Richards W, Watson D, Lynch G, Reed G W, Olsen D, Spaw A, Holcomb W, Frexes-Steed M, Goldstein R, Sharp K
Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and Hospital, Nashville, Tennessee.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993 Nov;177(5):473-80.
Proponents of laparoscopic appendectomy emphasize the advantages of laparoscopic operation--decreased hospitalization, paralytic ileus, postoperative pain and wound complications, including infection. This study compared open laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic appendectomy. To compare the two techniques, patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at four hospitals were compared with patients undergoing open appendectomy during a six month period. Excluded were incidental appendectomies and patients with perforated appendicitis. An equal number of pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic and open procedures were included in the analysis to avoid bias, because most of the laparoscopic appendectomies were performed in the adult patient population (age of more than 16 years). A University Medical Center, a Veterans Administration and two community hospitals were the settings. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 54) had an average age of 25.7 +/- 1.5 (range of six to 59 years). These patients were compared with 121 patients undergoing open appendectomy whose average age was 23.7 +/- 1.8 (range of three to 83 years). The race and gender distribution were similar in the two groups. Traditional open appendectomy was compared with a group of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Variables evaluated were operating room time, number of patients who reported nausea, days until patient tolerated a regular diet, days of hospitalization, postoperative pain medication and wound infection rate. Results are expressed as the mean plus or minus standard error of the mean. Analysis of variance was used to compute continuous variables and Fischer's exact test was used for discrete variables. The laparoscopic approach was attempted in 61 patients and completed in 54 patients. Open appendectomy was performed upon 121 patients. Nineteen patients (18 who underwent open operation and one patient who underwent laparoscopic operation) were excluded from further analysis because of perforated appendicitis. The open procedure took less time (p < 0.05). However, there were more wound infections than in the laparoscopic group (seven of 103 versus zero of 53; p = 0.09). Patients with acute appendicitis recuperated more quickly from the laparoscopic procedure, as evidenced by the time until eating regular diet, period of hospitalization, incidence of nausea and pain medications on postoperative day one (p < 0.05). The absence of wound infections after laparoscopic appendectomy can be attributed to the practice of placing the appendix in a sterile bag or into the trocar sleeve before removal from the abdomen. Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces the period of hospitalization, postoperative ileus, nausea and postoperative pain in patients with acute appendicitis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
腹腔镜阑尾切除术的支持者强调腹腔镜手术的优点——缩短住院时间、减少麻痹性肠梗阻、减轻术后疼痛以及降低伤口并发症(包括感染)的发生率。本研究对开放性阑尾切除术与腹腔镜阑尾切除术进行了比较。为比较这两种技术,将四家医院接受腹腔镜阑尾切除术的患者与六个月期间接受开放性阑尾切除术的患者进行了对比。排除了偶然进行的阑尾切除术以及阑尾穿孔患者。为避免偏差,分析纳入了数量相等的接受腹腔镜和开放性手术的儿科患者,因为大多数腹腔镜阑尾切除术是在成年患者群体(年龄超过16岁)中进行的。研究地点包括一家大学医学中心、一家退伍军人管理局医院和两家社区医院。接受腹腔镜阑尾切除术的患者(n = 54)平均年龄为25.7 +/- 1.5岁(年龄范围为6至59岁)。这些患者与121例接受开放性阑尾切除术的患者进行比较,后者平均年龄为23.7 +/- 1.8岁(年龄范围为3至83岁)。两组患者的种族和性别分布相似。将传统开放性阑尾切除术与一组接受腹腔镜阑尾切除术的患者进行比较。评估的变量包括手术时间、报告恶心的患者数量、患者能够耐受正常饮食的天数、住院天数、术后止痛药物使用情况以及伤口感染率。结果以均值加减均值标准误表示。采用方差分析计算连续变量,采用费舍尔精确检验分析离散变量。61例患者尝试采用腹腔镜手术,54例完成手术。121例患者接受了开放性阑尾切除术。19例患者(18例接受开放性手术,1例接受腹腔镜手术)因阑尾穿孔被排除在进一步分析之外。开放性手术耗时较短(p < 0.05)。然而,开放性手术组的伤口感染比腹腔镜组更多(103例中有7例,而53例中为0例;p = 0.09)。急性阑尾炎患者接受腹腔镜手术后恢复更快,这在恢复正常饮食的时间、住院时间、术后第一天恶心发生率以及止痛药物使用情况方面得到了证实(p < 0.05)。腹腔镜阑尾切除术后无伤口感染可归因于在将阑尾从腹腔取出前将其置于无菌袋或套管针套内的操作。腹腔镜阑尾切除术可缩短急性阑尾炎患者的住院时间、减少术后肠梗阻、恶心及术后疼痛。(摘要截选至400字)