截止至2002年6月,有关阑尾炎治疗的临床证据如下:①辅助性抗生素治疗:1项RCT和1项回顾性RCT发现,经阑尾切除术的复杂性和单纯性阑尾炎的成人和儿童,预防性使用抗生素可显著减少伤口感染和腹腔内脓肿.②辅助性抗生素治疗(儿童复杂性阑尾炎):1项系统评价的亚组分析发现,使用抗生素可显著减少伤口感染.③辅助性抗生素治疗(儿童单纯性阑尾炎):1项系统评价的亚组分析发现,使用抗生素不减少伤口感染.1项儿童单纯性阑尾炎的回顾性RCT发现,预防性使用抗生素不能减少伤口感染,但该RCT的样本量太小,不能排除有临床差别.④抗生素治疗和手术:1项成人疑诊阑尾炎的RCT发现,与手术治疗比较,抗生素保守治疗可减少治疗开始后12 h到10 d的疼痛和吗啡的使用.但采取抗生素保守治疗的患者有35%在1年内再次因急性阑尾炎入院,并行阑尾切除术.⑤腹腔镜手术和开腹手术(成人):1项系统评价发现,腹腔镜手术可以减少伤口的感染,减轻手术后第1天的疼痛,减少住院时间以及恢复工作的时间,但增加手术后腹腔内脓肿的发生.⑥腹腔镜手术和开腹手术(儿童):1项系统评价发现,腹腔镜手术可以减少伤口的感染,减少住院时间,但不能减轻手术后第1天的疼痛,不能减少恢复的时间和腹腔内脓肿的发生.⑦开腹手术和不治疗:无RCT证据.⑧开腹阑尾切除术中对残端的内翻处理:1项RCT发现,两次包埋和单纯结扎比较,不能减少伤口的感染、住院时间和腹腔内脓肿的发生.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the manifestations and diagnostic value of pediatric acute appendicitis with dual-source CT (DSCT). MethodsRetrospectively analysis of CT features of 97cases of surgically and pathologically confirmed pediatric acute appendicitis in our hospital were performed. ResultsAmong 97 patients, 7 cases were diagnosed acute simple appendicitis, 20 cases with acute suppurative appendicitis, perforated and gangrenous appendicitis in 58 cases, and appendiceal abscess in 12 cases. According to the location of appendix confirmed by CT, 28 cases of appendicitis could not be clearly manifested, the cohort of the remaining 69 cases were composed of 20 cases (29.0%) with appendix located in pelvic, 15 cases (21.7%) with appendix in front of ileum, 11 cases (15.9%) with appendix behind ileum, 12 cases (17.4%) with appendix behind cecum, 3 cases (4.3%) with appendix below cecum, 1 case (1.5%) with appendix outside of cecum, and 7 cases (10.2%) with appendix located in other positions. CT and three-dimensional reconstruction findings were as followed:swelling enlarged appendix, appendicoliths, periappendiceal fat fuzzy, peritoneal thickening, ileocecal thickening, mesenteric lymphadenopathy, periappendiceal mass, and abdominal or pelvic fluid. The diagnostic rate of acute simple appendicitis with CT was 85.7% (6/7), acute suppurative appendicitis was 80.0% (16/20), perforated and gangrenous appendicitis was 100% (58/58), appendiceal abscess was also 100% (12/12), the overall diagnostic yield was 94.8% (92/97). ConclusionDSCT can well demonstrate the anatomical location of appendix and pathological changes of surrounding tissues, and has higher diagnostic accuracy, provide powerful information for surgeons.
目的:探讨盲部憩室炎的诊断和手术方式的选择。方法:回顾性分析18例盲部憩室炎的临床资料,包块临床表现、腹部体征、辅助检查、手术方式及随访结果。结果:18例均有右下腹疼痛及右下腹压痛。术前诊断困难,仅通过钡灌肠结肠造影和结肠镜确诊各1例,误诊为急性阑尾炎12例、阑尾周围脓肿1例、回盲部肿瘤3例。憩室单发3例,多发性15例,其中2个憩室9例,3个憩室6例。单纯憩室切除9例,回盲部切除2例;右半结肠切除7例。全组患者均获治愈,无严重并发症发生。结论:盲肠憩室炎的临床特征与急性阑尾炎相似,极易误诊为急性阑尾炎等。术中应注意探查,避免遗漏病变。根据憩室具体情况决定手术方式。
ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic surgery for overweight/obese patients with acute perforated or gangrenous appendicitis. MethodsFrom January 2007 to December 2014, patients with acute perforated or gangrenous appendicitis underwent laparoscopic (152 cases) or open (60 cases) appendectomy were collected, who were retrospectively classified into overweight/obese group (BMI≥25 kg/m2, n=69) or normal weight group (BMI < 25 kg/m2, n=143). Conversion rate, operation time, hospital stay, readmission, reoperation, and postoperative complications such as incision infection, abdominal abscess, and lung infection were analyzed. Results①The rate of conversion to open surgery had no significant difference between the overweight/obese group and the normal weight group[4.2% (2/48) versus 6.7% (7/104), χ2=0.06, P > 0.05].②The operation time of laparoscopic surgery in the overweight/obese group was significantly shorter than that of the open surgery in the overweight/obese group[(41.6±11.7) min versus (63.1±23.3) min, P < 0.01], which had no significant difference between the laparoscopic surgery in the overweight/obese group and laparoscopic surgery in the normal weight group[(41.6±11.7) min versus (39.6±12.7) min, P > 0.05].③The total complications rate and incision infection rate of the laparoscopic surgery in the overweight/obese group were significantly lower than those of the open surgery in the overweight/obese group[total complications rate:16.7% (8/48) versus 52.4% (11/21), χ2=9.34, P < 0.01; incision infection rate:4.2% (2/48) versus 33.3% (7/21), χ2=8.54, P < 0.01]. Although the total complications rate of all the patients in the overweight/obese group was increased as compared with all the patients in the normal weight group[27.5% (19/69) versus 14.7% (21/143), χ2=5.02, P < 0.01], but which had no significant difference between the laparoscopic surgery in the overweight/obese group and laparoscopic surgery in the normal weight group[16.7% (8/48) versus 12.5% (13/104), χ2=0.45, P > 0.05].④The reoperation rate of all the patients performed laparoscopic surgery was significantly lower than that of all the patients performed open operation[1.3% (2/152) versus 10.0% (6/60), χ2=6.7, P < 0.01].⑤The abdominal abscess rate, lung infection rate, and hospital stay after discharge had no significant differences among all the patients (P > 0.05). ConclusionLaparoscopic appendectomy could be considered a safe technique for overweight/obese patients with acute perforated or gangrenous appendicitis, which could not increase the difficulty of laparoscopic surgery and the perioperative risk.
ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the acute appendicitis patients based on our extensive experiences. MethodsThe data of all the acute appendicitis patients who underwent appendectomy from January 2013 to December 2014 in our department were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 201 patients were enrolled and divided into LA group (n=102) and OA group (n=99). The relevant clinical indexes during and after operation of two groups were compared. ResultsThere were no significant difference in age, gender, and underlying disease between LA and OA patients (P > 0.05). And the abdominal cavity infection rate, abdominal drainage rate and 30-day readmission rate were also similar (P > 0.05). But LA group had less operative time, lower infection operative wound rate, less intestinal function recovery time, shorter inhospital days and higher hospital expenses than OA group (P < 0. 05). In addition, perforated appendix and LA could increase the rate of abdominal drainage[OR=2.710, 95% CI(1.129, 6.507), P=0.026]. ConclusionsBoth LA and OA are safe and effective methods for the treatment of acute appendicitis. But LA has several advantages over OA on less operative time and postoperative complications, earlier recovery, and shorter inhospital days. While LA have higher hospital cost than OA, it still should be considered as a prefer way to cure acute appendicitis. LA is a independent risk factor of abdominal drainage.
ObjectiveTo analyze the multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) findings of normal appendices and appendices of acute appendicitis in old patients, and to explore the clinical value of MDCT in assessing acute appendicitis in old patients. MethodsSixty-six cases of acute appendicitis confirmed by surgery in 24 hours after MDCT scan from Jun. to Oct. 2016 (acute appendicitis group), and 40 cases underwent MDCT scan for non-abdominal pain causes without appendiceal lesions from Sep. to Oct. 2016 (normal appendices group), were included, and the MDCT images of both 2 groups were retrospectively analyzed. Observation items included:location, diameter, mural thickness, intra-luminal contents, and changes of surrounding structures. Results① Rate of appendices visualization. In total of 95.5% (63/66) appendices were visualized on MDCT in acute appendicitis group, while 95.0% (38/40) appendices were visualized on MDCT in normal appendices group (P > 0.05). ② Locations of appendices. Acute appendicitis group:appendices were found to be located at pelvic cavity in 22 cases, in front of ileum in 2 cases, behind ileum in 10 cases, below cecum in 25 cases, and behind cecum in 4 cases. Normal appendices group:appendices were found to be located at pelvic cavity in 15 cases, in front of ileum in 3 cases, behind ileum in 7 cases, below cecum in 5 cases, and behind cecum in 8 cases. There was significant difference between 2 groups in terms of location of appendices (P < 0.05). The appendices in acute appendicitis group located mainly at pelvic cavity and below cecum, while the appendices in normal appendices group located mainly at pelvic cavity. ③ The diameter and thickness of appendices. The appendiceal diameter and thickness in acute appendicitis group were (11.4±4.2) mm (6.2-21.9) mm and (4.3±2.2) mm (1.1-8.6) mm, respectively, while those in normal appendices group were (6.1±1.4) mm (3.7-8.6) mm and (1.7±0.8) mm (0.5-3.2) mm, respectively. The diameter and thickness of appendices in acute appendicitis group were significantly greater than those in normal appendices group, respectively (P < 0.05). ④ Contents of appendices. Acute appendices group:there was effusion with air in 14 cases in appendiceal cavity, full of effusion in 36 cases, and appendicolith combined with effusion in 13 cases. Normal appendices group:there was full of air in 15 cases in appendiceal cavity, air with a little faeces of higher density in 13 cases, and nothing in 10 cases. Effusion was more common in appendiceal cavity in acute appendicitis group, while air was more common in normal appendices group. ⑤ Around appendices. Fat stranding was seen in 57 cases, adjacent parietal peritoneum thickening was seen in 56 cases, focal effusion was seen in 18 cases, abscess was seen in 2 cases, free air in peritoneal cavity was seen in 8 cases, and lymphadenopathy was seen in 35 cases. None of these imaging features were seen in normal appendices group. ConclusionsMDCT can demonstrate features of normal appendices and acute appendicitis in old patients. MDCT yield high diagnostic accuracy in acute appendicitis in old patients, and can provide useful information before surgery.