目的探讨经脐单孔腹腔镜联合胃镜治疗微小胃间质瘤(gastric stromal tumors, GIST)的可行性和临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析我院2010年10月至2011年5月期间行经脐单孔腹腔镜联合胃镜治疗微小GIST 30例患者的临床资料。 结果30例病灶直径（1.0±0.2） cm（0.5～2.0 cm），术后病理检查均证实为极低危险程度GIST。 24例在单孔腹腔镜辅助下成功完成内镜黏膜下剥离术（endoscopic submucosal dissection，ESD）； 3例因ESD术中发生胃壁穿孔而改行内镜全层切除术（endoscopic full-thickness resection, EFR），其中2例继续在单孔下完成穿孔修补术，1例于左上腹壁另加一 Trocar，在双孔下完成穿孔修补术； 另3例因ESD剥离瘤体困难，改行胃局部切除术，其中2例继续在单孔下完成手术，1例在双孔下完成手术。 ESD成功率为80.0%（24／30），经脐部单孔完成率为93.3%（28/30）。手术时间（87.5±10.3） min （45～150 min）。 全组术后（4.3±0.5） d （3～8 d）出院。术后随访期3～7个月（平均4.6个月），均无病变复发。 结论经脐部单孔腹腔镜联合胃镜治疗微小GIST是安全可行的，早期疗效令人满意。
目的:探讨经脐入路行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的可行性。方法:对6例患者采用仅在脐部切开一个切口进行腹腔镜胆囊切除术。结果:6例患者手术均获成功,无中转常规腹腔镜手术或开腹手术。手术时间80～130min,无出血、胆管损伤等并发症发生。术后1d出院,术后1月门诊随访,患者恢复顺利,除脐部外,腹壁无手术瘢痕。结论:经脐入路腹腔镜胆囊切除术技术上是可行的,但难度较大,在开展手术初期应慎重选择病例。
目的探讨经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）的临床应用。方法分析我院2009年1月至2010年5月期间120例因结石性胆囊炎和胆囊息肉行经脐单孔LC患者的临床资料。结果98例患者手术成功，手术时间38～126 min，平均50.3 min。22例单孔手术失败改成两孔完成手术。住院时间2～4 d，平均2.5 d。全组患者无出血及漏胆并发症发生，仅2例（1.7%）脐部戳孔处术后轻度感染，经局部换药治疗2周愈合。89例（90.8%）采用单孔法患者获得1～15个月（平均7.3个月）随访，均无并发症发生。结论单孔LC安全可行，但使用现有腹腔镜设备操作难度较大，器械及技术尚需进一步完善。
目的 探讨利用常规腹腔镜器械完成经脐单孔腹腔镜结直肠手术的可能性和技术要点。方法 收集中国医科大学附属盛京医院微创外科于2009年4月至2010年1月期间施行的12例经脐单孔腹腔镜结直肠手术的临床资料。阑尾炎8例，均为女性，平均年龄40岁； 回盲部肿物2例，均为女性，其中1例为回盲部淋巴水瘤（68岁），另1例为回盲部溃疡性结肠炎（47岁）； 乙状结肠息肉1例，女，55岁； 直肠癌1例，男，52岁。 12例均于脐部行2.5~3.0 cm长单切口，利用常规腹腔镜手术器械完成手术。结果 8例阑尾手术，手术时间20~50 min，出血量均少于10 ml； 2例回盲部切除术手术时间分别为60 min和90 min，出血量分别为10 ml和20 ml； 1例乙状结肠切除术用时120 min，术中出血约50 ml，术后4 d拔除引流管； 直肠癌手术时间210 min，术中出血少于200 ml，术后1周拔除引流管并出院。结论 利用常规腹腔镜手术器械完成经脐单孔腹腔镜结直肠手术安全可行。
【摘要】 目的 探讨经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床可行性及其优缺点。 方法 回顾分析2010年7-9月行经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术34例患者临床资料。 结果 患者均顺利完成单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术，手术平均时间为65 min，术后平均住院时间为3 d，术后未发生出血、感染、胆瘘等并发症。 结论 单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术是安全可行的，术后腹部无明显瘢痕，美容效果明显。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the feasibility and value of the trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods The clinical data of 34 patients who underwent trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy from July to September 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. Results The operations of 34 patients were successfully performed. The mean operative duration was 65 minutes, and the mean duration in hospital after the operation was 3 days. No infection, postoperative bleeding, and biliary leakage occurred postoperatively. Conclusion Trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible with good cosmetic effect.
