腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的对比研究

目的探讨腹腔镜与开腹修补上消化道溃疡穿孔的手术疗效。方法回顾性分析2001年1月至2008年12月我院急诊行消化性溃疡穿孔修补术119例（于腹腔镜下完成47例。传统开腹完成72例）的相关资料。比较两种手术的手术时间、术后恢复情况、平均住院时间等。结果2组患者手术时间及并发症发生率比较无差异：术后恢复情况、平均住院时间腹腔镜组优于开腹手术组（差异均有显著性）。结论腹腔镜手术修补具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少、美容效果好等优点,是较理想的治疗上消化道溃疡急性穿孔手术方式。     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的比较

【摘要】 目的 比较腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析80例腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术和78例开腹胃十二指肠溃疡修补术患者的临床资料,比较分析两种术式的手术时间、术后下床时间、住院时间、住院费用、失血量、术后补充使用镇痛药例数、切口美观指数及术后并发症等情况。结果 腹腔镜组80例修补术均获成功,无一例中转开腹。与开腹手术组比较,术后下床时间、住院时间、失血量;术后使用镇痛药例数、切口美观等均优于开腹手术组。术后并发症腹腔镜组除了一例皮下气肿,其他如切口感染、腹腔残余脓肿、肺部感染、肠粘连等发生率均低于开腹组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组手术在手术时间和住院费用差异无统计学意义。结论 腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术与开腹手术比具有创伤小、康复快、住院时间短、并发症少、切口美观等优点。     

腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的对照研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的可行性和效果。方法:回顾分析本院2005年1月至2007年3月24例腹腔镜手术以及36例开腹手术治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔患者的临床资料,并进行对照研究。结果:全部病例均手术成功。腹腔镜组与开腹组的术后使用镇痛药使用率分别为4.2%和41.7%(P<0.01);术后胃肠功能恢复时间平均为29h和62h(P<0.001);平均住院时间为7.3d和9.8d(P<0.01);术后并发症发生率分别为0和16.7%(P<0.05)。两组均治愈出院,术后3个月复查胃镜均未见溃疡复发。结论:经腹腔镜行上消化道溃疡穿孔修补术与传统开腹手术相比,具有疼痛轻,康复快,并发症少等优点,是安全、有效的治疗方法。     

腹腔镜技术在上消化道穿孔中的应用

目的:探讨腹腔镜技术在上消化道穿孔治疗中的应用价值。方法:选择2012年2月至2013年10月收治的46例行急诊手术治疗的上消化道穿孔患者,随机分为腹腔镜手术组与传统开腹手术组,每组23例。对比分析两组手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、术后72 h引流情况、术后疼痛评分(Prince-Henry评分法)、体温恢复正常时间、首次下床时间、首次排气时间、住院时间、住院费用、并发症等指标。结果:与传统剖腹探查组相比,腹腔镜组手术切口短,术中出血少,术后胃肠功能恢复较快,住院时间短,并发症发生率低,手术费用两组差异无统计学意义。结论:腹腔镜手术治疗消化道穿孔具有明显优势,经验丰富的术者既可明确诊断,又可同时进行治疗,最大程度地减少了患者的创伤,是安全、可行的。     

腹腔镜手术、开腹手术及保守治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜手术、开腹手术及保守治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的特点与临床疗效。方法:回顾分析2005年1月至2012年12月237例胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者的临床资料,其中56例行腹腔镜手术,147例行传统开腹手术,34例采用非手术治疗,对比3组患者全身炎症反应综合征(systemic inflammatory response syndrome,SIRS)症状改善时间、手术时间、肠蠕动恢复时间、并发症、住院时间、住院花费等指标。结果:腹腔镜组在SIRS症状改善时间、肠蠕动恢复时间、腹腔脓肿与胸腔积液例数、住院时间方面明显优于非手术组与开腹手术组(P<0.05);术中出血量、切口感染例数、术后镇痛次数、术后粘连性肠梗阻发生例数明显少于开腹手术组(P<0.05);手术时间与开腹手术组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组患者住院花费差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术具有患者创伤小、并发症少、疗效显著等优点,体现了微创手术的优越性,是目前治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的理想方法。     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术34例疗效研究

