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]. 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]. 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] 杜晓辉, 崔建新. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术淋巴结清扫范围与策略[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 5-8.
[2] 周岩冰, 刘晓东. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术消化道吻合重建方式的选择[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 9-13.
[3] 张焱辉, 张蛟, 朱志贤. 留置肛管在中低位直肠癌新辅助放化疗后腹腔镜TME术中的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 25-28.
[4] 王春荣, 陈姜, 喻晨. 循Glisson蒂鞘外解剖、Laennec膜入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 37-40.
[5] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[6] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[7] 逄世江, 黄艳艳, 朱冠烈. 改良π形吻合在腹腔镜全胃切除消化道重建中的安全性和有效性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 66-69.
[8] 曹迪, 张玉茹. 经腹腔镜生物补片修补直肠癌根治术后盆底疝1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 115-116.
[9] 李凯, 陈淋, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种U型记忆合金线在经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 15-15.
[10] 唐健雄, 李绍杰. 不断推进中国腹腔镜疝手术规范化[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 591-594.
[11] 田文, 杨晓冬. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术式选择及注意事项[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 595-597.
[12] 李涛, 陈纲, 李世拥. 腹腔镜下右侧腹股沟斜疝修补术(TAPP)[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 598-598.
[13] 易明超, 汪鑫, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种T型记忆金属线在经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 599-599.
[14] 张继新, 胡军红, 谢爽, 武祖印, 张春旭. 经阴道单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术可行性及近期疗效分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 460-465.
[15] 卢艳军, 马健, 白鹏宇, 郭凌宏, 刘海义, 江波, 白文启, 张毅勋. 纳米碳在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中253组淋巴结清扫的临床效果[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 473-477.
阅读次数
全文


摘要