开放与腹腔镜手术治疗穿孔性阑尾炎的比较研究

B. Timilsina, O. Karki, B. Subedi
{"title":"开放与腹腔镜手术治疗穿孔性阑尾炎的比较研究","authors":"B. Timilsina, O. Karki, B. Subedi","doi":"10.3126/NMMJ.V2I1.37215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency of the abdomen. Perforated appendicitis often has higher morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic Appendectomy (LA) is safe and effective procedure for the simple appendicitis compared to Open Appendectomy (OA) but it is not considered as the first line approach in case of perforated appendicitis and its role is still controversial and is under investigation. Hence this study was carried out to compare the outcomes of LA over OA in proven cases of perforated appendicitis. \nMethods: A hospital based comparative study was conducted among 60 patients with the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis who underwent LA and OA, for a duration of 18 months in Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara. Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaire and were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics with SPSS version 25.0. \nResults: The study showed no significant statistical difference in operative time in LA compared to OA (66±18.11 minutes vs. 66.67±25.269 minutes, p = 0.9). Moreover it shows less post-operative pain (p = 0.003), shorter length of hospital stay (5.3±1.8 days vs. 7.3±3.31 days, p = 0.005), faster return of peristalsis (1.43±0.504 days vs 1.80±0.805 days, p = 0.037) and faster reinstitution of liquid diet(1.43±0.504 days vs 1.80±0.805 days, p = 0.037), less incidence of wound infection (5 in 30 = 16.66% vs. 12 in 30 = 40%, p = 0.042) and faster subjective full recovery(1.9±0.759 weeks vs. 2.9±0.89 weeks, p ˂ 0.0001) of LA patient compared to OA which is statistically significant. \nConclusion: LA is safe and effective procedure than OA for perforated appendicitis.  ","PeriodicalId":131440,"journal":{"name":"Nepal Mediciti Medical Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perforated Appendicitis Treated By Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgery- A Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"B. Timilsina, O. Karki, B. Subedi\",\"doi\":\"10.3126/NMMJ.V2I1.37215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency of the abdomen. Perforated appendicitis often has higher morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic Appendectomy (LA) is safe and effective procedure for the simple appendicitis compared to Open Appendectomy (OA) but it is not considered as the first line approach in case of perforated appendicitis and its role is still controversial and is under investigation. Hence this study was carried out to compare the outcomes of LA over OA in proven cases of perforated appendicitis. \\nMethods: A hospital based comparative study was conducted among 60 patients with the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis who underwent LA and OA, for a duration of 18 months in Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara. Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaire and were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics with SPSS version 25.0. \\nResults: The study showed no significant statistical difference in operative time in LA compared to OA (66±18.11 minutes vs. 66.67±25.269 minutes, p = 0.9). Moreover it shows less post-operative pain (p = 0.003), shorter length of hospital stay (5.3±1.8 days vs. 7.3±3.31 days, p = 0.005), faster return of peristalsis (1.43±0.504 days vs 1.80±0.805 days, p = 0.037) and faster reinstitution of liquid diet(1.43±0.504 days vs 1.80±0.805 days, p = 0.037), less incidence of wound infection (5 in 30 = 16.66% vs. 12 in 30 = 40%, p = 0.042) and faster subjective full recovery(1.9±0.759 weeks vs. 2.9±0.89 weeks, p ˂ 0.0001) of LA patient compared to OA which is statistically significant. \\nConclusion: LA is safe and effective procedure than OA for perforated appendicitis.  \",\"PeriodicalId\":131440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nepal Mediciti Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nepal Mediciti Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3126/NMMJ.V2I1.37215\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nepal Mediciti Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/NMMJ.V2I1.37215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急性阑尾炎是最常见的腹部外科急症。穿孔性阑尾炎通常有较高的发病率和死亡率。腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)相对于开放式阑尾切除术(OA)是治疗单纯性阑尾炎安全、有效的方法,但它不被认为是治疗穿孔性阑尾炎的首选方法,其作用仍有争议,尚在研究中。因此,本研究旨在比较经证实的穿孔性阑尾炎病例中LA与OA的结果。方法:以医院为基础,对60例诊断为穿孔性阑尾炎并行LA和OA手术的患者进行为期18个月的比较研究。采用半结构化问卷收集资料,采用SPSS 25.0版本的描述统计和推理统计进行分析。结果:LA与OA的手术时间差异无统计学意义(66±18.11 min vs 66.67±25.269 min, p = 0.9)。术后疼痛更少(p = 0.003),住院时间更短(5.3±1.8天比7.3±3.31天,p = 0.005),肠蠕动恢复更快(1.43±0.504天比1.80±0.805天,p = 0.037),恢复流食更快(1.43±0.504天比1.80±0.805天,p = 0.037),伤口感染发生率更低(30组5例= 16.66%比30组12例= 40%,p = 0.042),主观完全恢复更快(1.9±0.759周比2.9±0.89周)。p小于0.0001),与OA患者相比具有统计学意义。结论:手术治疗穿孔性阑尾炎安全有效。
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
Perforated Appendicitis Treated By Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgery- A Comparative Study
Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency of the abdomen. Perforated appendicitis often has higher morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic Appendectomy (LA) is safe and effective procedure for the simple appendicitis compared to Open Appendectomy (OA) but it is not considered as the first line approach in case of perforated appendicitis and its role is still controversial and is under investigation. Hence this study was carried out to compare the outcomes of LA over OA in proven cases of perforated appendicitis. Methods: A hospital based comparative study was conducted among 60 patients with the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis who underwent LA and OA, for a duration of 18 months in Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara. Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaire and were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics with SPSS version 25.0. Results: The study showed no significant statistical difference in operative time in LA compared to OA (66±18.11 minutes vs. 66.67±25.269 minutes, p = 0.9). Moreover it shows less post-operative pain (p = 0.003), shorter length of hospital stay (5.3±1.8 days vs. 7.3±3.31 days, p = 0.005), faster return of peristalsis (1.43±0.504 days vs 1.80±0.805 days, p = 0.037) and faster reinstitution of liquid diet(1.43±0.504 days vs 1.80±0.805 days, p = 0.037), less incidence of wound infection (5 in 30 = 16.66% vs. 12 in 30 = 40%, p = 0.042) and faster subjective full recovery(1.9±0.759 weeks vs. 2.9±0.89 weeks, p ˂ 0.0001) of LA patient compared to OA which is statistically significant. Conclusion: LA is safe and effective procedure than OA for perforated appendicitis.  
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
期刊最新文献
Annulling an Annulled Annular Pancreas: A Case Report Surgical Treatment of Cerebral cavernous Malformations: Report of 6 Cases and pertinent Literature review A retrospective study on bacteriological profile and antibiotics prescription practice in a tertiary level intensive care unit Study of Percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy outcomes in valves with different Echocardiographic features Silver Diamine Fluoride: A Review
×
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