切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2011, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (05) : 395 -398. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2011.05.008

所属专题: 文献

论著

开腹手术、高频电刀与超声刀治疗粘连性肠梗阻疗效分析
汪学伦1, 丁俊涛1,(), 方荣新1   
  1. 1. 650200 昆明,解放军478医院外一科
  • 收稿日期:2011-06-13 出版日期:2011-10-01
  • 通信作者: 丁俊涛

Treatment effectiveness of ultrasonically activated scalpel, high frequency electrotome under laparoscopy and laparotomy for adhesive intestinal obstruction

Xue-lun WANG1, Jun-tao DING1,(), Rong-xin FANG1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, No.478 Hospital of PLA, Kunming 650200, China
  • Received:2011-06-13 Published:2011-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Jun-tao DING
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: DING Jun-tao, Email:
引用本文:

汪学伦, 丁俊涛, 方荣新. 开腹手术、高频电刀与超声刀治疗粘连性肠梗阻疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2011, 05(05): 395-398.

Xue-lun WANG, Jun-tao DING, Rong-xin FANG. Treatment effectiveness of ultrasonically activated scalpel, high frequency electrotome under laparoscopy and laparotomy for adhesive intestinal obstruction[J/OL]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2011, 05(05): 395-398.

目的

比较开腹手术、高频电刀与超声刀治疗粘连性肠梗阻的临床效果,探讨粘连性肠梗阻手术方式以及腹腔镜治疗肠粘连的优越性。

方法

回顾性分析1999年6月至2010年6月应用超声刀治疗粘连性肠梗阻27例及高频电刀手术治疗粘连性肠梗阻23例患者的临床资料,并与同期30例开腹手术对比分析。

结果

平均手术时间超声刀组为(62.1 ± 17.7)min,高频电刀组为(98.0 ± 37.0)min,开腹手术组为(115.0 ± 20.2)min。与另外两组比较,超声刀组手术时间显著降低;与开腹手术组比较,高频电刀组手术时间显著下降(P < 0.01)。3组平均术中出血量分别为(13.9 ± 4.4)ml、(35.0 ± 6.4)ml和(150.0 ± 35.0)ml,超声刀组低于另外两组,高频电刀组低于开腹手术组差异有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。平均术后住院时间分别为(3.2 ± 0.5)d、(6.1 ± 1.0)d和(11.8 ± 4.0)d,超声刀组与高频电刀组显著低于开腹手术组(P < 0.01)。超声刀组无一例发生并发症,高频电刀组发生2例,开腹组发生7例,组间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。

结论

超声刀及高频电刀治疗粘连性肠梗阻具有创伤小、术后康复快、并发症少及住院时间短等优点。超声刀治疗效果优于高频电刀。

Objective

To assess the value of ultrasonically activated scalpel and high frequency electrotome under laparoscopy and laparotomy in treatment of adhesive intestinal obstruction.

Methods

Clinical data of twenty-seven adhesive intestinal obstruction patients operated by ultrasonically activated scalpel under laparoscopy in our hospital from Jun. 1999 to Jun. 2010 were retrospectively analyzed and they were compared with 23 patients who underwent electroscalpel enterolysis and 30 cases who underwent laparotomy at the same period.

Results

The operative duration were (62.1 ± 17.7) min in the group of ultrasonically activated scalpel, (98.0±37.0) min in the group of electroscalpel enterolysis, and (115.0 ± 20.2) min in the group of laparotomy. The volume and time were remarkably descendent in the group of ultrasonically activated scalpel comparing to the group of electroscalpel enterolysis. So it was in the group of electroscalpel enterolysis, comparing to the group of laparotomy (P < 0.01) . Mean bleeding were (13.9 ± 4.4) ml, (35.0 ± 6.4) ml and (150.0 ± 35.0) ml, respectively. And the mean length of stay were (3.2 ± 0.5) d, (6.1 ± 1.0) d and (11.8 ± 4.0) d, which was remarkably descendent in the group of ultrasonically activated scalpel or electroscalpel enterolysis comparing to the group of laparotomy (P < 0.01) . There was no complication in the group of ultrasonically activated scalpel, 2 cases happened in the group of electroscalpel enterolysis and 7 cases in the group of laparotomy. They were remarkably differential in groups (P < 0.05) .

Conclusions

Enterolysis using laparoscope and ultrasonically activated scalpel to treat adhesive intestinal obstruction is safe and feasible. It has the advantages of short operative time and hospital stay, less invasion and complications, and lower recurrence rate.

表1 各组患者临床资料比较( ± s
表2 3组患者的手术效果比较( ± s
1
吴阶平,裘法祖. 黄家驷外科学,第6版. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2000:1074-1077.
2
陈胤,吴国庆,穆宇,等. 腹腔镜手术治疗粘连性肠梗阻30例临床体会[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志:电子版,2011,5(1):102-103.
3
王振宁,邢承忠,鲁翀,等. 超声刀在开放结直肠癌根治手术中的应用. 中国普外基础与临床杂志,2008,15(10):714-717.
4
Nagle A,Vjiki M,Denham W,et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg,2004,187(4):464.
5
蔡晓军,张新国,韩承新. 肠粘连患者选择实施腹腔镜粘连松解术的体会. 腹腔镜外科杂志,2008,13(1):33-34.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[10] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[11] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[12] 冯旺, 马振中, 汤林花. CT扫描三维重建在肝内胆管细胞癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 104-107.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?