经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术与常规三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的比较:从诊断到住院费用。

Journal of the Korean Surgical Society Pub Date : 2013-08-01 Epub Date: 2013-07-25 DOI:10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.68
Seung Min Baik, Kyung Sook Hong, Yong Il Kim
{"title":"经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术与常规三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的比较:从诊断到住院费用。","authors":"Seung Min Baik,&nbsp;Kyung Sook Hong,&nbsp;Yong Il Kim","doi":"10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Recently many cases of appendectomy have been conducted by single-incision laparoscopic technique. The aim of this study is to figure out the benefits of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TULA) compared with conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 2010 to 2012, 89 patients who were diagnosed as acute appendicitis and then underwent laparoscopic appendectomy a single surgeon were enrolled in this study and with their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Cases of complicated appendicitis confirmed on imaging tools and patients over 3 points on the American Society of Anesthesia score were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the total of 89 patients, there were 51 patients in the TULA group and 38 patients in the CTLA group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) of postoperative day (POD) #1 was higher in the TULA group than in the CTLA group (P = 0.048). The operative time and other variables had no statistical significances (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the insufficiency of instruments and the difficulty of handling, TULA was not worse in operative time, VAS after POD #2, and the total operative cost than CTLA. And, if there are no disadvantages of TULA, TULA may be suitable in substituting three-port laparoscopic surgery and could be considered as one field of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery with the improvement and development of the instruments and revised studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":49991,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","volume":"85 2","pages":"68-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.68","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost.\",\"authors\":\"Seung Min Baik,&nbsp;Kyung Sook Hong,&nbsp;Yong Il Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.68\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Recently many cases of appendectomy have been conducted by single-incision laparoscopic technique. The aim of this study is to figure out the benefits of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TULA) compared with conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 2010 to 2012, 89 patients who were diagnosed as acute appendicitis and then underwent laparoscopic appendectomy a single surgeon were enrolled in this study and with their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Cases of complicated appendicitis confirmed on imaging tools and patients over 3 points on the American Society of Anesthesia score were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the total of 89 patients, there were 51 patients in the TULA group and 38 patients in the CTLA group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) of postoperative day (POD) #1 was higher in the TULA group than in the CTLA group (P = 0.048). The operative time and other variables had no statistical significances (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the insufficiency of instruments and the difficulty of handling, TULA was not worse in operative time, VAS after POD #2, and the total operative cost than CTLA. And, if there are no disadvantages of TULA, TULA may be suitable in substituting three-port laparoscopic surgery and could be considered as one field of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery with the improvement and development of the instruments and revised studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society\",\"volume\":\"85 2\",\"pages\":\"68-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.68\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.68\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.85.2.68","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

目的:近年来采用单切口腹腔镜技术进行阑尾切除术的病例较多。本研究的目的是比较经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(TULA)与传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术(CTLA)的优势。方法:对2010 ~ 2012年确诊为急性阑尾炎的89例经腹腔镜阑尾切除术患者的病历资料进行回顾性分析。排除影像学证实的复杂阑尾炎和美国麻醉学会评分超过3分的患者。结果:89例患者中,TULA组51例,CTLA组38例。TULA组术后第1天视觉模拟评分(VAS)高于CTLA组(P = 0.048)。手术时间等因素比较,差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:尽管器械不足,操作困难,但TULA在手术时间、第2次POD后VAS、总手术费用等方面均优于CTLA。并且,如果TULA没有缺点,随着仪器的改进和发展以及研究的修订,TULA可能适合替代三孔腹腔镜手术,可以考虑作为自然孔腔内镜手术的一个领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost.

A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost.

A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost.

A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost.

Purpose: Recently many cases of appendectomy have been conducted by single-incision laparoscopic technique. The aim of this study is to figure out the benefits of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TULA) compared with conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).

Methods: From 2010 to 2012, 89 patients who were diagnosed as acute appendicitis and then underwent laparoscopic appendectomy a single surgeon were enrolled in this study and with their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Cases of complicated appendicitis confirmed on imaging tools and patients over 3 points on the American Society of Anesthesia score were excluded.

Results: Among the total of 89 patients, there were 51 patients in the TULA group and 38 patients in the CTLA group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) of postoperative day (POD) #1 was higher in the TULA group than in the CTLA group (P = 0.048). The operative time and other variables had no statistical significances (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Despite the insufficiency of instruments and the difficulty of handling, TULA was not worse in operative time, VAS after POD #2, and the total operative cost than CTLA. And, if there are no disadvantages of TULA, TULA may be suitable in substituting three-port laparoscopic surgery and could be considered as one field of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery with the improvement and development of the instruments and revised studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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