Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜与传统剖腹手术治疗腹部创伤的比较:多机构配对研究。

Laparoscopy versus conventional laparotomy in the management of abdominal trauma: a multi-institutional matched-pair study.

机构信息

Department of General Surgery, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28, Beijing, 100853, People's Republic of China.

Institute of General Surgery, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2020 May;34(5):2237-2242. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07013-4. Epub 2019 Aug 2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is being increasingly applied as either a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in the management of abdominal trauma. However, its outcomes in comparison with conventional laparotomy remain unclear, especially in terms of therapeutic management.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients from three trauma centers in Beijing, China. Fifty-four patients undergoing laparoscopic interventions for abdominal trauma by experienced laparoscopists were enrolled in the laparoscopy group (LP group). Another 54 patients who underwent laparotomy (LT group) were matched according to the patients' baseline characteristics, causes of injury, and hemodynamic parameters. Perioperative clinical parameters and short-term survival were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable between these two groups (LP vs. LT: Age, p = 0.112; Sex, p = 0.820; Injury severity score, p = 0.158; Cause distribution, p = 0.840). The most common cause was traffic accident (36.1%) and the most frequent surgical intervention was bowel repair/resection (34.3%) in our study. The operation time was similar in these two groups (LP vs. LT: 202.2 ± 72.58 vs. 194.11 ± 82.95 min, p = 0.295) while post-operative complication rate was slightly reduced in LP group (7.7% vs. 13.5%) with no statistical significance (p = 0.383). Opioid use was lower in the LP than LT group (11.67 ± 4.08 vs. 26.0 ± 13.42 morphine equivalents (MEQ), p = 0.034). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LP group (13.48 ± 10.9 vs. 18.64 ± 14.73 days, p = 0.021). One patient in the LT group died of an intra-abdominal abscess and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome 19 days postoperatively, while all patients in the LP group recovered and were discharged.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is feasible and safe in treating abdominal trauma patients in hemodynamically stable conditions performed by experienced surgeons. Laparoscopy might have the advantages of reduced pain and quicker recovery with similarly favorable clinical outcomes.

摘要

背景

腹腔镜检查越来越多地被应用于腹部创伤的诊断或治疗干预。然而,其与传统剖腹术的结果仍不清楚,尤其是在治疗管理方面。

方法

本回顾性队列研究纳入了来自中国北京的 3 家创伤中心的患者。54 例经验丰富的腹腔镜医师对腹部创伤进行腹腔镜干预的患者纳入腹腔镜组(LP 组)。另外,根据患者的基线特征、损伤原因和血流动力学参数,匹配了 54 例接受剖腹手术(LT 组)的患者。比较了两组围手术期的临床参数和短期生存率。

结果

两组的基线特征无差异(LP 与 LT:年龄,p=0.112;性别,p=0.820;损伤严重程度评分,p=0.158;病因分布,p=0.840)。在本研究中,最常见的病因是交通事故(36.1%),最常见的手术干预是肠修补/切除(34.3%)。两组的手术时间相似(LP 与 LT:202.2±72.58 与 194.11±82.95min,p=0.295),但 LP 组术后并发症发生率略低(7.7%比 13.5%),无统计学意义(p=0.383)。LP 组的阿片类药物使用率低于 LT 组(11.67±4.08 与 26.0±13.42 吗啡当量(MEQ),p=0.034)。LP 组的住院时间明显缩短(13.48±10.9 与 18.64±14.73 天,p=0.021)。LT 组有 1 例患者术后 19 天死于腹腔脓肿和多器官功能障碍综合征,而 LP 组所有患者均康复出院。

结论

在经验丰富的外科医生的治疗下,腹腔镜检查在治疗血流动力学稳定的腹部创伤患者时是可行和安全的。腹腔镜检查可能具有减轻疼痛和更快恢复的优势,且临床结局同样良好。

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