目的探讨腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的临床疗效。方法将68例患者随机分为腹腔镜组和开腹手术组各34例,比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间及并发症等。结果与开腹组比较,腹腔镜组的手术时间短,术中出血量少,肠功能恢复时间快,住院时间短,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组患者并发症发生率比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论腹腔镜下溃疡穿孔修补术与传统的开腹手术相比,手术创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少,疗效满意,值得推广和应用。     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补的优势和手术体会

【摘要】〓目的〓探讨腹腔镜治疗急性上消化道穿孔的临床疗效及优点。方法〓选取2011年1月至2013年12月收治的急性上消化道穿孔确诊患者,年龄26~75岁,平均56.8岁,行腹腔镜修补术43例(腔镜组),开腹修补术40例(开腹组),记录并对比两组的手术时间、寻找病灶时间、术后排气时间、住院时间、术后疼痛评分、并发症等情况。结果〓所有病例均随访6~18个月,平均14.6个月,两组均无围手术期死亡病例和严重并发症;两组的手术时间无明显差异,但在手术中寻找病灶时间、术后排气时间、住院时间、术后疼痛评分和并发症发生率等方面,腹腔镜组明显优于开腹组(P<0.05)。结论〓腹腔镜下行急性上消化道穿孔修补术损伤小、术后恢复快,可成为胃十二指肠穿孔修补手术的首发选择。     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补与开腹手术的临床效果分析

目的:对比分析腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的临床效果。方法:选取2010年1月至2014年12月行腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的41例患者作为实验组,同期行传统开腹手术的38例患者作为对照组,对比分析两组手术时间、出血量、术后疼痛、术后首次下床活动时间、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院时间及术后并发症发生率等相关指标。结果:两组手术均获成功。手术时间、出血量、术后疼痛、术后首次下床活动时间、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院时间两组相比差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后并发症发生率两组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术临床效果更明显,具有手术时间短、出血量少、术后疼痛轻、下床活动时间早、排气时间短、住院时间短等优点,镜下不能完成的操作,亦可指导术者选择切口位置,以更小的切口完成手术,值得临床推广应用。     

腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的疗效对比

【摘要】〓目的〓比较腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的临床疗效。方法〓回顾性分析腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术及开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术各60例的临床资料,比较分析两种手术的手术时间、术后下床时间、住院时间、住院费用、失血量、术后使用镇痛药例数、切口美观及术后并发症等情况。结果〓腹腔镜组与开腹组比较,术后下床时间、住院时间、失血量、术后使用镇痛药例数、切口美观等均优于开腹手术组;术后并发症腹腔镜组的切口感染、腹腔残余脓肿、肠粘连等发生率均低于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论〓腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术与开腹手术比具有创伤小、痛苦小、康复快、住院时间短、术后并发症少、切口美观等优点,值得临床推广。     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术临床分析

目的分析腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的效果及安全性。方法将76例胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者随机分为2组,每组38例。分别实施开腹和腹腔镜穿孔修补术。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、住院时间及并发症发生率。结果 2组患者均顺利完成手术。2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。腹腔镜组术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、住院时间及并发症发生率均优于开腹组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术创伤小、术后并发症发生率低,恢复快,安全性高。     