ObjectiveTo compare the advantages and disadvantages of transumbilical single port (TUSP) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MethodsThe clinical data of 45 patients underwent elective LC were analyzed, 20 patients with TUSP LC (TUSP-LC group), 25 patients with conventional LC (conventional LC group). The operation time, Child-Pugh score and painkiller application frequency within three days after operation, the first time of out of bed and hospital stay after operation, intraoperative blood loss, chronic pain within one month after surgery were compared between two groups. ResultsAll cases were operated successfully except one patient in the conventional LC group. The frequency of painkiller application within three days after operation and postoperative hospital stay in the TUSP-LC group were better than those in the conventional LC group (Plt;0.05). There were no significant differences on postoperative chronic pain of surgical area within 1 month and Child-Pugh score between two groups (Pgt;0.05). The operation time and intraoperative blood loss in the conventional LC group were less than those in the TUSP-LC group (Plt;0.05, Plt;0.01). ConclusionTUSP LC has the advantages of small wound, slight pain, and fast recovery.
ObjectiveTo compare clinical efficacy between transumbilical three-port laparoscopic surgery (TU-TPLS) and transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery (TU-SILS) in repair of acute peptic ulcer perforation. MethodsThe patients with acute peptic ulcer perforation who underwent TU-TPLS or TU-SILS in Chengdu Second People’s Hospital Affiliated to Sichuan University from January 2022 to December 2024 were retrospectively collected, and then were divided into the TU-TPLS group and TU-SILS group. The operation time, postoperative 24 h incision pain score (visual analogue scale) , postoperative hospital stay, total hospitalization cost, incision scar score (Vancouver scar scale), comprehensive satisfaction, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. ResultsA total of 105 patients met the inclusion criteria were enrolled, comprising 50 patients in the TU-TPLS group and 55 patients in the TU-SILS. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups, such as gender, age, body mass index, perforation site, perforation diameter, and Boey score (all P>0.05). Postoperatively, the TU-TPLS group demonstrated significantly lower visual analogue scale pain score at 24 h compared to the TU-SILS group [(2.34±0.63) score vs. (3.22±1.05) score, P<0.001] and significantly higher comprehensive satisfaction score [(7.60±0.86) score vs. (7.02±1.01) score, P=0.002]. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the TU-TPLS group and TU-SILS group regarding operative time [(71.84±10.51) min vs. (69.78±7.98) min, P=0.257], postoperative hospital stay [(10.35±2.08) d vs. (9.96±1.75) d, P=0.310], or total hospitalization costs [(20 856.23±4 095.73) yuan vs. (19 988.83±2 933.43) yuan, P=0.212]. The incidence of umbilical wound infection was 1 case in the TU-TPLS group and 3 cases in the TU-SILS group (P=0.619). Postoperative residual intra-abdominal infection occurred in 2 cases in the TU-TPLS group and 1 case in the TU-SILS group (P=0.604). Incisional bleeding occurred in 0 cases in the TU-TPLS group and 1 case in the TU-SILS group (P>0.999). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in the scar assessment score between the TU-TPLS group and TU-SILS group [(3.11±1.13) score vs. (2.92±0.70) score, P=0.301] at the 2-month postoperative follow-up. ConclusionsBoth TU-TPLS and TU-SILS have achieved good therapeutic effects in treatment of acute peptic ulcer perforation. However, TU-TPLS has more advantages over TU-SILS. TU-TPLS causes milder incision pain, leads to higher patient satisfaction, and does not require special equipment.