compared with CLA (weighted mean difference 6·96 (95 per cent confidence interval 3·79 to 10·12) min; P < 0·001). Insertion of an additional port was required in 7·6 per cent of patients undergoing SILA.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a safe procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis, with comparable clinical outcome to CLA when undertaken by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

摘要

背景

本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较单切口腹腔镜阑尾切除术(SILA)和传统多孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(CLA)治疗急性阑尾炎的临床结局。

方法

对 MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库进行电子检索。如果随机对照试验将阑尾炎患者分为 SILA 或 CLA 组,则将出版物纳入研究。评估的结局指标包括手术时间、住院时间、总术后并发症,以及具体的切口感染、腹腔内积液和肠梗阻。对 SILA 对连续变量的影响大小进行加权均数差计算,对离散变量进行汇总优势比计算。

结果

文献检索确定了 7 项符合荟萃分析纳入标准的随机临床试验。共有 1108 例阑尾切除术纳入研究,555 例 SILA 和 553 例 CLA 手术。两组在总术后并发症、切口感染、腹腔内积液、肠梗阻或住院时间方面无显著差异。然而,与 CLA 相比,SILA 手术时间明显延长(加权均数差 6.96(95%置信区间 3.79 至 10.12)分钟;P<0.001)。7.6%的 SILA 患者需要插入额外的端口。

结论

SILA 是治疗急性阑尾炎的一种安全手术,由经验丰富的腹腔镜外科医生进行时,其临床结局与 CLA 相当。

相似文献

1
Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport appendicectomy.单切口与传统多孔阑尾切除术的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Br J Surg. 2013 Dec;100(13):1709-18. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9296.
2
Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis.单切口与传统多孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗疑似单纯性阑尾炎的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Nov 5;11(11):CD009022. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009022.pub3.
3
Single incision laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术与传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Surg. 2016 Nov;35:120-128. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.09.087. Epub 2016 Oct 2.
4
Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in children.儿童单孔与传统腹腔镜阑尾切除术的系统评价和荟萃分析
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Sep;50(9):1600-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.05.018. Epub 2015 Jun 3.
5
Single-incision appendectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis.单孔阑尾切除术与传统腹腔镜阑尾切除术相当:一项系统评价与汇总分析。
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012 Aug;22(4):319-27. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31824f2cf8.
6
Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.儿童单孔与传统腹腔镜阑尾切除术:系统评价与荟萃分析
Pediatr Surg Int. 2015 Apr;31(4):347-53. doi: 10.1007/s00383-015-3680-5. Epub 2015 Feb 10.
7
Laparoscopic appendectomy with single port vs conventional access: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术与传统方法的比较:随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2024 Apr;38(4):1667-1684. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10659-w. Epub 2024 Feb 8.
8
Acute appendicitis can be treated with single-incision laparoscopy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.急性阑尾炎可采用单孔腹腔镜手术治疗:随机对照试验的系统评价
Colorectal Dis. 2015 Apr;17(4):281-9. doi: 10.1111/codi.12839.
9
Comparison of transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) vs conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) in the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.小儿经脐腹腔镜辅助阑尾切除术(TULAA)与传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(CTLA)的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Eur J Pediatr. 2025 Jun 25;184(7):445. doi: 10.1007/s00431-025-06286-3.
10
Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术与传统三孔法治疗急性阑尾炎的比较:系统评价、荟萃分析和随机对照试验的序贯分析。
Surgeon. 2021 Dec;19(6):365-379. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2021.01.018. Epub 2021 Mar 19.

引用本文的文献

1
Neoadjuvant chemoradiation in older Irish adult patients with oesophageal cancer: a retrospective institutional review of clinical outcomes and hematological toxicity.爱尔兰老年食管癌成年患者的新辅助放化疗:临床结局和血液学毒性的回顾性机构研究
BMC Cancer. 2025 Aug 7;25(1):1280. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14055-6.
2
Laparoscopic appendectomy with single port vs conventional access: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术与传统方法的比较:随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2024 Apr;38(4):1667-1684. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10659-w. Epub 2024 Feb 8.
3
Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus traditional three-hole laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis in children by senior pediatric surgeons: a multicenter study from China.
资深小儿外科医生进行的单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术与传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗儿童急性阑尾炎的比较:一项来自中国的多中心研究
Front Pediatr. 2023 Jul 10;11:1224113. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1224113. eCollection 2023.
4
Wound Irrigation Using Wet Gauze May Reduce Surgical Site Infection Following Laparoscopic Appendectomy.使用湿纱布进行伤口冲洗可能会降低腹腔镜阑尾切除术后手术部位感染的发生率。
Front Surg. 2022 Feb 8;9:813738. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.813738. eCollection 2022.
5
Appendicitis-Like Picture Induced by Foreign Body in a 2-Year-Old Boy.一名2岁男孩因异物导致类似阑尾炎的表现。
Case Rep Surg. 2020 Dec 24;2020:8877754. doi: 10.1155/2020/8877754. eCollection 2020.
6
Laparoscopic Hartmann's Reversal: Application of a Single-Port Approach Through the Colostomy Site.腹腔镜Hartmann回纳术:经结肠造口部位单孔入路的应用
Ann Coloproctol. 2021 Feb;37(1):29-34. doi: 10.3393/ac.2020.09.21. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
7
The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.腹腔镜单孔手术中使用扩张器可能会增加疼痛:一项随机临床试验的荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2017 Nov;31(11):4400-4411. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5487-z. Epub 2017 Mar 31.
8
Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery.建立急诊普通外科循证基础的系统评价方法概述
Br J Surg. 2017 Apr;104(5):513-524. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10476.
9
Does the number of incisions in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery matter?电视辅助胸腔镜手术中的切口数量重要吗?
J Thorac Dis. 2016 Dec;8(12):E1625-E1627. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.12.53.
10
Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review.优化腹腔镜阑尾切除术后恢复的干预措施:一项范围综述
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jun;31(6):2357-2365. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5274-2. Epub 2016 Oct 17.