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of open versus laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Omental patch repair with peritoneal lavage is the mainstay of treatment for perforated peptic ulcers in many institutions. Laparoscopic repair has been used to treat perforated peptic ulcers since 1990, but few randomized studies have been carried out to compare open versus laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: From January 1994 to June 1997, 130 patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to undergo either open or laparoscopic omental patch repair. Patients were excluded for a history of upper abdominal surgery, concomitant evidence of bleeding from the ulcer, or gastric outlet obstruction. Patients with clinically sealed-off perforations without signs of peritonitis or sepsis were treated without surgery. Laparoscopic repair would be converted to an open procedure for technical difficulties, nonjuxtapyloric gastric ulcers, or perforations larger than 10 mm. A Gastrografin meal was performed 48 to 72 hours after surgery to document sealing of the perforation. The primary end-point was perioperative parenteral analgesic requirement. Secondary endpoints were operative time, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications and deaths, and the date of return to normal daily activities. RESULTS: Nine patients with a surgical diagnosis other than perforated peptic ulcer were excluded; 121 patients entered the final analysis. There were 98 male and 23 female patients recruited, ages 16 to 89 years. The two groups were comparable in age, sex, site and size of perforations, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. There were nine conversions in the laparoscopic group. After surgery, patients in the laparoscopic group required significantly less parenteral analgesics than those who underwent open repair, and the visual analog pain scores in days 1 and 3 after surgery were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group as well. Laparoscopic repair required significantly less time to complete than open repair. The median postoperative stay was 6 days in the laparoscopic group versus 7 days in the open group. There were fewer chest infections in the laparoscopic group. There were two intraabdominal collections in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the laparoscopic group and three patients in the open group died after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe and reliable procedure. It was associated with a shorter operating time, less postoperative pain, reduced chest complications, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and earlier return to normal daily activities than the conventional open repair.     

A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares laparoscopic versus open repair and suture versus sutureless repair of perforated duodenal and juxtapyloric ulcers. BACKGROUND DATA: The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet of the peritoneal cavity has been established. Whether repair of the perforated peptic ulcer by the laparoscopic approach is better than conventional open repair and whether sutured repair is better than sutureless repair are both undetermined. METHODS: One hundred three patients were randomly allocated to laparoscopic suture repair, laparoscopic sutureless repair, open suture repair, and open sutureless repair. RESULTS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (groups 1 and 2) took significantly longer than open repair (groups 3 and 4; 94.3 +/ 40.3 vs. 53.7 +/ 42.6 minutes: Student's test, p < 0.001), but the amount of analgesic required after laparoscopic repair was significantly less than in open surgery (median 1 dose vs. 3 doses) (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the four groups of patients in terms of duration of nasogastric aspiration, duration of intravenous drip, total hospital stay, time to resume normal diet, visual analogue scale score for pain in the first 24 hours after surgery, morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a viable option. Sutureless repair is as safe as suture repair and it takes less time to perform.     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的：探讨腹腔镜与开腹行胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的优缺点。方法2011年4月-2013年6月,将133例胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔患者采用抽取信封法随机分为腹腔镜组（68例）和开腹组（65例）,2组年龄、性别、穿孔大小、部位和麻醉学评分等方面无显著差异（P＞0．05）。对比2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后肠鸣音恢复时间、术后第1天及第3天疼痛评分及镇痛次数、术后并发症发生率和术后住院时间等指标。结果与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组术中出血少[（10．2±2．2）ml vs．（23．7±4．6）ml,t＝-21．742,P＝0．000],术后肠鸣音恢复早[（26．2±6．1）h vs．（39．4±8．5）h,t＝-10．324,P＝0．000],术后疼痛轻[第1天疼痛评分（4．1±1．1）vs．（7．6±1．7）,t＝-14．159,P＝0．000,第3天疼痛评分（1．7±0．9）vs．（3.6±1．2）,t＝-10．360,P＝0．000],镇痛次数少[中位数1（0-9） vs．3（0-12）,Z＝-7．208,P＝0．000],术后切口感染发生率低[0（0％） vs．6（9．2％）,P＝0．012],术后住院时间短[（6．3±1．3）d vs．（8．2±2．7）d,t＝-5．206,P＝0．000]。2组手术时间差异无显著性（ P＞0.05）。随访3-6个月,2组均无再次穿孔及死亡。结论腹腔镜手术修补胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔安全可靠,具有疼痛轻、切口感染少、康复快、术后住院时间短等优点,是治疗良性胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的理想术式。     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡修补术治疗急性胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔

