进入技术:Veress针-初始盲套管针插入与开放腹腔镜与Hasson套管针插入。

J B McKernan, J K Champion
{"title":"进入技术:Veress针-初始盲套管针插入与开放腹腔镜与Hasson套管针插入。","authors":"J B McKernan,&nbsp;J K Champion","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The two most common techniques used to gain entry into the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic general surgery are the blind Veress needle/trocar insertion and open trocar placement under direct visualisation. Once entry to the peritoneal cavity has been achieved, gas insufflation is used to establish pneumoperitoneum and enable visualisation of abdominal structures. Many of the complications associated with operative laparoscopy arise from creation of the pneumoperitoneum, such as subcutaneous emphysema and gas embolism, or from injury to internal structures during abdominal entry. Because of the relative infancy of laparoscopic general surgery, much of the information relating to these types of complications are associated with minimally invasive gynaecologic procedures. Compared to gynaecologic laparoscopy, general surgical interventions are typically more complicated, require longer operative times and a greater number of access sites, and are more likely to be performed in older patients. Therefore, complication rates associated with pneumoperitoneum or abdominal entry may actually turn out to be higher for laparoscopic general surgery, making selection of a blind versus open access technique more important. Two direct comparisons of these access approaches in laparoscopic cholecystectomy indicated that an open technique employing a peritoneal cut-down and trocar insertion under direct visualisation was safer than blind insertion of the Veress needle and primary trocar. We also favour the open access technique, believing that the risk for serious visceral or vascular complications is less than that with a blind approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":79337,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopic surgery and allied technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Access techniques: Veress needle--initial blind trocar insertion versus open laparoscopy with the Hasson trocar.\",\"authors\":\"J B McKernan,&nbsp;J K Champion\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The two most common techniques used to gain entry into the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic general surgery are the blind Veress needle/trocar insertion and open trocar placement under direct visualisation. Once entry to the peritoneal cavity has been achieved, gas insufflation is used to establish pneumoperitoneum and enable visualisation of abdominal structures. Many of the complications associated with operative laparoscopy arise from creation of the pneumoperitoneum, such as subcutaneous emphysema and gas embolism, or from injury to internal structures during abdominal entry. Because of the relative infancy of laparoscopic general surgery, much of the information relating to these types of complications are associated with minimally invasive gynaecologic procedures. Compared to gynaecologic laparoscopy, general surgical interventions are typically more complicated, require longer operative times and a greater number of access sites, and are more likely to be performed in older patients. Therefore, complication rates associated with pneumoperitoneum or abdominal entry may actually turn out to be higher for laparoscopic general surgery, making selection of a blind versus open access technique more important. Two direct comparisons of these access approaches in laparoscopic cholecystectomy indicated that an open technique employing a peritoneal cut-down and trocar insertion under direct visualisation was safer than blind insertion of the Veress needle and primary trocar. We also favour the open access technique, believing that the risk for serious visceral or vascular complications is less than that with a blind approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endoscopic surgery and allied technologies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-02-01\",\"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

在腹腔镜普通手术中,两种最常用的进入腹腔的技术是直接目视下的盲式Veress针/套管针插入和开放式套管针放置。一旦进入腹膜腔,气体注入用于建立气腹并使腹部结构可视化。许多与腹腔镜手术相关的并发症来自气腹的产生,如皮下肺气肿和气体栓塞,或腹部进入时对内部结构的损伤。由于腹腔镜普通外科的相对婴儿期,许多与这些类型的并发症相关的信息都与微创妇科手术有关。与妇科腹腔镜相比,普通手术干预通常更复杂,需要更长的手术时间和更多的进入部位,并且更有可能在老年患者中进行。因此,与气腹或腹腔入路相关的并发症发生率实际上可能在腹腔镜普通手术中更高,因此选择盲入路与开放入路技术更为重要。在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中,两种通路的直接比较表明,在直接观察下采用腹膜切开和套管针插入的开放技术比盲入Veress针和初级套管针更安全。我们也赞成开放通路技术,相信严重内脏或血管并发症的风险比盲入路要小。
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
Access techniques: Veress needle--initial blind trocar insertion versus open laparoscopy with the Hasson trocar.

The two most common techniques used to gain entry into the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic general surgery are the blind Veress needle/trocar insertion and open trocar placement under direct visualisation. Once entry to the peritoneal cavity has been achieved, gas insufflation is used to establish pneumoperitoneum and enable visualisation of abdominal structures. Many of the complications associated with operative laparoscopy arise from creation of the pneumoperitoneum, such as subcutaneous emphysema and gas embolism, or from injury to internal structures during abdominal entry. Because of the relative infancy of laparoscopic general surgery, much of the information relating to these types of complications are associated with minimally invasive gynaecologic procedures. Compared to gynaecologic laparoscopy, general surgical interventions are typically more complicated, require longer operative times and a greater number of access sites, and are more likely to be performed in older patients. Therefore, complication rates associated with pneumoperitoneum or abdominal entry may actually turn out to be higher for laparoscopic general surgery, making selection of a blind versus open access technique more important. Two direct comparisons of these access approaches in laparoscopic cholecystectomy indicated that an open technique employing a peritoneal cut-down and trocar insertion under direct visualisation was safer than blind insertion of the Veress needle and primary trocar. We also favour the open access technique, believing that the risk for serious visceral or vascular complications is less than that with a blind approach.

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