腹腔镜接入技术:苏丹发展中国家的经验

M. Abass, Elssayed Osman Elssayed., Abdelrahman Babekir Mhammed
{"title":"腹腔镜接入技术:苏丹发展中国家的经验","authors":"M. Abass, Elssayed Osman Elssayed., Abdelrahman Babekir Mhammed","doi":"10.11648/j.js.20200804.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Minimal access surgery has revolutionized the field of surgery. Access to the abdominal cavity represents a critical step in laparoscopic procedures. Various techniques have been used to obtain safe access into the abdominal cavity, with no apparent superiority of one technique over another. Aim: This study was conducted to assess the different types of laparoscopic access techniques used at Almak Nimir University Hospital in the period from January to December 2019. Methodology: This descriptive cross-sectional study compared the use and outcomes of different laparoscopic access techniques in various laparoscopic procedures performed at Almak Nimir University Hospital, (Shendi University, Shendi, Sudan). Results: The study included 324 patients with a mean age of 26.2±15.3 years (range 1–85 years). Most of the patients were female (266 patients, 82.1%). Of the laparoscopic procedures, 77.2% were laparoscopic appendicectomy while 18.8% were laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Veress needle technique was used in 158 patients (49.7%), the open technique was used in 97 patients (29.9%) and direct trocar insertion was used in 66 patients (20.4%). Direct trocar insertion showed a statistically shorter procedure duration (mean 2.9±0.9 min) compared to the other techniques (p=0.001). Access-related complications occurred in five patients (0.6%), but there was no statistically significant difference between the three access techniques. Conclusion: This study confirms the safety of various access techniques used in laparoscopic procedures; however, the choice of access type should be individualized.","PeriodicalId":101237,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic Access Techniques: Experience in a Developing Country, Sudan\",\"authors\":\"M. Abass, Elssayed Osman Elssayed., Abdelrahman Babekir Mhammed\",\"doi\":\"10.11648/j.js.20200804.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Minimal access surgery has revolutionized the field of surgery. Access to the abdominal cavity represents a critical step in laparoscopic procedures. Various techniques have been used to obtain safe access into the abdominal cavity, with no apparent superiority of one technique over another. Aim: This study was conducted to assess the different types of laparoscopic access techniques used at Almak Nimir University Hospital in the period from January to December 2019. Methodology: This descriptive cross-sectional study compared the use and outcomes of different laparoscopic access techniques in various laparoscopic procedures performed at Almak Nimir University Hospital, (Shendi University, Shendi, Sudan). Results: The study included 324 patients with a mean age of 26.2±15.3 years (range 1–85 years). Most of the patients were female (266 patients, 82.1%). Of the laparoscopic procedures, 77.2% were laparoscopic appendicectomy while 18.8% were laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Veress needle technique was used in 158 patients (49.7%), the open technique was used in 97 patients (29.9%) and direct trocar insertion was used in 66 patients (20.4%). Direct trocar insertion showed a statistically shorter procedure duration (mean 2.9±0.9 min) compared to the other techniques (p=0.001). Access-related complications occurred in five patients (0.6%), but there was no statistically significant difference between the three access techniques. Conclusion: This study confirms the safety of various access techniques used in laparoscopic procedures; however, the choice of access type should be individualized.\",\"PeriodicalId\":101237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20200804.12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20200804.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:微创手术已经彻底改变了外科领域。进入腹腔是腹腔镜手术的关键步骤。已经使用了各种技术来获得安全进入腹腔的通道,没有一种技术明显优于另一种技术。目的:对2019年1月至12月在Almak Nimir大学医院使用的不同类型腹腔镜通路技术进行评估。方法:本描述性横断面研究比较了在Almak Nimir大学医院(苏丹申迪大学)进行的各种腹腔镜手术中不同腹腔镜通路技术的使用和结果。结果:研究纳入324例患者,平均年龄26.2±15.3岁(范围1-85岁)。女性患者居多(266例,占82.1%)。在腹腔镜手术中,77.2%为腹腔镜阑尾切除术,18.8%为腹腔镜胆囊切除术。使用Veress针技术158例(49.7%),开放技术97例(29.9%),直接套管针插入66例(20.4%)。与其他技术相比,直接套管针置入的手术时间(平均2.9±0.9分钟)较短(p=0.001)。5例患者出现通路相关并发症(0.6%),但三种通路方式间差异无统计学意义。结论:本研究证实了腹腔镜手术中使用的各种通路技术的安全性;但是,访问类型的选择应该个性化。
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
Laparoscopic Access Techniques: Experience in a Developing Country, Sudan
Background: Minimal access surgery has revolutionized the field of surgery. Access to the abdominal cavity represents a critical step in laparoscopic procedures. Various techniques have been used to obtain safe access into the abdominal cavity, with no apparent superiority of one technique over another. Aim: This study was conducted to assess the different types of laparoscopic access techniques used at Almak Nimir University Hospital in the period from January to December 2019. Methodology: This descriptive cross-sectional study compared the use and outcomes of different laparoscopic access techniques in various laparoscopic procedures performed at Almak Nimir University Hospital, (Shendi University, Shendi, Sudan). Results: The study included 324 patients with a mean age of 26.2±15.3 years (range 1–85 years). Most of the patients were female (266 patients, 82.1%). Of the laparoscopic procedures, 77.2% were laparoscopic appendicectomy while 18.8% were laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Veress needle technique was used in 158 patients (49.7%), the open technique was used in 97 patients (29.9%) and direct trocar insertion was used in 66 patients (20.4%). Direct trocar insertion showed a statistically shorter procedure duration (mean 2.9±0.9 min) compared to the other techniques (p=0.001). Access-related complications occurred in five patients (0.6%), but there was no statistically significant difference between the three access techniques. Conclusion: This study confirms the safety of various access techniques used in laparoscopic procedures; however, the choice of access type should be individualized.
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
A Case Report of Mesenteric Ischemia After COVID-19 Vaccination Short Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in Super Obese Patients: Randomized Clinical Trial The Intraoperative Finding of a Large Atrial Septum Defect Pre-Liver Transplantation: A Case Report Study on Preventive Intervention of Peri-knee Ecchymosis After Total Knee Replacement Late Primary B Cell Cerebral Lymphoma After Kidney Transplant: A Case Report and Literature 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