急性胆囊炎单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术与三切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术的疗效比较。

IF 1.1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Pub Date : 2023-11-30 Epub Date: 2023-09-08 DOI:10.14701/ahbps.23-058
Sanggyun Suh, Soyeon Choi, YoungRok Choi, Boram Lee, Jai Young Cho, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Ho-Seong Han
{"title":"急性胆囊炎单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术与三切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术的疗效比较。","authors":"Sanggyun Suh, Soyeon Choi, YoungRok Choi, Boram Lee, Jai Young Cho, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Ho-Seong Han","doi":"10.14701/ahbps.23-058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds/aims: </strong>While single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has advantages in cosmesis and postoperative pain, its utilization has been limited. This study raises the possibility of expanding its indication to acute cholecystitis with the novel method of solo surgery under retrospective analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the outcomes of SILC (n = 58) to those of three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC; n = 117) for acute cholecystitis, being performed from March 2014 to December 2015.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intraoperative results, including the operation time, did not differ significantly, except for drain catheter insertion (<i>p</i> = 0.004). Each group had 1 case of open conversion due to common bile duct injury. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay. Either group by itself was not a risk factor for complications, but in preoperative drainage for intraoperative perforation, 3 factors of intraoperative perforation, biliary complication, and history of upper abdominal operation for additional port, only American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores for postoperative complication of Clavien-Dindo grades III and IV were significant risk factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study findings showed comparative outcomes between both groups, providing evidence for the safety and feasibility of SILC for acute cholecystitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":72220,"journal":{"name":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","volume":" ","pages":"372-379"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10700942/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.\",\"authors\":\"Sanggyun Suh, Soyeon Choi, YoungRok Choi, Boram Lee, Jai Young Cho, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Ho-Seong Han\",\"doi\":\"10.14701/ahbps.23-058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Backgrounds/aims: </strong>While single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has advantages in cosmesis and postoperative pain, its utilization has been limited. This study raises the possibility of expanding its indication to acute cholecystitis with the novel method of solo surgery under retrospective analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the outcomes of SILC (n = 58) to those of three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC; n = 117) for acute cholecystitis, being performed from March 2014 to December 2015.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intraoperative results, including the operation time, did not differ significantly, except for drain catheter insertion (<i>p</i> = 0.004). Each group had 1 case of open conversion due to common bile duct injury. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay. Either group by itself was not a risk factor for complications, but in preoperative drainage for intraoperative perforation, 3 factors of intraoperative perforation, biliary complication, and history of upper abdominal operation for additional port, only American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores for postoperative complication of Clavien-Dindo grades III and IV were significant risk factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study findings showed comparative outcomes between both groups, providing evidence for the safety and feasibility of SILC for acute cholecystitis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"372-379\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10700942/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.23-058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.23-058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:虽然单切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(SILC)在美容和术后疼痛方面具有优势,但其应用受到限制。本研究在回顾性分析的基础上,提出了将其适应症扩大到急性胆囊炎的可能性。方法:我们比较了SILC (n = 58)和三切口腹腔镜胆囊切除术(TILC;n = 117),于2014年3月至2015年12月行急性胆囊炎手术。结果:除置管时间外,两组术中结果差异无统计学意义(p = 0.004)。两组各有1例胆总管损伤致开腹转术。两组住院时间差异无统计学意义。两组本身均不是并发症的危险因素,但在术前引流术中穿孔、术中穿孔、胆道并发症、上腹部手术史等3个因素中,只有美国麻醉学会(ASA)术后并发症Clavien-Dindo评分III级和IV级为显著危险因素。结论:我们的研究结果显示了两组之间的比较结果,为SILC治疗急性胆囊炎的安全性和可行性提供了证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

Backgrounds/aims: While single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has advantages in cosmesis and postoperative pain, its utilization has been limited. This study raises the possibility of expanding its indication to acute cholecystitis with the novel method of solo surgery under retrospective analysis.

Methods: We compared the outcomes of SILC (n = 58) to those of three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TILC; n = 117) for acute cholecystitis, being performed from March 2014 to December 2015.

Results: Intraoperative results, including the operation time, did not differ significantly, except for drain catheter insertion (p = 0.004). Each group had 1 case of open conversion due to common bile duct injury. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay. Either group by itself was not a risk factor for complications, but in preoperative drainage for intraoperative perforation, 3 factors of intraoperative perforation, biliary complication, and history of upper abdominal operation for additional port, only American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores for postoperative complication of Clavien-Dindo grades III and IV were significant risk factors.

Conclusions: Our study findings showed comparative outcomes between both groups, providing evidence for the safety and feasibility of SILC for acute cholecystitis.

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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes of single-incision cholecystectomy: Propensity score matching of robotic surgery using the da Vinci SP system and da Vinci Xi system vs. laparoscopic surgery. Irreversible electroporation as an intraoperative adjunctive treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: An initial clinical experience. Feasibility of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging to predict biliary complications in living donor liver transplantation: A pilot study. Heterotopic pancreas of the gallbladder: A case report of a rare and commonly incidental finding. Propensity score analysis of adjuvant therapy in radically resected gallbladder cancers: a real world experience from a regional cancer center.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1