期刊文献+

腹腔镜胆囊切除术和开腹胆囊切除术的临床效果比较 被引量:17

Clinical effect comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术和开腹胆囊切除术的临床效果及术后并发症发生情况。方法选取2010年5月~2013年4月在本院行胆囊切除术的患者110例,随机分为观察组和对照组,观察组55例,采用腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗,对照组55例,采用开腹胆囊切除术治疗,观察并比较两组的并发症发生率及临床疗效。结果观察组的并发症发生率为9.09%,低于对照组的25.45%,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。观察组的手术时间、排气时间、下床活动时间及住院时间短于对照组,术中出血量少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。结论与传统开腹手术相比,腹腔镜胆囊切除术具有手术时间短、创伤小、术中出血量少、患者恢复快及并发症发生率低等优点,可作为胆囊切除术的首选方式。 Objective To evaluate clinical effect and the incidence of postoperative complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. Methods 110 cases of patients with cholecystectomy from May 2010 to April 2013 in our hospital were selected and randomly divided into observation group and control group,laparoscopic cholecystectomy treatment was used in observation group(55 cases),open cholecystectomy treatment was used in control group (55 cases).The incidence rate of complication and clinical efficacy in two groups was compared respectively. Results The incidence rate of complication in observation group was 9.09%,lower than that in control group (25.45%),with statistical difference (P〈0.05).Operative time,discharge time,ambulation time and hospital stay time in observation group was shorter than that in control group respectively,blood loss in observation group was less than that in control group, with statistical difference (P〈0.05). Conclusion Compared with traditional open surgery,laparoscopic cholecystectomy has shorter operation time,small trauma,less intraoperative blood loss,faster recovery and low complication rate,should be the preferred way of cholecystectomy.
出处 《中国当代医药》 2014年第16期40-41,44,共3页 China Modern Medicine
关键词 腹腔镜胆囊切除术 开腹胆囊切除术 并发症 临床疗效 Laparoscopic cholecystectomy Open cholecystectomy Complication Clinical efficacy
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

二级参考文献75

共引文献28

同被引文献89

  • 1CERCI C, TARHAN OR, BARUT I, et al. Three - port versusfour - port laparoscopic cholecystecto[ J] . Hepatogastroenter-ology, 2007,54(73) : 15 -16.
  • 2LAI EC, YANG GP, TANG CN, et al. Prospective randomizedcomparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystec-tomy versus conventional four - port laparoscopic cholecys-tectomy[J], Am J Surg, 2011 , 202(3) : 254 -258.
  • 3LEE PC, LO C, LAI PS, et al. Randomized clinical trial of sin-gle -incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilapa-roscopic cholecystectomy [ J ]. Br J Surg, 2010, 97(7):1007 -1012.
  • 4MARKAR SR, KARTHIKESALINGAM A, THRUMURTHY S, et al.Single - incision laparoscopic surgery ( SILS) vs. conventionalmultiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta -analysis[J], Surg Endosc, 2012 , 26(5): 1205-1213.
  • 5MARKS J, TACCHINO R, ROBERTS K,et al. Prospectiverandomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic chole-cystectomy versus single - incision 丨aparoscopic cholecystec-tomy: report of preliminary data[ J]. Am J Surg, 2011, 201(3): 369 -373.
  • 6PHILLIPS MS, MARKS JM, ROBERTS K, et al. Intermedi-ate results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of tra-ditional four - port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus sin-gle -incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy [ J ]. Surg En-dosc, 2012,26(5) : 1296 -1303.
  • 7Yamashita Y,Takada T,Kawarada Y,et a1.Surgieal treatment of patients with acut echoleeystitis:Tokyo Guidelines[J].JHepatobiliary Pancreat Surg,2007,14(1):91-97.
  • 8蒋东霞.腹腔镜、传统开腹和小切口胆囊切除术的效果比较[J].医学临床研究,2008,25(7):1244-1247. 被引量:44
  • 9张光永,杨庆芸,胡三元.经脐单孔腹腔镜外科技术的现状与展望[J].腹腔镜外科杂志,2009,14(1):78-80. 被引量:108
  • 10严立俊.改良二孔法与三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术的对比研究[J].中国普通外科杂志,2009,18(2):200-201. 被引量:9

引证文献17

二级引证文献46

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