目的比较单孔腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床效果。 方法选取2012年9月至2013年5月期间于我院就诊的胆囊良性疾病患者，分别接受单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术（单孔腹腔镜组，45例）和传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术（传统腹腔镜组，48例），分别观察并对比2组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后（6 h和24 h）疼痛评分、止疼药物的应用率、术后住院时间及患者对切口的满意度。 结果2组患者术前的一般特征差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。单孔腹腔镜组的手术时间明显长于传统腹腔镜组〔（59.11±14.15）min比（40.21±11.11）min，P=0.00〕，术后6 h疼痛评分及止痛药物应用率均明显低于传统腹腔镜组〔6 h疼痛评分：（3.33±1.41）分比（4.60±1.30）分，P=0.00；止痛药物应用率：6.67%（3/45）比31.25%（15/48），P=0.04〕，术后患者对切口的满意度评分明显高于传统腹腔镜组〔（4.76±6.00）分比（2.60±0.76）分，P=0.02〕。单孔腹腔镜组和传统腹腔镜组的术中出血量、术后24 h疼痛评分及术后住院时间比较差异均无统计学意义〔术中出血量：（14.67±4.80）mL比（13.85±3.85）mL，P=0.36；24 h疼痛评分：（1.60±0.65）分比（1.80±0.70）分，P=0.14；术后住院时间：（3.11±0.77）d比（3.06±0.67）d，P=0.75〕。2组均无并发症发生。 结论单孔腹腔镜较传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术可减轻术后疼痛，美容效果好，且并不增加手术风险。
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of myomectomy via transumbilical laparoendompic single-site surgery (TU-LESS) and traditional multiport laparoscopy.MethodsThe study was conducted at Chengdu Western Hospital from June 2019 to June 2020. Fifty patients underwent TU-LESS myomectomy (TU-LESS group), while another 50 patients underwent traditional multiport laparoscopic myomectmy (multiport laparoscopy group). The conditions of operation, extra analgetic usage, VAS grade, and patients’ satisfaction degree were compared between two groups.ResultsPatients in both groups had similar age, BMI, fibroma volume, operative time, expelling gas day, blood loss, complication rate, and hospitalized costs (P>0.05). Compared with traditional multiport laparoscopy, the TU-LESS group resulted in significantly shorter hospitalization day, lower VAS score of the 1st/3nd/7th days after surgery, less use of analgetic after surgery, and higher satisfaction degree.ConclusionsTU-LESS is safe and feasible for myomectomy, and it is associated with less pain, shorter hospitalization day, and higher satisfaction degree.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for varicocele. MethodsSuch databases as The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data were electronically searched for studies about LESS and traditional laparoscopy for varicocele till March 1st, 2013. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature was screened, data were extracted, and the methodological quality of included studies was also assessed. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsSeven RCTs involving 452 cases were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, there was no significant difference between LESS and traditional laparoscopy for varicocele on post-operational complications (RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.26 to 1.27, P=0.17), duration of hospital stay (MD=-0.30, 95%CI-0.87 to 0.26, P=0.30), improvement of semen parameters, and blood loss. However, LESS had longer duration of operation (MD=11.26, 95%CI 3.62 to 18.90, P=0.004). ConclusionThe effectiveness and safety of LESS and traditional laparoscopy for varicocele are similar, and LESS could achieve more beautiful and natural effects which has longer surgery time on account of non-proficiency in surgery and equipment. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusion requires to be proved by more high quality randomized controlled trials.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effect of single-port totally extraperitoneal (SPTEP) and conventional totally extraperitoneal (CTEP) inguinal hernia repair in treatment of inguinal hernia. MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, WanFang Data, VIP, and CNKI databases were electronically searched and the randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT studies on the efficacy and safety of SPTEP versus CTEP for patients with inguinal hernia from January 2010 to November 2019 were collected. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies, then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan5.3 software. ResultsA total of 17 clinical studies were included in the analysis, with 1 106 cases in the SPTEP group and 966 cases in the CTEP group. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the hospital stay [SMD=–0.12, 95%CI (–0.22, –0.02), P=0.01] and the time to resume normal activity [SMD=–1.17, 95%CI (–2.10, –0.23), P=0.01] were shorter, the satisfaction score of incision scars [SMD=0.92, 95%CI (0.31, 1.53), P<0.01] was higher in the SPTEP group as compared with the CTEP group. However, the operative time of SPTEP group was longer than that of the CTEP group both for unilateral inguinal hernia [MD=4.08, 95%CI (0.34, 7.83), P=0.03] and bilateral inguinal hernia [MD=5.53, 95%CI (0.39, 10.68), P=0.04]. There were no statistical differences in the postoperative pain score (24 h and 7 d), incidence of postoperative complications, the rate of patients satisfied with the incision, and hospitalization costs between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionsFrom the results of this meta-analysis, SPTEP has some certain advantages in shortening hospital stay and returning to normal activity time, and improving incision satisfaction. However, compared with CTEP, mean operative time of SPTEP is longer. Although SPTEP has developed for several years, it is difficult to replace CTEP.
