Please wait a minute...

中国现代手术学杂志  2017, Vol. 21 Issue (4): 257-260    DOI: 10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2017.04.004
  临床论著 |
超声刀与电凝钩在急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的应用
陈佳栋1,孙颢1,高友福1,汤莹2
1. 上海市静安区中心医院 华山医院静安分院普外科, 上海 200040; 2. 上海市普陀区人民医院内科, 上海 200060
Clinical Control Study on Application of Ultrasound Knife and Electric Coagulation Hook in EmergencyLaparoscopic Cholecystectomy
CHEN Jia-dong1,SUN Hao1,GAO You-fu1,TANG Ying2
1.Department?of?General?Surgery,Jing'an?District?Central?Hospital,Jing'an?Branch?of?Huashan?Hospital,Shanghai200040,China; 2.Department?Of?Internal?Medicine,Putuo?District?People's?Hospital,Shanghai200060,China
下载:  RICH HTML  PDF (186KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的比较超声刀与电凝钩在急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC)中的应用效果。方法回顾性分析2014年1月~2017年1月我科行急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术的92例患者临床资料,其中49例术中采用超声刀(超刀组),43例使用电凝钩(电凝钩组),比较两组术中、术后各项指标。结果92例患者均行急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术,电凝钩组有4例中转开腹,其中2例为术中活动性出血,遂开腹确切止血,2例为电凝钩致胆总管部分损伤,开腹缝合放置T管。7例术后出现右上腹疼痛、发热(超声组4例,电凝钩组3例),延长引流管置管时间,加强抗感染好转。术后均未出现胆瘘。超声刀组手术操作时间、术中出血量、术后24 h引流量、引流持续时间、住院时间、中转开腹率均低于电凝钩组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而两组术中胆道损伤率、术后腹腔积液感染率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论在急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除手术中,超声刀具有组织切割准确、周围组织损伤小、止血效果佳、出血少、术中操作时间短等优点;且术中操作视野清晰,解剖结构清楚,能够降低胆道损伤及中转开腹率,具有较好的临床应用效果。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
陈佳栋1,孙颢1,高友福1,汤莹2
关键词:  超声刀  急性胆囊炎  腹腔镜胆囊切除术    
Abstract: ObjectiveTo compare the clinical application effects between ultrasound knife and electric coagulation hook in emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).MethodsThe clinical data of 92 cases receivedemergency LC were analyzed retrospectively. During the LC, ultrasound knife was applied in 49 patients as ultrasonic knife group, and electric coagulation hook was used in 43 patients as electric coagulation hook group. The intra- and post-operative indicators were compared between the two groups.ResultsAll 92 cases underwent emergency LC, but 4 cases of electric coagulation hook group conversed to open surgery due to intra-operative active bleeding (2 cases) and partial common bile duct injury (2 cases). Postoperative seroperitoneum infection was found in 4 cases of ultrasonic knife group and 3 cases of electric coagulation hook group, and was improved by anti-infection and prolonging drainage time. There was no biliary fistula in both groups. The operation time, intra-operative blood loss, drainage volume within 24 hours, drainage duration, hospital stays and transference rate in the ultrasonic knife group was lower than those in the electric coagulation hook group, and the differences were statistically between two groups (P<0.05). But there was no statistical difference in intraoperative bile duct injury and postoperative seroperitoneum infection rate between two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsThe application of ultrasound knife has advantages of precise cutting, less tissue damage, ideal hemostatic effect, less bleeding, and short operating time in emergency LC. And it can achieve good clinical effects by clear operative visual fields, and anatomic structure and reducing the rate of biliary injury and transfer laparotomy.
Key words:  ultrasound knife    cholecystitis, acute    laparoscopic cholecystectomy
               出版日期:  2017-08-26      发布日期:  2018-05-15      期的出版日期:  2017-08-26
ZTFLH:  R657.41  
通讯作者:  高友福,男,52岁,上海市静安区中心医院普外科主任医师。   
作者简介:  陈佳栋,男,35岁,上海市静安区中心医院普外科主治医师。
引用本文:    
陈佳栋1,孙颢1,高友福1,汤莹2. 超声刀与电凝钩在急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的应用[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(4): 257-260.
CHEN Jia-dong. Clinical Control Study on Application of Ultrasound Knife and Electric Coagulation Hook in EmergencyLaparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Chinese Journal of Modern Operative Surgery, 2017, 21(4): 257-260.
链接本文:  
http://www.surgerychina.com/CN/10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2017.04.004  或          http://www.surgerychina.com/CN/Y2017/V21/I4/257
[1] Saad S, Sauerland S. Re: Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials[J]. ANZ J Surg, 2012, 82(9):655-656. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06156.x.|
[2] Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2013, 100(2):191-208. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8937. |
[3] 白明东, 王建, 徐海, 等. 《东京指南》指导下的急性胆囊炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术[J]. 中华普通外科杂志,2013,28(1):68-69. |
[4] 郑勇斌, 童仕伦, 谭海燕, 等. 超声刀在腹腔镜胃癌根治手术中的应用[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志,2009,16(10):781-784. |
[5] Suliman E, Palade R. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treating acute cholecystitis----possibilities and limitations[J]. Chirurgia (Bucur), 2013, 108(1):32-37. |
[6] 柳己海. 急性结石性胆囊炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术手术时机的选择及中转开腹影响因素分析[J]. 中国全科医学,2013,16(3):260-263. |
[7] 武小宪, 王岩, 等. 粘附于胆囊床的肝中静脉损伤是腹腔镜胆囊切除术胆囊床大出血的危险因素[J]. 中华肝胆外科杂志,2003,9(3):147-149. |
[8] 董荣坤, 张笃, 黄建明, 等. 超声刀与电刀行腹腔镜下直肠癌全直肠系膜切除术的对照研究[J]. 西部医学,2010,22(3):437-440. |
[9] 李景文, 刘彦龙, 韩鹏, 等. 开腹直肠癌根治术中应用腹腔镜器械与传统手术的对照研究[J]. 中国微创外科杂志,2012,12(9):787-789. |
[10] 陈红星, 施祖群, 董明都. 超声刀在中低位直肠癌根治术中的应用[J]. 安徽医药,2012,16(6):805-806. |
[11] 李开宗, 马会敏. 心脏起搏器置入患者腹腔镜手术超声刀临床应用研究[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志,2003,8(2):123
[1] 牟泳霖, 张筠, 曹军英, 里子彧, 于馨, 高越. PTGD治疗老年急性胆囊炎105例[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(6): 416-418.
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed