Development of a Two Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy Technique at a Rural Hospital.

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY
Minimally Invasive Surgery Pub Date : 2019-05-19 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2019/9761968
Hugo J R Bonatti
{"title":"Development of a Two Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy Technique at a Rural Hospital.","authors":"Hugo J R Bonatti","doi":"10.1155/2019/9761968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is most commonly performed using two 5-mm and one 10/12-mm ports. Various attempts to reduce the number and size of ports have been made and new technologies such as single port LA have been introduced. Appendix and mesoappendix are usually divided with a stapler or energy device with electrocautery, clips, and endoloop being cheaper options.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study includes 51 consecutive LAs performed at a rural hospital. Patients were divided into 4 groups: group 1 was the standard technique group (n=12), group 2 served as a \"try-out\" (n=12), group 3 served as feasibility group (n=12), and group 4 was the final patient cohort in which the optimized technique was preferably used (n=15).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median age of the study cohort was 35.4 (range: 6.2-80.6) years, and 55% of patients were male. Whereas in G1 all patients had standard port placement (10/12-mm, 2x5-mm), in an increasing number of patients in G2-4 only two 5-mm ports and the 2.3-mm Teleflex minigrasper were inserted. Usage of staplers and/or energy devices was reduced from 100% in G1 to 20% in G4, and in the majority of cases both the appendix and the vascular pedicle were secured with an endoloop. The new technique did not add time to the procedure or total OR time. No stump-leaks or surgical site infections were encountered in this series, and there were no conversions to open surgery. Cost savings when not using a stapler or energy device are approximately 400$ per case; the minigrasper added approximately 200$ to the case.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>LA with use of two ports and a portless needle grasper is feasible in the majority of cases and was associated with high patient satisfaction and excellent cosmetic results. Avoiding energy devices and staplers is cost saving; the endoloop securely controls appendix and mesoappendix.</p>","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2019/9761968","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9761968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is most commonly performed using two 5-mm and one 10/12-mm ports. Various attempts to reduce the number and size of ports have been made and new technologies such as single port LA have been introduced. Appendix and mesoappendix are usually divided with a stapler or energy device with electrocautery, clips, and endoloop being cheaper options.

Patients and methods: This study includes 51 consecutive LAs performed at a rural hospital. Patients were divided into 4 groups: group 1 was the standard technique group (n=12), group 2 served as a "try-out" (n=12), group 3 served as feasibility group (n=12), and group 4 was the final patient cohort in which the optimized technique was preferably used (n=15).

Results: Median age of the study cohort was 35.4 (range: 6.2-80.6) years, and 55% of patients were male. Whereas in G1 all patients had standard port placement (10/12-mm, 2x5-mm), in an increasing number of patients in G2-4 only two 5-mm ports and the 2.3-mm Teleflex minigrasper were inserted. Usage of staplers and/or energy devices was reduced from 100% in G1 to 20% in G4, and in the majority of cases both the appendix and the vascular pedicle were secured with an endoloop. The new technique did not add time to the procedure or total OR time. No stump-leaks or surgical site infections were encountered in this series, and there were no conversions to open surgery. Cost savings when not using a stapler or energy device are approximately 400$ per case; the minigrasper added approximately 200$ to the case.

Discussion: LA with use of two ports and a portless needle grasper is feasible in the majority of cases and was associated with high patient satisfaction and excellent cosmetic results. Avoiding energy devices and staplers is cost saving; the endoloop securely controls appendix and mesoappendix.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

农村医院两孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术技术的发展。
背景:腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)最常使用两个5毫米和一个10/12毫米端口进行。为了减少港口的数量和大小,人们进行了各种尝试,并引入了诸如单港口LA等新技术。阑尾和阑尾中系膜通常用吻合器或电切、夹和内环等能量装置进行分割,这是较便宜的选择。患者和方法:本研究包括在一家农村医院进行的51例连续联合手术。将患者分为4组:第1组为标准技术组(n=12),第2组为“试用”组(n=12),第3组为可行性组(n=12),第4组为优选优化技术的最终患者队列(n=15)。结果:研究队列的中位年龄为35.4岁(范围:6.2-80.6),55%的患者为男性。G1期所有患者均采用标准端口置入(10/ 12mm, 2x5mm),而在G2-4期越来越多的患者中,仅置入两个5mm端口和2.3 mm Teleflex迷你钳。吻合器和/或能量装置的使用从G1的100%减少到G4的20%,并且在大多数情况下阑尾和血管蒂都用内环固定。新技术不会增加手术时间或总手术时间。本病例中没有残肢泄漏或手术部位感染,也没有转开手术。当不使用订书机或能源设备时,每箱节省的成本约为400美元;这个小窃贼给这个案子加了大约200美元。讨论:在大多数情况下,使用双端口和无端口抓针器的LA是可行的,并且与高患者满意度和良好的美容效果相关。避免能源装置和订书机,节约成本;内环安全控制阑尾和阑尾中膜。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信