Objective To investigate the clinical effects and safety differences of open surgery and laparoscopy primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer. Methods One hundred and forty elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer were chosen and randomly divided into two group including open operative group (70 patients) with primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection by open operation and laparoscopic surgery group (70 patients) with primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection by laparoscopy; and the operative time, intraoperative bleeding amount, the levels of PaCO2 in operation, liquid diet eating time, postoperative anal exhaust time, postoperative gastric tube indwelling time, postoperative ambulation time, the level of haemoglobin (Hb) after operation, the hospitalization time, the number of lymph node dissection, the survival rate with followed-up and postoperative complication incidence of both groups were compared. Results There was no significant difference in the operative time between 2 groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative bleeding amount, the level of PaCO2 in operation, liquid diet eating time, postoperative anal exhaust time, postoperative gastric tube indwelling time, postoperative ambulation time, the level of Hb after operation and the hospitalization time of laparoscopic surgery group were significantly better than open operative group (P<0.05). The level of PaCO2 in operation of laparoscopic surgery group was significantly higher than open operative group (P<0.05). There were no significant difference in the gastric lymph node dissection number and the peripheral lymph node dissection number of gastric artery between 2 groups (P>0.05). There were no significant difference in the survival rates between the 2 groups after 3-year followed-up (P>0.05). The complication incidence after operation of laparoscopic surgery group was significantly lower than open operative group (P<0.05). The quality of life scores of patients in laparoscopic surgery group were significantly higher than those in open operative group on 7 days and in 3 months after operation, and the difference were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with open operation, primary lesion resection combined with D2 lymph node dissection by laparoscopy in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer can efficiently possess the advantages including minimally invasive, shorter recovery time and less postoperative complications.
目的 探讨超声刀（ultrasonic harmonic scalpel，UHS）在消化道恶性肿瘤开腹手术中的应用价值。方法 回顾性分析2009年10月至2011年10月期间广西壮族自治区人民医院普通外科-小儿外科收治并由同一手术者进行消化道恶性肿瘤开腹手术的186例患者的临床资料，根据接受手术的种类（UHS开腹手术或传统电刀开腹手术）将其分为UHS组（86例）和传统电刀组（100例），比较2组患者的手术切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后3d引流量、术后住院时间以及住院总费用。结果 UHS组手术切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量以及术后住院时间均短于（少于）传统电刀组（P＜0.05）；术后3d引流量和住院总费用2组间比较差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 将UHS应用于消化道恶性肿瘤开腹手术可获得较好的效果，能提高手术操作的效率，具有很好的应用前景。
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.
Objective To compare the effect of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery on the blood coagulation state in patients with gastric cancer, and to provide evidence for the prevention measurement of thrombosis in perioperative period. Methods One hundred patients with gastric cancer who received treatment in our hospital from Feb. 2014 to Aug. 2014, were randomly divided into laparoscopy group and laparotomy group, 50 patients in each group. The patients in laparotomy group were treated by traditionally open surgery, while patients in the laparoscopy group accepted laparoscopic surgery. The clinically therapeutic effect of 2 groups was compared. Results ① Operative indexes. The operation time, blood loss, anal exhaust time, hospital stay, and morbidity of laparoscopy group were all lower than those of laparotomy group (P<0.05). ② Coagulation function. Compared with preoperative indexes, the prothrombin time (PT) at 24 h after operation in laparoscopy group and laparotomy group were both shorter (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and international normalized ratio (INR) between the 2 time points (before operation and 24 h after operation) in both 2 groups (P>0.05). Both at 2 time points (before operation and 24 h after operation), there was no significant difference in PT, APTT, and INR between 2 groups (P>0.05). ③ Fibrinolysis indexes. Compared with preoperative indexes, the fibrinogen (FIB) and D-dimer at 24 h after operation in laparoscopy group and laparotomy group were higher (P<0.05). The FIB and D-dimer at 24 h after operation in laparoscopy group were both higher than those of laparotomy group (P<0.05). ④ Follow-up results. There was no significant difference in metastasis rate, recurrence rate, and mortality between the 2 groups (P>0.05), but the incidence of thrombus was higher in laparoscopy group than that of laparotomy group (P<0.05). Conclusions In the treatment of patients with gastric cancer, laparoscopic surgery has the advantages of less trauma, less blood loss, less complications, and so on. Laparoscopic surgery and open surgery both can lead to hypercoagulable state, but the effect of laparoscopic surgery is stronger than open surgery.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between conventional open repair (OR) and endovascular repair (EVRAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Methods Between March 2000 and July 2011, 48 cases of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated by conventional OR in 40 cases (OR group) or by EVRAR in 8 cases (EVRAR group). There was no significant difference in age, sex, the neck length (less than 2 cm), the neck angulation of aneurysm (more than60°), il iac severe tortuosity, preoperative systol ic pressure, and preoperative comorbidity between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The blood transfusion volume, operation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative complications, reinterventions, and mortality were analyzed. Results There was no significant difference in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates and non graft-related complications between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). EVRAR group was significantly better than OR group in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay (P lt; 0.05), but OR group was significantly better than EVRAR group in reinterventions and graftrelated complications (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion EVRAR has obvious advantages in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay, so it is feasible for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with precise anatomical suitability.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluation the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) and open cholecystectomy(OC) for chronic atrophic cholecystitis. MethodsStandard electronic database such as PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane library, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and Wanfang database were searched to retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials(RCTs) that comparing LC with OC, which were analyzed systematically using RevMan5.2. ResultsSeven RCTs including 758 patients were brought into this Meta analysis. There were significant differences between two groups regarding operative time(MD=-27.70, 95% CI:-44.25--11.16, P=0.001), amount of blood loss during operation(MD=-113.25, 95% CI:-141.68--84.81, P < 0.000 01), the recovery time of gastrointestinal function(MD=-28.49, 95% CI:-29.80--27.18, P < 0.000 01), and length of hospital stay(MD=-3.83, 95% CI:-6.01--1.65, P=0.000 6), There were statistically significant difference in utilization rate of anodynes after operation(MD=0.12, 95% CI:0.06-0.23, P < 0.000 1) and terrible postoperative complications(MD=0.24, 95% CI:0.12-0.47, P < 0.000 01) between LC and OC. ConclusionsIn both efficacy and safety, LC for chronic atrophic cholecystitis are significantly superior than the traditional OC. But now the clinical randomized controlled trials about LC is less and the quality is poor, so that its long-term safety evaluation still needs large sample quality RCTs to be further verified.
Objective To formulate an evidence-based treatment plan for a patient with suspected pyogenic liver abscess. Methods Based on the clinical questions raised by a patient with suspected pyogenic liver abscess, we searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1996 to January 2008), ACP Journal Club (1991 to January 2008), and Chinese Journal Full-text Database (1994 to January 2008) for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed. Results We did not find any systematic reviews or large-scale RCTs involving a comparison between laparoscopic drainage and surgical drainage in the treatment of pyogenic liver abscess. Four clinical retrospective studies closely related to our questions were found and assessed. These studies concluded that laparoscopic drainage for liver abscesses was a safe alternative for patients requiring surgical drainage. Based on the current evidence, as well as our clinical expertise and the patient’s values, laparoscopic drainage was not used for this patient and surgical drainage was applied. The patient was recovered and discharged. Conclusion Current evidence showed that laparoscopic drainage might be effective and safe for liver abscesses but high-quality large-scale randomized controlled trials are still required.