期刊文献+

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的前瞻性随机对照研究 被引量:52

Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Acute Peptic Ulcer Perforation: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:探讨腹腔镜与开腹行胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的优缺点。方法2011年4月-2013年6月,将133例胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔患者采用抽取信封法随机分为腹腔镜组(68例)和开腹组(65例),2组年龄、性别、穿孔大小、部位和麻醉学评分等方面无显著差异(P>0.05)。对比2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后肠鸣音恢复时间、术后第1天及第3天疼痛评分及镇痛次数、术后并发症发生率和术后住院时间等指标。结果与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组术中出血少[(10.2±2.2)ml vs.(23.7±4.6)ml,t=-21.742,P=0.000],术后肠鸣音恢复早[(26.2±6.1)h vs.(39.4±8.5)h,t=-10.324,P=0.000],术后疼痛轻[第1天疼痛评分(4.1±1.1)vs.(7.6±1.7),t=-14.159,P=0.000,第3天疼痛评分(1.7±0.9)vs.(3.6±1.2),t=-10.360,P=0.000],镇痛次数少[中位数1(0-9) vs.3(0-12),Z=-7.208,P=0.000],术后切口感染发生率低[0(0%) vs.6(9.2%),P=0.012],术后住院时间短[(6.3±1.3)d vs.(8.2±2.7)d,t=-5.206,P=0.000]。2组手术时间差异无显著性( P>0.05)。随访3-6个月,2组均无再次穿孔及死亡。结论腹腔镜手术修补胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔安全可靠,具有疼痛轻、切口感染少、康复快、术后住院时间短等优点,是治疗良性胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的理想术式。 Objective To compare the differences of the results between the laparoscopic and open repair in the treatment of acute peptic ulcer perforation . Methods From April 2011 to June 2013, 133 patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic (n=68) or open (n=65) repairs.The two groups were comparable in age , sex, size and site of perforations, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification (P〉0.05).The data of the operation time, operative bleeding, postoperative bowel sound recovery time , pain scores, sedative usage, incidence of complications, and length of postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups . Results All the laparoscopic or open repairs were completed successfully under general anesthesia .The operative bleeding and postoperative bowel sound recovery time in laparoscopic group were significantly less than those in the open group [(10.2 ±2.2) ml vs.(23.7 ±4.6) ml, t=-21.742, P=0.000 and (26.2 ±6.1) h vs.(39.4 ±8.5) h, t =-10.324, P=0.000].After surgery, patients in the laparoscopic group required significantly less parenteral analgesics than those who underwent open repair [median, 1 dose(0-9) vs.3 doses(0-12), Z=-7.208, P=0.000). The visual analog pain scores ( VAS ) in day 1 and day 3 after surgery were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group as well [(4.1 ±1.1) vs.(7.6 ±1.7), t=-14.159, P=0.000 and (1.7 ±0.9) vs.(3.6 ±1.2), t=-10.360, P=0.000].There were fewer incision infections in the laparoscopic group than those in the open group (0 vs.6 cases, P =0.012).The mean postoperative hospital stay was (6.3 ±1.3) days in the laparoscopic group versus (8.2 ±2.7) days in the open group (t=-5.206, P=0.000).Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer took similar time with open repair (P〉0.05).The patients were followedup for 3 -6 months , during which there was no patient undergoing re-perforation or fatal complications in both groups . Conclusions Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe and reliable procedure .It is associated with less damage , less postoperative pain , less incision infections , quicker recovery , shorter postoperative hospital stay , and earlier return to normal daily activities than the conventional open repair , being an ideal treatment for most acute peptic ulcer perforation .
出处 《中国微创外科杂志》 CSCD 2014年第9期782-785,共4页 Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery
基金 2011年广东省江门市科技局科研立项项目[江科2011(90)号]
关键词 腹腔镜 消化性溃疡 穿孔 穿孔修补 随机对照研究 Laparoscopy Peptic ulcer Perforation Repair Randomized controlled trial
  • 相关文献

参考文献14

  • 1Mouret P, Francois Y, Vignal J, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg, 1990, 77(9) : 1006 -1007.
  • 2Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013,2 : CD004778.
  • 3Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch 00, et al. Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer. JSLS, 2013, 17(1) :15 -22.
  • 4张良清,高海鸿,冯时傧,吴浩源,黄敏标,李东.胃肠手术前后应用小承气汤对康复的影响[J].广西医学,2013,35(2):184-186. 被引量:13
  • 5李立涛,王华丽,司丕成,宁海文.河源地区消化性溃疡穿孔患者状况调查分析[J].赣南医学院学报,2012,32(2):249-251. 被引量:2
  • 6Freshteh K, Mehrdad M, Seyed AM, et al. Perforated peptic ulcer disease: mid- term outcome among Iranian population. Turk J Gastroenterol,2010,21 (2) : 125 - 128.
  • 7Hosseini SV, Sabet B, Amini M. Surgical management of combined perforated and bleeding duodenal ulcer. Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2008,10(1) :30 -33.
  • 8Lunevicius R, Morkevicins M. Management strategies, early results, benefits and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. World J Surg,2005,29(10) :1299 - 1310.
  • 9Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Risk factors influencing the early outcome results after laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer and their predictive value. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2005,390 ( 5 ) : 413 - 420.
  • 10尹清华,陈健,徐大勇,彭汉武.硬膜外麻醉下不同二氧化碳气腹压在腹腔镜消化性溃疡穿孔修补术中应用的前瞻性随机对照研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2010,10(7):591-593. 被引量:4

二级参考文献45

共引文献154

同被引文献305

引证文献52

二级引证文献213

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