目的:总结腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡修补术治疗急性胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔的临床经验。方法:1997年6月至2007年12月35例急性胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者施行腹腔镜消化性溃疡穿孔修补术。结果:35例中十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔28例,胃窦部溃疡穿孔7例,穿孔直径0.5～0.8cm,手术时间80～180min,手术均获成功,术后患者疼痛轻微,均未使用止痛剂。术后康复顺利,术后住院5～10d,平均6.5d,切口均甲级愈合,痊愈出院。出院后予以内科根除幽门螺杆菌、口服H2受体拮抗剂治疗。结论:腹腔镜手术治疗急性胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔,与开腹手术同样安全有效。胃溃疡穿孔患者术中需快速病理检查,若为恶性病变应中转开腹。     

腹腔镜与开腹消化性溃疡穿孔修补术比较的Meta分析

目的评价腹腔镜修补手术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔的安全性和有效性。方法收集1990－2011年公开发表的腹腔镜和开腹消化性溃疡穿孔修补术的中文和英文文献．对腹腔镜组和开腹组的术中情况、术后恢复情况及术后并发症情况进行Meta分析。结果筛选出符合纳入标准的研究19项,共1507例,腹腔镜组673例,开腹组834例。与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组患者术中出血量更少,术后排气时间更快、住院时间更短、术后切口感染率和围手术期死亡率更低（均P〈O．05）。两组患者手术时间和术后败血症、肺部感染、腹腔脓肿、修补处瘘发生率的差异则无统计学意义（均P〉O．05）。结论腹腔镜修补手术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔具有出血少、恢复快、切口感染和死亡率低的优势．安全可行。     

Laparoscopic repair of peptic ulcer perforation without omental patch versus conventional open repair

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive technique, has recently begun to be used on perforated peptic ulcers effectively and frequently. Nevertheless, most studies have shown that the disadvantages of the laparoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers are a long operation time, a high reoperation rate, and a need for an experienced surgeon. Thus, the objective of the current study was to compare the safety and efficacy of optimized laparoscopic surgery without an omental patch for a perforated peptic ulcer within a shorter operational time with conventional open surgery in a 4-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From May 2002 to June 2006, 35 consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of a perforated peptic ulcer were prepared prospectively to undergo either an open or optimized laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with a perforated peptic ulcer underwent simple laparoscopic repair without an omental patch. Three patients (17.6%) who were begun by the laparoscopic approach had to be converted to open surgery. Eighteen patients underwent conventional open surgery. The mean operative time for laparoscopic repair was 42.10 minutes (range, 35-60), which was significantly shorter than the 55.83 minutes for open repair (range, 35-72; P = 0.001). Postoperative parenteral analgesic requirements were lower after laparoscopic repair (75.0 mg) than that after an open repair procedure (101.39 mg; P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference between the procedures in terms of hospital stay (5 vs. 5.33 days; P = 0.37) and the timing of access to normal daily activity (6.8 vs. 7.1 days) (P = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery, when optimized by a simple repair without an omental patch and 10 mm of a large-channel aspirator-irrigator, may be safely and effectively applied to the patients with small duodenal perforated peptic ulcers (<10 mm) and because of its having low risk factors. The procedure may be an alternative treatment to other procedures when in experienced hands.     

腹腔镜治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的应用体会

目的:探讨腹腔镜治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔的应用价值及优越性。方法:回顾分析2005年1月至2008年12月我院应用腹腔镜手术治疗上消化道穿孔30例患者的临床资料。结果:30例中胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔28例,胃癌穿孔2例。28例腹腔镜手术成功,2例胃癌穿孔患者中转开腹。手术时间60～80min,平均(68.2±15.5)min。术后住院4～10d,平均6.2d。本组无并发症发生及死亡病例。结论:腹腔镜手术治疗上消化道溃疡穿孔具有患者痛苦小、损伤轻、康复快、并发症少、住院时间短等优点,疗效满意,值得临床推广应用。     

