首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Harmonic Scalpel-Assisted Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - A Non-randomized Control Trial
【2h】

Harmonic Scalpel-Assisted Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - A Non-randomized Control Trial

机译:谐波手术刀辅助的腹腔镜胆囊切除术与常规的腹腔镜胆囊切除术-非随机对照试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

IntroductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most commonly done, minimally invasive surgical procedure. Routinely used electrocautery produces more smoke, which masks the operating field, thereby prolongs the surgery and posing an increased risk of gallbladder (GB) perforation. The titanium clips used for clipping the cystic artery and cystic duct have a risk of slippage, which may lead to bleeding, and an increased risk for bile leakage. In addition, it may act as a nidus for stone formation. Advanced energy sources, such as the harmonic scalpel, though expensive, may provide the advantage of shorter operating time by reducing smoke, bloodless dissection in the GB bed, lower risk of bleeding from the cystic artery due to secure vessel sealing, and avoiding the use of a larger number of titanium clips. However, evidence to substantiate this advantage is limited.AimTo compare the operating time and perioperative complications between conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) and harmonic scalpel assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (HLC).MethodologyAll consecutive patients who underwent elective LC were included. Patients with acute infection, impaired liver function tests, concomitant common bile duct calculi, chronic liver disease/cirrhosis, suspected GB carcinoma, and pregnant women were excluded from the study. Patients were allocated into two groups. In the CLC group, both the cystic duct and the cystic artery were divided after conventional titanium clip application and electrocautery was used for thermal energy. In the HLC group, the cystic duct was clipped with a titanium clip and the rest of the procedure was carried out using Harmonic Ace (Ethicon, New Jersey, United States) and Harmonic Hook (Ethicon, New Jersey, United States). Outcome parameters analyzed were operating time in minutes, post-operative pain using visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring, frequency and route of analgesic requirement after 24 hours, and intraoperative complications, including bleeding, bile duct injury, GB perforation, and surgical site infection (SSI) in the postoperative period, per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria.ResultsBoth the groups were comparable with respect to age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and the presence of comorbidity and an indication of cholecystectomy. The duration of surgery did not significantly differ between the groups (67.3 vs. 64.3 mins; p = 0.30). Other parameters, such as analgesic required on postoperative Day 1 (3.2 vs. 3; p = 0.67), VAS scores on Day 0 (4.55 vs. 4.65; p = 0.59), VAS scores on Day 1 (2.3 vs. 2.2; p = 0.84), superficial SSI (15% vs. 10%; p = 0.63), intraoperative GB perforation (30% vs. 20%; p = 0.71), and intraperitoneal drain (30% vs. 20%; p = 0.71) did not significantly differ between the groups.ConclusionHLC has no significant advantage over CLC with respect to operating time, postoperative pain, and perioperative complications.
机译:简介腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)是最常用的微创手术方法。常规使用的电灼会产生更多的烟雾,从而掩盖手术区域,从而延长手术时间,并增加胆囊(GB)穿孔的风险。用于夹紧胆囊动脉和胆囊管的钛夹子有打滑的危险,可能导致出血,并增加胆漏的风险。此外,它还可以作为结石的泥沼。先进的能源,例如谐波手术刀,尽管价格昂贵,但可以通过减少烟雾,减少GB床无血流解剖,降低由于牢固的血管密封导致的胆囊动脉出血的风险而缩短手术时间的优势,并且避免使用大量的钛夹。然而,证实这种优势的证据有限。目的是比较常规腹腔镜胆囊切除术(CLC)和谐波手术刀辅助腹腔镜胆囊切除术(HLC)的手术时间和围手术期并发症。方法学包括所有连续行选择性LC的患者。患有急性感染,肝功能检查受损,伴随的胆总管结石,慢性肝病/肝硬化,疑似GB癌和孕妇的患者被排除在研究范围之外。将患者分为两组。在CLC组中,在常规的钛夹应用后,将胆囊管和胆囊动脉分开,并使用电灼术作为热能。在HLC组中,用钛夹夹住胆囊管,其余步骤使用Harmonic Ace(美国新泽西州埃西康)和Harmonic Hook(美国新泽西州埃西康)进行。分析的结果参数为以分钟为单位的手术时间,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分的术后疼痛,24小时后需要镇痛的频率和途径以及术中并发症,包括出血,胆管损伤,GB穿孔和手术部位感染根据疾病控制中心(CDC)的标准在手术后(SSI)。结果两组在年龄,性别,体重指数(BMI)以及合并症和胆囊切除术的适应症方面均具有可比性。两组的手术时间无明显差异(67.3分钟对64.3分钟; p = 0.30)。其他参数,例如术后第1天需要镇痛(3.2 vs.3; p = 0.67),第0天的VAS评分(4.55 vs.4.65; p = 0.59),第1天的VAS评分(2.3 vs. 2.2; p = 0.84),浅表SSI(15%vs.10%; p = 0.63),术中GB穿孔(30%vs.20%; p = 0.71)和腹膜内引流(30%vs.20%; p = 0.71)两组之间无明显差异。结论HLC在手术时间,术后疼痛和围手术期并发症方面没有比CLC显着优势。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号