• 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

相似文献

1
Comparison of clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, single center experience.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术临床结局的比较:单中心经验
Heliyon. 2018 May 24;4(5):e00635. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00635. eCollection 2018 May.
2
Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals.222 家 ACS NSQIP 医院中腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的结局比较。
Surgery. 2010 Oct;148(4):625-35; discussion 635-7. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.025. Epub 2010 Aug 24.
3
A clinical comparison of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for the treatment of complicated appendicitis: historical cohort study.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎的临床比较:历史队列研究。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Aug;46(4):847-851. doi: 10.1007/s00068-019-01086-5. Epub 2019 Feb 2.
4
Complicated appendicitis in children: is laparoscopic appendectomy appropriate? A comparative study with the open appendectomy--our experience.儿童复杂性阑尾炎:腹腔镜阑尾切除术是否合适?与开腹阑尾切除术的比较研究——我们的经验。
J Pediatr Surg. 2009 Oct;44(10):1924-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.03.037.
5
Complicated appendicitis--is the laparoscopic approach appropriate? A comparative study with the open approach: outcome in a community hospital setting.复杂性阑尾炎——腹腔镜手术方法是否合适?与开放手术方法的比较研究:社区医院环境下的结果
Am Surg. 2007 Aug;73(8):737-41; discussion 741-2.
6
Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Jul;205(1):60-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.03.017.
7
Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. Prospective randomized study of outcomes.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术。结局的前瞻性随机研究。
Arch Surg. 1997 Jul;132(7):708-11; discussion 712. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1997.01430310022003.
8
A Clinical Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎的临床比较
J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2011 Dec;27(6):293-7. doi: 10.3393/jksc.2011.27.6.293. Epub 2011 Dec 31.
9
Comparison of surgical-site infection between open and laparoscopic appendectomy.开放手术与腹腔镜阑尾切除术手术部位感染的比较。
J Korean Surg Soc. 2012 Jan;82(1):35-9. doi: 10.4174/jkss.2012.82.1.35. Epub 2011 Dec 27.
10
Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy in children: another opinion.儿童腹腔镜阑尾切除术与开腹阑尾切除术:另一种观点
Int Surg. 2003 Apr-Jun;88(2):92-4.

引用本文的文献

1
Pain Management During Adult Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review.成人腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的疼痛管理:一项系统综述。
Cureus. 2024 Jan 10;16(1):e52037. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52037. eCollection 2024 Jan.
2
Comparison of outcomes of open and laparoscopic appendectomy: A retrospective cohort study.开放手术与腹腔镜阑尾切除术的疗效比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
Health Sci Rep. 2023 Aug 3;6(8):e1483. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1483. eCollection 2023 Aug.
3
Laparoscopic appendectomy, stump closure and endoloops: A meta-analysis.腹腔镜阑尾切除术、残端闭合与圈套器:一项荟萃分析。
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2022 Sep 27;14(9):1060-1071. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i9.1060.
4
Two-Year Experiences of 500 Appendectomies in Lahore General Hospital, Lahore.拉合尔总医院500例阑尾切除术的两年经验,拉合尔
Cureus. 2022 Jan 16;14(1):e21303. doi: 10.7759/cureus.21303. eCollection 2022 Jan.
5
A systematic review on the cost evaluation of two different laparoscopic surgical techniques among 996 appendectomies from a single center.一项基于单中心 996 例阑尾切除术的两种不同腹腔镜手术技术成本评估的系统评价。
Updates Surg. 2020 Dec;72(4):1167-1174. doi: 10.1007/s13304-020-00817-3. Epub 2020 May 30.
6
A clinical comparison of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for the treatment of complicated appendicitis: historical cohort study.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎的临床比较:历史队列研究。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Aug;46(4):847-851. doi: 10.1007/s00068-019-01086-5. Epub 2019 Feb 2.

