摘要
目的总结急诊腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)和急诊开腹胆囊切除术(OC)的临床治疗效果。方法将我院肝胆外科2011年3月至2012年6月期间收治的133例急性胆囊炎患者随机分为急诊LC组和急诊OC组,比较2组患者术前、术中情况、手术并发症及术后恢复情况。结果急诊LC组和急诊OC组患者术前情况比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),该2组患者的手术时间、术中胆管损伤率、术后出血率及再手术率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。急诊LC组患者的术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间及术后住院时间均明显短于急诊OC组(P<0.05),且急诊LC组发生切口愈合不良率明显低于急诊OC组(P<0.05),术中出血量明显少于急诊OC组(P<0.05)。结论急诊LC较急诊OC术后并发症少,恢复快,且并不增加手术时间。在LC技术成熟的医院,急诊行LC是安全、可行的,并具有明显的微创优势。
Objective To summarize the clinical therapeutic efficacy of emergent laparoscopic cholecystectomy （LC） and emergent open cholecystectomy （OC）. Methods One hundred and thirty-three patients with acute cholecystitis from March 2011 to June 2012 in this hospital were randomly divided into emergent LC （ELC） group and emergent OC （EOC） group. The examination and treatment before and after operation were the same. The clinical data before and during operation, postoperative complications, and recovery conditions were observed and compared. Results There was no obvious difference of the clinical data before operation between the ELC group and EOC group （P 〉 0. 05）. Also, there were no significant differences of the operation time, biliary duct injury rate, postoperative bleeding rate, and reoperation rate in two groups （P〉0. 05）. The time of postoperative anal exsufflation, time of out-of-bed activity, and postoperative hospital stay in the ELC group were significantly shorter than those in the EOC group （P〈 0. 05）, the poor incision heal- ing rate in the ELC group was significantly lower than that in the EOC group （P〈0. 05）, and the intraoperative blood loss in the ELC group was significantly less than that in the EOC group （P〈0. 05）. Conclusions ELC as compared with EOC, are less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative complications, more rapid recovery, and do not increase operation time. In a hospital with skilled LC technique, ELC is safe and feasible, has obvious advantages of minimal invasion.
出处
《中国普外基础与临床杂志》
CAS
2013年第2期195-198,共4页
Chinese Journal of Bases and Clinics In General Surgery
