發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-18 14:25

【摘要】：目的:探討開(kāi)腹手術(shù)及腹腔鏡手術(shù)治療復(fù)雜性闌尾炎的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn),為臨床合理選擇手術(shù)方式提供依據(jù)。方法:本課題回顧性收集分析皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院第一附屬醫(yī)院2012-2014年復(fù)雜性闌尾炎病例,共有160例患者術(shù)后診斷為復(fù)雜性闌尾炎,符合納入診斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),此中腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)(Laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)組含有65例,傳統(tǒng)開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)(open appendectomy,OA)組95例,其中有4例初為腹腔鏡探查后無(wú)法順利完成手術(shù),后中轉(zhuǎn)開(kāi)腹手術(shù)。通過(guò)比較對(duì)比分析,患者年齡,性別,發(fā)病時(shí)間至手術(shù)時(shí)間、血白細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)、中性粒細(xì)胞比例、病理分型、腹腔膿液量、腹腔沖洗率、腹腔引流率、手術(shù)時(shí)間、術(shù)中出血、切口長(zhǎng)度、肛門(mén)排氣時(shí)間、下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、住院費(fèi)用、住院時(shí)間、以及術(shù)后并發(fā)癥(切口感染或穿刺孔感染、肺部感染、腹腔膿腫、腸梗阻、腸瘺、出血等)的發(fā)生率。結(jié)果:LA組及OA組的年齡、性別、術(shù)前WBC、N計(jì)數(shù)、病理分型、腹腔膿液量、腹腔引流率、手術(shù)時(shí)間、肺部感染發(fā)生率、腸梗阻發(fā)生率、腹腔膿腫發(fā)生率、住院費(fèi)用等差異均無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.05)。LA組及OA組腹腔沖洗率分別為100%、23.1%,LA組腹腔沖洗率明顯高于OA組,兩組差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。術(shù)中出血分別為31.2±21.4ml、45.2±38.1ml,OA組術(shù)中出血量高于LA組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。手術(shù)切口長(zhǎng)度分別為2.2±0.5cm、6.3±2.4cm,OA組手術(shù)切口長(zhǎng)度長(zhǎng)于LA組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。LA組及OA組下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間分別為2.29±0.98d、2.91±0.75d,LA組術(shù)后下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間較OA組早,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。肛門(mén)通氣時(shí)間分別為2.22±1.07d、2.75±0.84d,LA組術(shù)后肛門(mén)排氣時(shí)間較OA組早,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。住院時(shí)間分別為7.26±3.16d、8.55±4.85d,LA組術(shù)后住院時(shí)間短語(yǔ)OA組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。術(shù)后總并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率分別為4.9%、16.8%,OA組術(shù)后并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率高于LA組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。并發(fā)癥切口感染(穿刺孔感染)分別為1.6%、10.5%,LA組術(shù)后切口感染率低于OA組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論:LA與OA相比,具有創(chuàng)傷小、恢復(fù)快、術(shù)后并發(fā)癥少、住院時(shí)間短等優(yōu)點(diǎn),在治療復(fù)雜性闌尾炎方面,LA可能是一種有效的、安全的手術(shù)方式。
[Abstract]:Objective: to explore the advantages and disadvantages of laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of complicated appendicitis, and to provide the basis for the rational selection of surgical methods. Methods: the patients with complicated appendicitis in the first affiliated Hospital of Southern Anhui Medical College from 2012 to 2014 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. A total of 160 patients were diagnosed as complicated appendicitis after operation, which met the criteria of inclusion diagnosis. There were 65 cases in laparoscopic appendectomy (Laparoscopic appendectomy,LA) group and 95 cases in traditional open appendectomy (open appendectomy,OA) group. Age, sex, onset time to operation time, leukocyte count, neutrophil ratio, pathological classification, peritoneal empyema, celiac irrigation rate, celiac drainage rate, operative time, intraoperative bleeding were compared and analyzed. Length of incision, time of anal exhaust, time of getting out of bed, cost of hospitalization, hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative complications (incision infection or puncture hole infection, pulmonary infection, abdominal abscess, intestinal obstruction, intestinal fistula, bleeding, etc.). Results the age, sex, preoperative WBC,N count, pathological classification, celiac empyema, celiac drainage rate, operative time, pulmonary infection rate, intestinal obstruction rate, abdominal abscess rate, the age, sex, preoperative WBC,N count, pathological type, intraperitoneal drainage rate, lung infection rate, intestinal obstruction rate, abdominal abscess rate of the two groups were analyzed. There was no significant difference in hospitalization expenses between LA group and OA group (P 0.05). The celiac lavage rate of LA group was significantly higher than that of OA group (P 0.05). Intraoperative bleeding was 31.2 鹵21.4 ml / ml and 45.2 鹵38.1 ml / ml respectively in OA group, which was significantly higher than that in LA group (P0.05). The operative incision length in OA group was 2.2 鹵0.5 cm ~ (-1) 鹵2.4 cm ~ (-1) respectively, which was longer than that in LA group (P0.05). The time of getting out of bed in LA group and OA group was 2.29 鹵0.98 days and 2.91 鹵0.75 days after operation, respectively, which was significantly earlier than that in OA group (P0.05). The anal ventilation time of LA group was 2.22 鹵1.07d and 2.75 鹵0.84d respectively, which was earlier than that of OA group (P0.05). The hospitalization time of LA group was 7.26 鹵3.16 days and 8.55 鹵4.85 days after operation respectively, the difference was statistically significant (P0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the OA group was higher than that in the LA group (P 0.05). The postoperative infection rate of incision infection (puncture hole infection) in the complications group (1.6%) was significantly lower than that in the OA group (P0.05). Conclusion compared with OA, Ve-LA has the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, less postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay. It may be an effective and safe surgical method in the treatment of complicated appendicitis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：R656.8