本文引用的文献

1
Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study assessing outcomes and cost-effectiveness.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术:一项评估结局和成本效益的回顾性队列研究
World J Emerg Surg. 2016 Aug 30;11(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s13017-016-0102-5. eCollection 2016.
2
WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis.WSES耶路撒冷急性阑尾炎诊断与治疗指南。
World J Emerg Surg. 2016 Jul 18;11:34. doi: 10.1186/s13017-016-0090-5. eCollection 2016.
3
Comparison of clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎的临床结局比较。
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jan;31(1):199-205. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4957-z. Epub 2016 May 18.
4
A Systematic Review of Perforated Appendicitis and Phlegmon: Interval Appendectomy or Wait-and-See?穿孔性阑尾炎和阑尾周围脓肿的系统评价:间隔期阑尾切除术还是观察等待?
Am Surg. 2016 Jan;82(1):11-5.
5
The Utility of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Severity Predictor of Acute Appendicitis, Length of Hospital Stay and Postoperative Complication Rates.中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值作为急性阑尾炎严重程度预测指标、住院时间及术后并发症发生率的效用
Dig Surg. 2015;32(6):459-63. doi: 10.1159/000440818. Epub 2015 Oct 22.
6
Comparison of open and laparoscopic appendectomy in uncomplicated appendicitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial.单纯性阑尾炎开放手术与腹腔镜阑尾切除术的比较:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2013 May;19(3):200-4. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2013.58234.
7
A Clinical Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎的临床比较
J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2011 Dec;27(6):293-7. doi: 10.3393/jksc.2011.27.6.293. Epub 2011 Dec 31.
8
Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗单纯性和复杂性阑尾炎的疗效比较。
Ann Surg. 2011 Dec;254(6):927-32. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822aa8ea.
9
Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.腹腔镜与传统阑尾切除术的比较——随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
BMC Gastroenterol. 2010 Nov 3;10:129. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-129.
10
Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis.腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的Meta 分析。
Surg Endosc. 2011 Apr;25(4):1199-208. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1344-z. Epub 2010 Sep 17.

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术临床结局的比较:单中心经验

Comparison of clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, single center experience.

作者信息

Shimoda Mitsugi, Maruyama Tsunehiko, Nishida Kiyotaka, Suzuki Kazuomi, Tago Tomoya, Shimazaki Jiro, Suzuki Shuji

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Ibaraki Medical Center, Japan.

出版信息

Heliyon. 2018 May 24;4(5):e00635. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00635. eCollection 2018 May.

DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00635
PMID:29872767
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5986549/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is now a treatment of choice in patients with appendicitis. This study compares the treatment outcomes of LA and open appendectomies (OA) in our department.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2006 to April 2016 a total of 185 patients underwent appendectomy at our institution. We divided the patients into two groups; LA group (LAG) and OA group (OAG). Following parameters were analyzed: age, gender, preoperative clinicolaboratory characteristics, operative factors, interval appendectomy, length of hospital stay (LHS), and surgical site infections (SSI).

RESULTS

There were 93 patients in LA G and 92 in OAG. According to the Univariate analysis, there were statistically significant differences among age (p = 0.037), LHS (p = 0.0001), duration till resuming oral intake (p = 0.016), blood loss (p = 0.038), SSI ratio (p = 0.044) and CRP level (p = 0.038) between the LAG and the OAG. According to the Multivariate analysis, blood loss (p = 0.038) and LHS (p = 0.023) were significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSION

LA was decreasing blood loss and LHS.

摘要

引言

腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)现已成为阑尾炎患者的首选治疗方法。本研究比较了我院LA和开腹阑尾切除术(OA)的治疗效果。

患者与方法

2006年1月至2016年4月,我院共有185例患者接受了阑尾切除术。我们将患者分为两组:LA组(LAG)和OA组(OAG)。分析了以下参数:年龄、性别、术前临床实验室特征、手术因素、间隔阑尾切除术、住院时间(LHS)和手术部位感染(SSI)。

结果

LAG组有93例患者,OAG组有92例患者。单因素分析显示,LAG组和OAG组在年龄(p = 0.037)、LHS(p = 0.0001)、恢复经口进食时间(p = 0.016)、失血量(p = 0.038)、SSI发生率(p = 0.044)和CRP水平(p = 0.038)方面存在统计学显著差异。多因素分析显示,两组之间的失血量(p = 0.038)和LHS(p = 0.023)存在显著差异。

结论

LA可减少失血量和住院时间。