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.
Objective To investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy through the transumbilical approach. MethodsThe clinical data of 18 patients underwent endoscopic cholecystectomy through only one transumbilical incision at West China Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Results All of the operations were successfully completed without conversion to routine laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. The operation time was 40-130 （58±10） min. There was no intraoperative complication. The patients did well postoperatively and were discharged 1 day after operation. There was no postoperative complications and without visible abdominal scar on 1 month follow-up. Conclusions Laparoscopic cholecystectomy through the transumbilical approach is technically feasible and safe. But this technique is difficult, the patients should be selected carefully.
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 探讨腹腔镜乙状结肠肿瘤手术经脐取标本并脐再造术的可行性和临床应用前景。方法 回顾性分析 2011年1月至2011年12月期间我院普外科同一治疗小组完成6例腹腔镜乙状结肠肿瘤手术经脐取标本并脐再造术患者的手术时间、出血量、吻合口漏、切口感染及术后恢复情况。结果 6例患者均在腹腔镜下顺利完成手术，手术时间120～160min，平均139min；术中出血量30～60ml，平均40ml；术后未发生吻合口漏、腹腔感染、切口感染等并发症；术后平均7.6d出院。手术切口瘢痕隐蔽不易察觉，新“肚脐”形态良好。结论 腹腔镜乙状结肠肿瘤手术经脐取标本并脐再造术是一创新型手术，创伤小，恢复快，操作简单，安全，腹部美容效果明显。
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 case 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.