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱慧如;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)療效比較[J];中國(guó)廠礦醫(yī)學(xué);2003年01期

2 田成武,朱華文;傳統(tǒng)的開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)與腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)的比較[J];中華普通外科雜志;2004年02期

3 冉鋒;;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)療效比較[J];重慶醫(yī)學(xué);2006年08期

4 方孫陽(yáng);俞學(xué)軍;董怡民;羅衡桂;;開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)與腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)的比較分析[J];全科醫(yī)學(xué)臨床與教育;2006年02期

5 劉金忠;張娜;;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與傳統(tǒng)開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)比較[J];中國(guó)社區(qū)醫(yī)師(綜合版);2007年04期

6 婁建平;代明盛;吳志明;沈華強(qiáng);;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)和開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)的對(duì)比分析[J];浙江臨床醫(yī)學(xué);2008年06期

7 于海濤;徐建華;夏雨;;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)臨床比較分析[J];亞太傳統(tǒng)醫(yī)藥;2008年08期

8 熊少偉;劉錚;鄧興明;;腹腔鏡與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)的對(duì)比分析[J];中國(guó)現(xiàn)代醫(yī)生;2008年18期

9 鐘漓;盧崇亮;田小林;張廣鈺;龐凌坤;王海鵬;;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)對(duì)比研究[J];中國(guó)臨床新醫(yī)學(xué);2009年06期

10 牛春申;張舒龍;;腹腔鏡與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)比較分析[J];淮海醫(yī)藥;2011年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 吳偉軍;徐魯白;周斌;王繼生;;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)的臨床應(yīng)用研究[A];2007年浙江省微創(chuàng)外科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 歐鵬;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)的臨床對(duì)比研究[D];中南大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 徐神圣;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與傳統(tǒng)開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)治療急性闌尾炎比較[D];新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

2 徐冉;腹腔鏡手術(shù)與開(kāi)腹手術(shù)治療復(fù)雜性闌尾炎的臨床療效研究[D];皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院;2015年

3 迪里夏提·阿力木;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)和傳統(tǒng)開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)的臨床對(duì)比分析[D];新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué);2009年

4 孫強(qiáng);腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)對(duì)比分析[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

5 李忠;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)與開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)的臨床對(duì)比研究[D];新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué);2014年

6 王迎;腹腔鏡闌尾切除術(shù)和傳統(tǒng)開(kāi)腹闌尾切除術(shù)的臨床數(shù)據(jù)比較分析[D];新鄉(xiāng)醫(yī)學(xué)院;2014年

7 陳開(kāi)運(yùn);腹腔鏡手術(shù)與傳統(tǒng)開(kāi)腹手術(shù)治療闌尾炎的對(duì)比研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2008年

8 周梅峰;三種不同方法行闌尾切除的臨床對(duì)比研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：2248196