Meissner K
Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1980;353(2):129-38. doi: 10.1007/BF01254774.
Normal or scarred appendixes may be removed by amputation or inversion. Inversion is appealing for its high degree of asepsis, but criticized for the possibility of organ retention with consecutive invagination. The risks and advantages of amputation appear to be exactly the opposite. For objective comparison, a prospective study was undertaken, using both procedures in 400 cases of solitary and 40 cases of complementary appendectomies at a random number key. Wound infection was observed in 0.5% following inversion, in 8% following amputation as a solitary procedure. Both methods were equally followed by wound infections which performed as complementary procedures. However, inversion was free of enterogenous infection in all cases. Technical precautions were taken to facilitate sloughing of inverted appendixes. No clinical symptoms indicating retention or correlated complications were observed.
正常或有瘢痕的阑尾可通过切除或内翻术移除。内翻术因其高度无菌性而具有吸引力,但因可能出现连续套叠导致器官残留而受到批评。切除术的风险和优势似乎正好相反。为进行客观比较,开展了一项前瞻性研究,通过随机数字表法对400例单纯性阑尾切除术和40例补充性阑尾切除术分别采用这两种手术方法。单纯行内翻术时伤口感染率为0.5%,单纯行切除术时为8%。作为补充性手术时,两种方法的伤口感染率相同。然而,内翻术在所有病例中均无肠源性感染。采取了技术预防措施以促进内翻阑尾的脱落。未观察到表明残留或相关并发症的临床症状。