Chinese Journal of Modern Operative Surgery  2017, Vol. 21 Issue (4): 257-260 DOI: 10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2017.04.004 |
| Clinical Research |
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Published: 15 May 2018
|
|
|
|
|
| [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
|
|
|
|
