...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research >Retrospective Study of Three-Port versus Standard Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Surgical Unit Experience of 1456 Patients
【24h】

Retrospective Study of Three-Port versus Standard Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Surgical Unit Experience of 1456 Patients

机译:三端口与标准四端口腹腔镜胆囊切除术的回顾性研究:1456名患者的单手外科手术单位体验

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Although laparoscopic surgeries have proven beyond doubt their benefit in terms of early recovery, better patient care and cost-effectiveness, the quest for reduction in either the size or number of ports still continues.Aim: To compare the safety, outcome, and advantages between three-port versus four-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) in acute and chronic cholecystitis.Materials and Methods: Medical records of 1456 patients that underwent LC (three- or four-port) for acute and chronic cholecystitis from January 2015 to December 2019 (60 months) were retrospectively analysed. All patients were given the same anaesthetic drugs for induction and maintenance, with standard anaesthetic protocol. The results were compared for both the techniques in terms of operating time, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, immediate postoperative complications, pain score, analgesic requirement and hospital stay.Results: Total 1456 patients underwent LC; 1282 were female and 174 were male. The mean age of the patients was 39.2 years (range 18-70 years). The three-port LC technique was performed on 816 (56.04%) patients, while the traditional four-port LC technique was performed on 640 (43.96%) patients. Visual Analog Score (VAS) in the postoperative period at six hour was 2.11±0.82 in three-port group versus 3.17±1.12 in four-port group, this suggests that there was a significant difference in pain in these two groups in the early postoperative period (p<0.001). In three-port group, the requirement of analgesic drug was significantly less as compared to four-port group (2.86±0.98 versus 3.22±0.87; p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean operating time, duration of hospital stay, intra and postoperative complications, days to return to normal activity, satisfaction score and conversion rate (p=0.087, p=0.061, p=0.578, p=0.555, p=0.572 and p=0.145, respectively).Conclusion: Three-port LC is a feasible, effective and safe technique that further enhances the surgical outcome in terms of postoperative pain, fewer needs for analgesic medication.
机译:虽然腹腔镜手术已经证明了在早期恢复方面的益处,但更好的患者护理和成本效益,但追求港口规模或数量的追求仍在继续。目的:比较安全,结果,在急性和慢性胆囊炎的三端口与四端口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)之间的优点。材料和方法:1456例患者的医疗记录,接受急性和慢性胆囊炎的LC(三港或四港) 2019年1月至2019年12月(60个月)回顾性分析。所有患者均赋予诱导和维护相同的麻醉药物,具有标准麻醉方案。在操作时间,转化率,术中并发症,立即术后并发症,疼痛评分,镇痛药物需求和住院住院方面的技术比较了结果。结果:总计1456名患者患者诊断; 1282女性,174人是男性。患者的平均年龄为39.2岁(范围18-70岁)。在816(56.04%)患者中进行三端口LC技术,而传统的四端口LC技术在640名(43.96%)患者上进行。在六个小时的术后期间的视觉模拟分数(VAS)在四端口组的六小时内为2.11±0.82,这表明这两组在术后早期存在显着差异期间(p <0.001)。在三端口组中,与四端口组相比,镇痛药的要求显着较低(2.86±0.98与3.22±0.87; p <0.001)。平均工作时间,住院时间持续时间,医院持续时间,术后并发症,天数恢复正常活动,满意度和转化率(P = 0.087,P = 0.061,P = 0.578,P = 0.555 ,P = 0.572和P = 0.145分别)。结论:三端口LC是一种可行,有效和安全的技术,进一步增强了术后疼痛的手术结果,镇痛药物的需要较少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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