• 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
Prospective Observational Study of Comparison Between Direct and High-Pressure Primary Trocar Entry in Gynaecological Laparoscopy in Teaching Hospital.教学医院妇科腹腔镜手术中直接与高压初级套管针穿刺入路比较的前瞻性观察研究
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2021 Dec;71(6):615-620. doi: 10.1007/s13224-021-01471-4. Epub 2021 Apr 27.
2
Comparison of Two Entry Methods for Laparoscopic Port Entry.腹腔镜端口入路两种入路方法的比较。
Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2021 Apr-Jun;19(74):186-189.
3
Direct trocar insertion without previous pneumoperitoneum versus insertion after insufflation with Veress needle in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a prospective cohort study.腹腔镜妇科手术中直接穿刺套管针(不预先建立气腹)与使用韦氏针充气后穿刺套管针插入的比较:一项前瞻性队列研究
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Oct;39(7):1000-1005. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1590804. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
4
Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies, and complications.腹腔镜入路:技术、科技与并发症综述
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007 May;29(5):433-447. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35496-2.
5
A randomized comparison of Verres needle and direct trocar insertion for laparoscopy.用于腹腔镜检查的Verres针与直接套管针插入术的随机对照比较。
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993 Sep;177(3):259-62.
6
[Risks associated with laparoscopic entry].[腹腔镜穿刺相关风险]
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2010 Dec;39(8 Suppl 2):S123-35. doi: 10.1016/S0368-2315(10)70039-9.
7
Direct trocar insertion vs. Verres needle use for laparoscopic sterilization.腹腔镜绝育术中直接套管针穿刺与使用Verres针的比较。
J Reprod Med. 1990 Sep;35(9):891-4.
8
Access techniques: Veress needle--initial blind trocar insertion versus open laparoscopy with the Hasson trocar.接入技术:韦雷斯针——初始盲目套管针插入术与使用哈森套管针的开放式腹腔镜检查术
Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1995 Feb;3(1):35-8.
9
Laparoscopic entry techniques.腹腔镜进入技术。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 31;8:CD006583. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub4.
10
Laparoscopic entry: a review of Canadian general surgical practice.腹腔镜入路:加拿大普通外科实践综述。
Can J Surg. 2011 Oct;54(5):315-20. doi: 10.1503/cjs.011210.

本文引用的文献

1
Direct trocar insertion for laparoscopy.腹腔镜检查的直接套管针插入术。
JSLS. 2012 Apr-Jun;16(2):255-9. doi: 10.4293/108680812x13427982376383.
2
Comparison of two entry methods for laparoscopic port entry: technical point of view.腹腔镜端口进入两种方法的比较:技术视角
Diagn Ther Endosc. 2012;2012:305428. doi: 10.1155/2012/305428. Epub 2012 Jun 13.
3
Entry complications in laparoscopic surgery.腹腔镜手术中的进入并发症。
J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2009 Jan;1(1):4-11. doi: 10.4103/0974-1216.51902.
4
Direct trocar versus veress needle entry for laparoscopy: a randomized clinical trial.直接套管穿刺与 Veress 针穿刺用于腹腔镜检查:一项随机临床试验。
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010;69(4):260-263. doi: 10.1159/000276571. Epub 2010 Jan 21.
5
Direct trocar insertion technique: an alternative for creation of pneumoperitoneum.直接套管针插入技术:一种建立气腹的替代方法。
JSLS. 2008 Apr-Jun;12(2):156-8.
6
Effect of body habitus and parity on the initial Veres intraperitoneal CO2 insufflation pressure during laparoscopic access in women.体型和产次对女性腹腔镜手术入路时初始Veres腹腔内二氧化碳充气压力的影响。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(2):108-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.11.012.
7
An evaluation of four tests used to ascertain Veres needle placement at closed laparoscopy.一项关于用于确定闭合式腹腔镜检查中Veres针放置位置的四项测试的评估。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Mar-Apr;12(2):153-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.01.011.
8
Safe laparoscopic entry guided by Veress needle CO2 insufflation pressure.在Veress针二氧化碳气腹压力引导下安全的腹腔镜穿刺入路
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003 Aug;10(3):415-20.
9
Safe technique for laparoscopic entry into the abdominal cavity.腹腔镜进入腹腔的安全技术。
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001 Nov;8(4):519-28. doi: 10.1016/s1074-3804(05)60614-7.
10
Abdominal wall characterization with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. The effect of obesity on the laparoscopic approach.
J Reprod Med. 1991 Jul;36(7):473-6.

