目的比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术（LA）与传统开腹阑尾切除术（OA）在治疗老年（60岁）急性阑尾炎患者的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2008年6月至2009年12月期间我院收治的67例老年急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料，根据接受的不同手术方式分为LA组（n=28）和OA组（n=39），对2组患者术中及术后相关指标进行比较。结果 LA组患者均顺利完成手术，无中转开腹; 术后无切口感染; 1例出现腹腔残余感染，经抗感染治疗后痊愈。OA组患者术后6例发生切口感染，经换药后痊愈; 5例发生腹腔残余感染，经抗感染治疗后痊愈。2组患者均无出血、阑尾残端漏、残株炎、粘连性肠梗阻等并发症发生。LA组患者手术时间与OA组比较差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）。尽管LA组患者综合费用明显多于OA组（Plt;0.05），但术中出血量、术后下床时间、肛门排气时间、止痛剂使用率、切口感染率、腹腔残余感染率以及住院时间均小（少）于OA组（Plt;0.05）。 结论对老年急性阑尾炎患者的治疗，LA明显优于OA，且可作为老年急性阑尾炎患者治疗的首选术式。
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the stress response of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS) in patients with colorectal cancer. MethodsThe literatures about the immune stress response of LS and OS for colorectal cancer were collected from PubMed, Springer, OVID, Cochrane library, CNKI, VIP Database, and Wanfang Database from May 2001 to September 2014. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis. ResultsFifteen randomized controlled trials including 881 patients were brought into this Meta analysis, of 881 patients, 424 patients were treated with LS and 457 patients were treated with OS. The results of Meta-analysis showed that:①At 24, 72, and 120 hours after surgery, the levels of interleukin (IL-6) in LS group were all lower than those of OS group at same time point[24 h (WMD=-27.78, 95% CI:-43.24--12.32, P < 0.01), 72 h (WMD=-13.23, 95% CI:-19.89--6.57, P < 0.01), 120 h (WMD=-16.51, 95% CI:-30.13--2.89, P=0.02)]. ②At 24, 72, and 120 hours after surgery, the levels of C reactive protein (CRP) in LS group were all lower than those of OS group at same time point[24 h (WMD=-31.11, 95% CI:-47.49--14.73, P < 0.01), 72 h (WMD=-29.81, 95% CI:-49.99--9.64, P < 0.01), 120 h (WMD=-32.03, 95% CI:-45.34--18.71, P < 0.01)]. ③There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in WBC level at 24 hours after surgery (WMD=-0.63, 95% CI:-1.80-0.54, P=0.29), but the WBC levels of LS group at 72 hours and 120 hours after surgery were lower than those of OS group[72 h (WMD=-0.21, 95% CI:-0.41--0.01, P=0.04), 120 h (WMD=-0.86, 95% CI:-1.66--0.06, P=0.03). ④There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in cortisol level at 24 hours and 72 hours after surgery[24 h (WMD=-60.19, 95% CI:-194.77-74.39, P=0.38), 72 h (WMD=-13.83, 95% CI:-43.94-16.28, P=0.37). ⑤There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in blood glucose level at 24 hours and 72 hours after surgery[24 h (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI:-2.74-0.84, P=0.30), 72 h (WMD=-0.69, 95% CI:-2.05-0.66, P=0.32)]. ⑥There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in insulin level (WMD=-0.52, 95% CI:-1.87-0.82, P=0.45) at 24 hours after surgery. ⑦There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) level at 24 hours after surgery (WMD=-4.18, 95% CI:-9.39-1.04, P=0.12). ConclusionCompared with open radical surgery, laparoscopic radical surgery for colorectal cancer causes less stress and less effect on the immune function, it also can reduce postoperative complications and can be propitious to faster body recovery.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer. MethodDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Knowledge, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched to collect controlled trials and cohort studies about laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer from inception to July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies involving 2 020 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy operation could reduce intraoperative blood loss (MD=-247.99, 95%CI -408.90 to -87.07, P=0.003) , the incidence of perioperative blood transfusion (OR=0.33, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.52, P<0.000 01) , haemoglobin level before and after surgery (MD=-0.98, 95%CI -0.13 to -0.93, P<0.000 01) , postoperative complication (OR=0.61, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.93, P=0.02) , and shorten postoperative exhaust time (MD=-17.41, 95%CI -32.79 to -2.03, P=0.03) and postoperative hospitalization days (MD=-2.51, 95%CI -3.25 to -1.78, P<0.000 01) . There were no significant differences between two groups in the number of pelvic lymph nodes removed, operative complications, as well as the recurrence rate, mortality and non-recurrence survivals after 2 to 5 years of follow-up. But the operation time of the laparoscopy operation group was longer than that of the laparotomy group. ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that compared with laparotomy, laparoscopic operation for early stage cervical cancer has less trauma, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization days and less postoperative complications. Due to the limited quantity of the included studies, more studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objective To evaluate safety, efficacy, and indications of laparoscopic bile duct reexploration in treatment of bile duct stones. Methods Fifty-seven patients with bile duct stones who underwent laparoscopic common bile duct reexploration (laparoscope group) and 62 patients with bile duct stones who underwent open common bile duct reexploration (laparotomy group) were included into this study from February 2013 to February 2017 in the Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. The intraoperative and postoperative data of the patients were documented and analyzed. Results All the operations were performed successfully and all the patients had no extra-damage during the operation. One case was converted to the laparotomy due to the intraabdominal serious adhesion in the laparoscope group. Compared with the laparotomy group, the amount of intraoperative blood loss was less, the first time of anal exhaust was earlier, the rates of postoperative analgesia and incision infection were lower, and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscope group, there were significant differences (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the operative time, the hospitalization expense, primary suture rate of common bile duct, and the rates of postoperative complications such as the bile leakage, bile duct stricture, and residual stone between the laparoscope group and the laparotomy group (P>0.05). Conclusion With experienced skills and strict surgical indications, laparoscopic common bile duct reexploration is safe and effective in treatment of bile duct stones, and it has some advantages including less bleeding, rapid recovery, and shorter hospitalization time.
ObjectiveTo compare clinical outcomes between laparoscopic (LAP) and open surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer of T4a stage.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data of non-metastatic colon cancer patients of T4a stage with confirmed pathological results who underwent curative resection in Peking Union Medical College Hospital between January 2011 and December 2017. These patients were allocated into LAP group (n=107, underwent laparoscopic radical operation) and open group (n=52, underwent open surgery).ResultsThere were no significant difference in operating time, number of lymph nodes harvested, number of positive lymph nodes, incidence of complications within 30 days, and Clavien-Dindo grading between the LAP group and open group (P>0.05), but intraoperative blood loss, postoperative exhaust time, and postoperative hospital stay in the LAP group were less than (shorter than) those of the open group (P<0.05).ConclusionLaparoscopic approach for non-metastatic colon cancer of T4a stage is safe and feasible, and it has advantages including less intraoperative blood loss, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stay.
Objective To evaluate the effect of laparoscopic splenectomy （LS） and open splenectomy （OS） forhypersplenism secondary to liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension. Methods Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials， Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews， Medline， Embase， CINAHL， CBM， CNKI， VIP and WanFang database were searched for randomized control trials or retrospective studies related to the effect of LS and OS for hyper-splenism secondary to liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension. Then studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criterias， data were collected， and quality of studies were evaluated. RevMan 5.1.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Results Seventeen retrospective studies and one randomized control trial were enrolled. The results of meta analysis showed that， the estimated blood loss， postoperative hospital stay， rate of postoperative complication， and WBC level on 1 day after operation of LS group were significantly lower or shorter than those of OS group （P＜0.05）. However， there were no significant differences on operative time， WBC level on 7 days after operation， postoperative platelets （1 day and 7 days after operation）， alanine aminotransferase （1 day and 7 days after operation）， and total bilirubin （1 day and 7 days after operation） between LS group and OS group （P＞0.05）. Conclusions LS may be more effective to reduce blood loss， postoperative hospital stay， and rate of postoperative complication in patients with hypersplenism secondary to liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension in comparison to OS. However， the effectiveness of LS on liver function is not clear.
Objective To investigate the impact of conversion to open in laparoscopic rectal cancer radical resection (LRR) on postoperative recovery. Methods The data from Feb. 2003 to Feb. 2007 of 176 cases who were given LRR and 32 cases receiving conversion in LRR (CRR) were analyzed retrospectively, and were compared about operation time, hospitalization time, hospitalization expenses, intraoperative blood loss, recovery time of bowel movement and postoperative complications with 59 cases of open rectal cancer radical resection (ORR). Results There were no differences among LRR, CRR and ORR about operation time, hospitalization time, intraoperative blood loss and recovery time of bowel movement (Pgt;0.05). The hospitalization expenses of LRR and CRR were higher than that of ORR (P=0.001, P=0.001), there was no difference between CRR and LRR (P=0.843). But the postoperative complications rate of ORR was higher than those of LRR and CRR （P=0.023,P=0.004）. Conclusion Compared with ORR, LRR has relatively conversion rate, and then increases the hospitalization expenses.