Laparoscopic omental patch repair for perforated peptic ulcer.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' initial experience with laparoscopic omental patch repair for perforated peptic ulcer is documented. Its results are compared with those of other procedures and follow-up study is reviewed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Since the advent of H2-antagonists, the usefulness of simple closure of a perforated peptic ulcer is increasing, and improvements in laparoscopic surgery have made possible minimally invasive surgery for perforated ulcer. METHODS: From December 1992 to February 1994, laparoscopic omental patch repair followed by use of H2-antagonists was performed successfully in 11 patients. Fifty-five patients underwent other surgical procedures for perforated peptic ulcers (conventional open omental patch: 4, selective vagotomy in combination with antrectomy: 24, distal gastrectomy: 27). RESULTS: The average operation time was 135 minutes. Administration of postoperative pain medication was reduced remarkably (0.9 times per patient), and all patients recovered rapidly. No serious postoperative complications were recorded. After a mean period of 11 months, the postoperative evaluation was satisfactory for all patients, and no ulcer recurrence was found. CONCLUSIONS: In perforated peptic ulcer disease, laparoscopic omental patch repair offers a number of advantages. Because no upper abdominal incision is made, there is decreased postoperative pain, and the patient rapidly recovers with fewer and less severe complications. Although the procedure requires a surgeon with particular expertise in endoscopic suturing technique, surgeons familiar with laparoscopic cholecystectomy can readily perform it after some practice. The authors' preliminary experience suggests that this is a minimally invasive procedure for perforated peptic ulcer that offers an attractive alternative to open surgery.     

Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: Although randomized and non-randomized studies have evaluated the safety of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer, no definite guidelines have been published on selection of patients for laparoscopic repair. This cohort study aimed to define patients who may not benefit from laparoscopic techniques. METHODS: The data from 374 consecutive patients with perforated peptic ulcer treated by simple repair were collected prospectively and analysed. RESULTS: From January 1992 to December 1998, 219 patients were treated by open suture repair, 109 by laparoscopic sutureless (fibrin glue) repair and 46 by laparoscopic suture repair. The overall leak rate after laparoscopic suture and sutureless repair was 6 and 16 per cent respectively. Leakage was noted to be associated with a significantly higher rate of wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess formation, prolonged ileus (P < 0.001) and longer hospital stay (11 versus 5 days; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score on admission predicted the likelihood of a leak after laparoscopic fibrin glue repair (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: APACHE II score may be a useful index for selecting patients for laparoscopic fibrin glue repair.     

Comparison Between Open and Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease

Background  The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet has been established, although it is not routinely practiced. This prospective study compared laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. We evaluated whether the early results from laparoscopic repair resulted in improved patient outcome compared with conventional open repair. Methods  All patients who underwent repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease during a 12-month period in our unit were included in the study. The primary end points that were evaluated were total operative time, nasogastric tube utilisation, intravenous fluid requirement, total time of urinary catheter and abdominal drainage usage, time taken to return to normal diet, intravenous/intramuscular opiate use, time to full mobilization, and total in-patient hospital stay. Results  Thirty-three patients underwent surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease (19 laparoscopic repairs and 14 open repairs; mean age, 54.2 (range, 32–82) years). There was no increase in total operative time in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (mean: 61 minutes laparoscopic versus 57 minutes open). There was significantly less requirement for intravenous/intramuscular opiate analgesia in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (mean time to oral analgesia: 1.2 days laparoscopic versus 3.8 days open). In addition there was a significant decrease in the time that the nasogastric tube (mean: 2.1 days laparoscopic versus 3.1 days open), urinary catheter (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 3.7 days open) and abdominal drain (mean: 2.2 days laparoscopic versus 3.8 days open) were required during the postoperative period. Patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required less intravenous fluids (mean: 1.4 days laparoscopic versus 3.1 days open) and returned to normal diet (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 4.8 days open) and full mobilization significantly earlier than those who had undergone open repair (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 3.3 days open). In addition, patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required a shorter in-patient hospital stay (mean: 3.1 days laparoscopic versus 4.3 days open). Conclusions  Laparoscopic repair is a viable and safe surgical option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease and should be considered for all patients, providing that the necessary expertise is available.