• 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

经帕尔默点进行腹腔镜初始穿刺时Veress针与直接套管针技术的比较。

Comparison of Veress needle and direct trocar technique during laparoscopic initial entry via Palmer's point.

作者信息

Minareci Yagmur, Yuvanc Huseyin Oguz

出版信息

Ceska Gynekol. 2024;89(6):451-458. doi: 10.48095/cccg2024451.

DOI:10.48095/cccg2024451
PMID:39800541
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

In laparoscopic surgery, initial entry into the abdomen becomes more risky in patients with a history of abdominal surgery. In such cases, initial entry is usually performed with a Veress needle via Palmer's point (PP). However, it is associated with an increased failure rate, especially in obese patients. On the other hand, direct trocar entry is a convenient and safe technique with a low failed entry rate. Direct trocar entry via PP may be the preferred approach for initial abdominal entry in patients with a history of abdominopelvic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study included 438 patients with a previous history of abdominopelvic surgery undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery, during which two different entry techniques via PP were tested.

RESULTS

There were 88 patients (20.1%) in the Veress needle group and 350 patients (79.9%) in the direct trocar group. The time to create a pneumoperitoneum was significantly shorter in the direct trocar group (P < 0.001). Successful entry was achieved at the initial attempt in 78 patients (88.6%) from the Veress needle group and in 347 patients (99.1%) from the direct trocar group (P = 0.012). Minor complication rates were similar in both groups. However, one major complication was observed in the direct trocar group, while no major complications were noted in the Veress needle group.

CONCLUSION

Provided that the basic surgical principles are respected, direct trocar entry technique via PP is a safe, effective, and fast initial entry approach into the abdomen and may be preferred in patients with previous abdominopelvic surgery.

摘要

目的

在腹腔镜手术中,有腹部手术史的患者首次进入腹腔的风险更高。在这种情况下,通常经帕尔默点(PP)用韦雷斯针进行首次穿刺。然而,其失败率较高,尤其是在肥胖患者中。另一方面,直接套管针穿刺是一种方便、安全的技术,穿刺失败率低。经PP直接套管针穿刺可能是有腹盆腔手术史患者首次进入腹腔的首选方法。

材料与方法

本研究纳入438例有腹盆腔手术史且接受腹腔镜妇科手术的患者,术中测试了两种经PP的不同穿刺技术。

结果

韦雷斯针组88例(20.1%),直接套管针组350例(79.9%)。直接套管针组建立气腹的时间显著更短(P<0.001)。韦雷斯针组78例(88.6%)在首次尝试时成功穿刺,直接套管针组347例(99.1%)成功穿刺(P=0.012)。两组的轻微并发症发生率相似。然而,直接套管针组观察到1例严重并发症,而韦雷斯针组未观察到严重并发症。

结论

只要遵循基本的手术原则,经PP直接套管针穿刺技术是一种安全、有效且快速的首次进入腹腔的方法,可能是有既往腹盆腔手术史患者的首选。

相似文献

1
Comparison of Veress needle and direct trocar technique during laparoscopic initial entry via Palmer's point.经帕尔默点进行腹腔镜初始穿刺时Veress针与直接套管针技术的比较。
Ceska Gynekol. 2024;89(6):451-458. doi: 10.48095/cccg2024451.
2
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.
3
Randomized control trial on effectiveness and safety of direct trocar versus Veress needle entry techniques in obese women during diagnostic laparoscopy.肥胖女性诊断性腹腔镜检查中直接套管针与Veress针穿刺技术有效性和安全性的随机对照试验
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Sep;304(3):815-822. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05957-w. Epub 2021 Jan 8.
4
Comparison Of Operative Complications Of Direct Trocar Access Versus Veress Needle Insertion Technique For Initial Peritoneal Entry In Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery.妇科腹腔镜手术患者初始腹膜穿刺时直接套管针穿刺与Veress针穿刺技术手术并发症的比较
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2021 Apr-Jun;33(2):311-314.
5
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.
6
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.
7
An open comparative randomized prospective study: Direct trocar insertion vs Veress needle technique in laparoscopic surgeries.直接套管针插入法与 Veress 针技术在腹腔镜手术中的开放比较随机前瞻性研究。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Oct 4;103(40):e39929. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039929.
8
[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.
9
Laparoscopic entry techniques.腹腔镜进入技术。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 18;1(1):CD006583. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub5.
10
Comparison of direct trocar and veress needle insertion in the performance of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.腹腔镜胆囊切除术中直接套管针穿刺与Veress针穿刺建立气腹的比较。
Acta Chir Belg. 2005 Sep-Oct;105(5):515-8. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2005.11679771.