腹腔镜胆囊切除术中一次性器械与可重复使用器械的比较。一项前瞻性随机研究。

V Paolucci, B Schaeff, C N Gutt, A Encke
{"title":"腹腔镜胆囊切除术中一次性器械与可重复使用器械的比较。一项前瞻性随机研究。","authors":"V Paolucci,&nbsp;B Schaeff,&nbsp;C N Gutt,&nbsp;A Encke","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We quantified and compared the advantages and disadvantages of disposable and reusable laparoscopic instruments in a prospective, randomised study of 158 cholecystectomies. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: 80 underwent surgery with reusable instruments, 78 with disposable instruments. The following parameters were recorded in both groups: duration of surgery, number of complications, technical problems during surgery, rate of conversion to open surgery, subjective postoperative pain, postoperative hospitalisation time, length of inability to work, and postoperative evaluation by the operating room personnel. No overall differences were found in subjective pain, postoperative complications, postoperative hospitalisation time, or time before returning to work. Surgery with disposable instruments was on the whole faster, with fewer conversions to open surgery, but this was statistically non-significant. Reusable instruments were associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of intraoperative, instrument-related difficulties. In spite of longer operation times and higher personnel costs with reusable instruments, we found that cholecystectomy with reusable instruments costs an average of 1,015 DM less per procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":79337,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopic surgery and allied technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective, randomised study.\",\"authors\":\"V Paolucci,&nbsp;B Schaeff,&nbsp;C N Gutt,&nbsp;A Encke\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We quantified and compared the advantages and disadvantages of disposable and reusable laparoscopic instruments in a prospective, randomised study of 158 cholecystectomies. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: 80 underwent surgery with reusable instruments, 78 with disposable instruments. The following parameters were recorded in both groups: duration of surgery, number of complications, technical problems during surgery, rate of conversion to open surgery, subjective postoperative pain, postoperative hospitalisation time, length of inability to work, and postoperative evaluation by the operating room personnel. No overall differences were found in subjective pain, postoperative complications, postoperative hospitalisation time, or time before returning to work. Surgery with disposable instruments was on the whole faster, with fewer conversions to open surgery, but this was statistically non-significant. Reusable instruments were associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of intraoperative, instrument-related difficulties. In spite of longer operation times and higher personnel costs with reusable instruments, we found that cholecystectomy with reusable instruments costs an average of 1,015 DM less per procedure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endoscopic surgery and allied technologies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endoscopic surgery and allied technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopic surgery and allied technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

在158例胆囊切除术的前瞻性随机研究中,我们量化并比较了一次性和可重复使用腹腔镜器械的优缺点。患者随机分为两组:80例使用可重复使用的器械,78例使用一次性器械。记录两组患者手术时间、并发症数量、术中技术问题、转开腹率、术后主观疼痛、术后住院时间、不能工作时间、手术室人员术后评价。主观疼痛、术后并发症、术后住院时间或重返工作岗位前的时间均无总体差异。使用一次性器械的手术总体上更快,转向开放式手术的次数更少,但这在统计上不显著。可重复使用的器械与术中器械相关困难的发生率有统计学上的显著增加相关。尽管使用可重复使用器械的手术时间较长,人员成本较高,但我们发现使用可重复使用器械的胆囊切除术平均每次手术费用减少1,015 DM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Disposable versus reusable instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective, randomised study.

We quantified and compared the advantages and disadvantages of disposable and reusable laparoscopic instruments in a prospective, randomised study of 158 cholecystectomies. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: 80 underwent surgery with reusable instruments, 78 with disposable instruments. The following parameters were recorded in both groups: duration of surgery, number of complications, technical problems during surgery, rate of conversion to open surgery, subjective postoperative pain, postoperative hospitalisation time, length of inability to work, and postoperative evaluation by the operating room personnel. No overall differences were found in subjective pain, postoperative complications, postoperative hospitalisation time, or time before returning to work. Surgery with disposable instruments was on the whole faster, with fewer conversions to open surgery, but this was statistically non-significant. Reusable instruments were associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of intraoperative, instrument-related difficulties. In spite of longer operation times and higher personnel costs with reusable instruments, we found that cholecystectomy with reusable instruments costs an average of 1,015 DM less per procedure.

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
Anaesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in high-risk patients. Preoperative morbidity and anaesthesia-related negative events in patients undergoing conventional or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Quantitative standardised analysis of advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures. Respiratory changes during laparoscopic operations. Variance of cardiorespiratory parameters during gynaecological surgery with CO2-pneumoperitoneum.
×
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