期刊文献+

小儿穿孔性阑尾炎腹腔镜术后不置管引流可行性研究 被引量:2

Feasibility study of non-drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for pediatric perforated appendicitis
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探讨分析小儿穿孔性阑尾炎腹腔镜术后不置管引流的可行性。方法将拟行腹腔镜阑尾切除术的患儿随机分为置管引流组(104例)和不置管引流组(108例),对相关临床资料进行分析,比较2组患儿手术后治疗效果。结果不置管引流组患儿术后肛门排气时间及住院时间均短于置管引流组(P<0.05);2组术后随访6~12个月,不置管引流组术后切口感染率及术后粘连性肠梗阻发生率均低于置管引流组(P<0.05)。结论小儿穿孔性阑尾炎腹腔镜术后不置管引流可促进术后胃肠功能恢复,降低术后并发症发生率。 Objective To study the feasibility of non-drainage for pediatric perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy. Methods The clinical data of 212 patients with perforated appendicitis underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were analyzed,including 104 cases of drainage and 108 cases of non-drainage. The postoperative flatus time,hospital stay,hospital costs and the incidences of postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results The postoperative flatus time and hospital stay were shorter in non-drainage patients,and the differences were of statistical significant( P〈 0. 05). The wound infection and adhesive intestinal obstruction rate were lower in patients without drainage,compared with those patients with drainage,and the differences were of statistical significances( P 〈0. 05). There were no difference in hospital costs and abdominal abscess rate between the two groups( P〉 0. 05). Conclusion Non-drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for pediatric perforated appendicitis can promote postoperative recovery,effectively reduce postoperative complications.
作者 曾亮 李绪梅 苏泽礼 单振潮 梁仁章 ZENG Liang;LI Xumei;SU Zeli;SHAN Zhenchao;LIANG Renzhang(General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan 750004, Chin)
出处 《宁夏医学杂志》 CAS 2018年第5期423-425,共3页 Ningxia Medical Journal
关键词 小儿 穿孔性阑尾炎 腹腔镜阑尾切除术 不置管引流 并发症 Pediatric Perforated appendicitis Laparoscopic appendectomy Nontube drainage Complication
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献19

  • 1吴孟超,吴在德.黄家驷外科学[M].第7版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2008:1340-1341.
  • 2Gil F, Morales GD, Bernal JM, et al. Complicated acute apendicitis.Open versus laparoscopic surgery[J]. Cir Esp, 2008, 83(6): 309-312.
  • 3Addiss DG, Shaffr N, Fowler BS, et al. The epidemiology ofappendicitis and appendectomy in the United States[J]. Am JEpidemiol, 1990, 132(5): 910-925.
  • 4Fraser JD, Aguayo P, Leys CM, et al. A complete course ofintravenous antibiotics vs a combination of intravenous and oralantibiotics for perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective,randomized trial[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2010, 45(6): 1198-1202.
  • 5St Peter SD, Sharp SW, Holcomb GW 3rd, et al. An evidence-baseddefiition for perforated appendicitis derived from a prospectiverandomized trial[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2008, 43(12): 2242-2245.
  • 6St Peter SD, Tsao K, Spilde TL, et al. Single daily dosing ceftriaxoneand metronidazole vs standard triple antibiotic regimen for perforatedappendicitis in children: a prospective randomized trial[J]. J PediatrSurg, 2008,43(6): 981-985.
  • 7Fishman SJ, Pelosi L, Klavon SL, et al. prospective outcome analysisfor 150 children[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2000, 35(6): 923-926.
  • 8Curran TJ, Muenchow SK. The treatment of complicated appendicitisin children using peritoneal drainage: results from a public hospital[J].J Pediatr Surg, 1993, 28(2): 204-208.
  • 9Narci A, Karaman I, Karaman A, et al. Is peritoneal drainagenecessary in childhood perforated appendicitis- -a comparativestudy[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2007, 42(11): 1864-1868.
  • 10Schwartz MZ, Tapper D, Solenberger RI. Management of perforatedappendicitis in children. The controversy continues[J]. Ann Surg,1983, 197(4): 407-411.

共引文献18

同被引文献15

引证文献2

二级引证文献10

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