期刊文献+

Is laparoscopy equal to laparotomy in detecting and treating small bowel injuries in a porcine model? 被引量:6

Is laparoscopy equal to laparotomy in detecting and treating small bowel injuries in a porcine model?
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for diagnosing and treating small bowel injuries (SBIs) in a porcine model. METHODS: Twenty-eight female pigs were anesthetized and laid in the left recumbent position. The SBI model was established by shooting at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen. The pigs were then randomized into either the laparotomy group or the laparoscopy group. All pigs underwent routine exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy to evaluate the abdominal injuries, particularly the types, sites, and numbers of SBIs. Traditional open surgery or therapeutic laparoscopy was then performed. All pigs were kept alive within the observational period (postoperative 72 h). The postoperative recovery of each pig was carefully observed. RESULTS: The vital signs of all pigs were stable within 1-2 h after shooting and none of the pigs died from gunshot wounds or SBIs immediately. The SBI model was successfully established in all pigs and definitively diagnosed with single or multiple SBIs either by exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy. Compared with exploratory laparotomy, laparoscopy took a significantly longer time for diagnosis (41.27 ± 12.04 min vs 27.64 ± 13.32 min, P = 0.02), but the time for therapeutic laparoscopy was similar to that of open surgery. The length of incision was significantly reduced in the laparoscopy group compared with the laparotomy group (5.27 ± 1.86 cm vs 15.73 ± 1.06 cm, P < 0.01). In the final post-mortem examination 72 h after surgery, both laparotomy and laparoscopy offered a definitive diagnosis with no missed injuries. Postoperative complications occurred in four cases (three following laparotomy and one following laparoscopy, P = 0.326). The average recovery period for bowel function, vital appearance, and food re-intake after laparoscopy was 10.36 ± 4.72 h, 14.91 ± 3.14 h, and 15.00 ± 7.11 h, respectively. All of these were significantly shorter than after laparotomy (21.27 ± 10.17 h, P = 0.004; 27.82 ± 9.61 h, P < 0.001; and 24.55 ± 9.72 h, respectively, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy offers equivalent efficacy for diagnosing and treating SBIs, and reduces postoperative complications as well as recovery period. AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for diagnosing and treating small bowel injuries (SBIs) in a porcine model. METHODS: Twenty-eight female pigs were anesthetized and laid in the left recumbent position. The SBI model was established by shooting at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen. The pigs were then randomized into either the laparotomy group or the laparoscopy group. All pigs underwent routine exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy to evaluate the abdominal injuries, particularly the types, sites, and numbers of SBIs. Traditional open surgery or therapeutic laparoscopy was then performed. All pigs were kept alive within the observational period (postoperative 72 h). The postoperative recovery of each pig was carefully observed. RESULTS: The vital signs of all pigs were stable within 1-2 h after shooting and none of the pigs died from gunshot wounds or SBIs immediately. The SBI model was successfully established in all pigs and definitively diagnosed with single or multiple SBIs either by exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy. Compared with exploratory laparotomy, laparoscopy took a significantly longer time for diagnosis (41.27 ± 12.04 min vs 27.64 ± 13.32 min, P = 0.02), but the time for therapeutic laparoscopy was similar to that of open surgery. The length of incision was significantly reduced in the laparoscopy group compared with the laparotomy group (5.27 ± 1.86 cm vs 15.73 ± 1.06 cm, P 〈 0.01). In the final post-mortem examination 72 h after surgery, both laparotomy and laparoscopy offered a definitive diagnosis with no missed injuries. Postoperative complications occurred in four cases (three following laparotomy and one following laparoscopy, P = 0.326). The average recovery period for bowel function, vital appearance, and food re-intake after laparoscopy was 10.36 ± 4.72 h, 14.91 ± 3.14 h, and 15.00 ± 7.11 h, respectively. All of these were significantly shorter than after laparotomy (21.27 ± 10.17 h, P = 0.004; 27.82 ± 9.61 h, P 〈 0.001; and 24.55 ± 9.72 h, respectively, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy offers equivalent efficacy for diagnosing and treating SBIs, and reduces postoperative complications as well as recovery period.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2012年第46期6850-6855,共6页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 Laparoscopy Laparotomy Small bowel injury Porcine model Diagnosis Treatment Penetrating injury Firearm injury 腹腔镜 治疗 模型 探查 剖腹 损伤 小肠
  • 相关文献

参考文献26

  • 1Nicholas JM, Rix EP, Easley KA, Feliciano DV, Cava RA, Ingram WL, Parry NG, Rozycki GS, Salomone JP, Tremblay LN. Changing patterns in the management of penetrating ab- dominal trauma: the more things change, the more they stay the same. J Trauma 2003; 55:1095-1098; discussion 1108-1110.
  • 2Watts DD, Fakhry SM. Incidence of hollow viscus injury in blunt trauma: an analysis from 275,557 trauma admissions from the East multi-institutional trial. J Trauma 2003; 54: 289-294.
  • 3Busi4 Z, Lovri4 Z, Ami4 E, Busi4 D, Lovri4 L. Small bowel injuries in penetrating abdominal trauma during war: ten- year follow-up findings. Mil Med 2004; 169:721-722.
  • 4Lee WC, Uddo JF, Nance FC. Surgical judgment in the man- agement of abdominal stab wounds. Utilizing clinical criteria from a 10-year experience. Ann Surg 1984; 199:549-554.
  • 5Ertekin C, Yanar H, Taviloglu K, G(iloglu R, Alimoglu O. Unnecessary laparotomy by using physical examination and different diagnostic modalities for penetrating abdominal stab wounds. Emerg Med J 2005; 22:790-794.
  • 6Renz BM, Feliciano DV. Unnecessary laparotomies for trauma: a prospective study of morbidity. J Trauma 1995; 38:350-356.
  • 7Henderson VJ, Organ CH, Smith RS. Negative trauma celi- otomy. Am Surg 1993; 59:365-370.
  • 8I c , Lin HF, Wu JM, Tu CC, Chen HA, Shih HC. Value of di- agnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for abdominal stab wounds. World J Surg 2010; 34:1653-1662.
  • 9Leppiniemi A) Haapiainen R. Diagnostic laparoscopy in abdominal stab wounds: a prospective, randomized study. J Trauma 2003; 55:636-645.
  • 10Elliott DC, Rodriguez A, Moncure M, Myers RA, Shillinglaw W, Davis F, Goldberg A, Mitchell K, McRitchie D. The accu- racy of diagnostic laparoscopy in trauma patients: a prospec- tive, controlled study. Int Surg 1998; 83:294-298.

同被引文献22

引证文献6

二级引证文献13

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部