目的 探讨应用传统器械经脐行改良单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的临床价值。方法 回顾性分析笔者所在医院2010年1月至2012年2月期间行经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的52例阑尾炎患者的临床资料，总结手术经验。结果 52例患者均顺利完成手术，平均手术时间为39.2min （18～70min），术后平均住院时间为5d （3～12d）。其中，45例患者成功完成经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术，2例中转开腹，2例行两孔LA术，3例行三孔LA术。术后2例患者发生切口感染。29例患者获访，随访时间4～18个月，平均12个月，无出血、切口疝、腹腔残余感染、粘连性肠梗阻、阑尾残端瘘等并发症发生。结论 应用传统器械经脐行改良单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术简单、安全、可行、患者恢复快、并发症少、美容效果较好，但操作难度相对更高。应严格掌握手术适应证，必要时及时增加戳孔或中转开腹。
Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). Methods We electronically searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2013), CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SILC versus CMLC from inception to January 1st, 2013. According to the Cochrane methods, the reviewers screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results Finally, 17 RCTs involving 1 233 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with CMLC, SILC was lower in 24 h postoperative pain score (visual analogue scale, VAS) (SMD= –0.40, 95%CI –0.76 to –0.04, P=0.03), higher in cosmetic results score (SMD=1.56, 95%CI 0.70 to 2.43, P=0.000 4), and longer in operative time (MD=13.11, 95%CI 7.06 to 19.16, Plt;0.000 1). However, no significant difference was found in 6 h postoperative pain scores (VAS), postoperative complications, port-site hernia and hospital stay between the two groups. Conclusion SILC is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of uncomplicated benign gallbladder diseases, and it has certain advantages compared with CMLC, which is recommended in clinical application.
ObjectiveTo compare clinical efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in treatment of colorectal cancer.MethodsThe Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang Data were searched to collect the comparative study of the SILS and CLS in the treatment of colorectal cancer. The data were extracted and evaluated by the RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsEventually, 13 articles were included, including 3 randomized controlled trials and 10 case-control studies with a total of 1 466 patients. The meta-analysis results suggested that the SILS could shorten the postoperative hospital stay [MD=–0.63, 95% CI (–1.10, –0.16), P=0.009] and time to the first flatus [MD=–0.23, 95% CI (–0.33, –0.13), P<0.000 01] and the lymph node dissection was relatively completed [MD=0.77, 95% CI (0.05, 1.48), P=0.04] as compared with the CLS. In the total complications of surgery [OR=0.73, 95% CI (0.51, 1.03), P=0.08], operation time [MD=–0.33, 95% CI (–11.36, 10.69), P=0.95], intraoperative blood loss [MD=5.61, 95% CI (–4.20, 15.43), P=0.26], conversion to laparotomy [OR=1.06, 95% CI (0.18, 6.13), P=0.95], distance between tumor and proximal margin [MD=0.11, 95% CI (–0.48, 0.69), P=0.71], distance between tumor and distal margin [MD=0.32, 95% CI (–0.23, 0.87), P=0.25] had no statistically significant differences between the SILS and CLS.ConclusionsSILS is safe and effective for radical resection of colorectal cancer. However, results of study still need to be validated by a randomized controlled trial with a large sample designed strictly.