教学医院妇科腹腔镜手术中直接与高压初级套管针穿刺入路比较的前瞻性观察研究

Prospective Observational Study of Comparison Between Direct and High-Pressure Primary Trocar Entry in Gynaecological Laparoscopy in Teaching Hospital.

作者信息

Balsarkar Geetha, Narkhede Hemraj R, Nadkani Trupti

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Seth G S Medical College, Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, 400012 India.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, PCMC'S Post Graduate Institute, Pimpri Chinchwad, S T Nagar, Pune, 411018 Maharashtra India.

出版信息

J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2021 Dec;71(6):615-620. doi: 10.1007/s13224-021-01471-4. Epub 2021 Apr 27.

DOI:10.1007/s13224-021-01471-4
PMID:34898900
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8617093/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic port entry is crucial and vital step in any laparoscopic surgery. As laparoscopy is widely used, complications related to it are also increasing which are not seen in conventional laparotomy.

AIM

The present study was undertaken to compare the ease of primary trocar entry after pneumoperitoneum at 20 mmHg pressure and direct trocar entry without pneumoperitoneum.

METHODS

Total 100 nulliparous patients who presented for elective gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery were enrolled for the study. In operating theatre, randomization of patients was done using a sealed envelope technique which divides patients into two equal groups and assigned as either low-pressure group or high-pressure group. Verres needle insertion and trocar entry was done by fellowship trainee in laparoscopy assisted by senior laparoscopy surgeon.

RESULT

In high-pressure group we had trocar entry in first attempt in 80% of patient, second attempt in 20% where as in direct trocar entry group required first attempt in 88%, second attempt in 10% and third attempt in 2%. Time taken for trocar entry between two groups was significantly different requiring 4.42 ± 0.55 min for high pressure and 1.2 ± 0.28 min for direct trocar entry.

CONCLUSION

The study concluded that high-pressure trocar entry requires more time; require less attempts, easier and surgeon will be more comfortable in repeating the same technique than direct trocar entry.

摘要

背景

腹腔镜穿刺孔置入是任何腹腔镜手术中的关键且重要步骤。随着腹腔镜技术的广泛应用,与之相关的并发症也在增加,而这些并发症在传统剖腹手术中未见。

目的

本研究旨在比较在20 mmHg压力下建立气腹后初次套管针置入与无气腹直接套管针置入的难易程度。

方法

总共100例因择期妇科腹腔镜手术就诊的未生育患者纳入本研究。在手术室,采用密封信封技术对患者进行随机分组,将患者分为两组,分别为低压组和高压组。Verres针插入和套管针置入由腹腔镜专科培训学员在资深腹腔镜外科医生的协助下完成。

结果

在高压组中,80%的患者首次尝试即可完成套管针置入,20%的患者需要第二次尝试;而在直接套管针置入组中,88%的患者需要首次尝试,10%的患者需要第二次尝试,2%的患者需要第三次尝试。两组之间套管针置入所需时间有显著差异,高压组需要4.42±0.55分钟,直接套管针置入组需要1.2±0.28分钟。

结论

该研究得出结论,高压套管针置入需要更多时间;尝试次数更少,操作更容易,并且与直接套管针置入相比,外科医生在重复相同技术时会更舒适。