Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2014
Laparoscopic closure of perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer: 15 years' experience in our centre.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Žáček Michal, Váňa Juraj, Babiš Boris
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study is to share the results and development findings on the laparoscopic closure technique applied in our centre during a 15-year period (1998-2012).
AIM: To compare statistically the standard parameters (hospitalization, duration of operation) versus conventional surgery, and at the same time we compared mainly morbidity and mortality.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the period under review we operated on a total of 259 patients, 115 (44.4%) of them laparoscopically, and 144 (55.6%) of them conventionally. The sample was divided into two groups: patients with ASA physical status classification system 1-3, and patients with ASA 4-5.
RESULTS: The results favour laparoscopy within the group with ASA 1-3 in terms of several parameters, namely: duration of hospitalization - 7.7 days in the case of laparoscopic intervention, vs. 10.6 days for conventional surgery (p < 0.05); and duration of operation - 61 min vs. 85.1 min respectively (p < 0.05). Total morbidity was 27.5% in the case of patients with conventional surgery, vs. 10.9% with laparoscopic intervention (p < 0.05). The sample of patients with ASA 4-5 suffered a high mortality of 82.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic closure of perforated ulcer is a safe therapeutic method, as confirmed by the results of many other studies around the world, which in many aspects favour the laparoscopic technique.
AIM: To compare statistically the standard parameters (hospitalization, duration of operation) versus conventional surgery, and at the same time we compared mainly morbidity and mortality.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the period under review we operated on a total of 259 patients, 115 (44.4%) of them laparoscopically, and 144 (55.6%) of them conventionally. The sample was divided into two groups: patients with ASA physical status classification system 1-3, and patients with ASA 4-5.
RESULTS: The results favour laparoscopy within the group with ASA 1-3 in terms of several parameters, namely: duration of hospitalization - 7.7 days in the case of laparoscopic intervention, vs. 10.6 days for conventional surgery (p < 0.05); and duration of operation - 61 min vs. 85.1 min respectively (p < 0.05). Total morbidity was 27.5% in the case of patients with conventional surgery, vs. 10.9% with laparoscopic intervention (p < 0.05). The sample of patients with ASA 4-5 suffered a high mortality of 82.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic closure of perforated ulcer is a safe therapeutic method, as confirmed by the results of many other studies around the world, which in many aspects favour the laparoscopic technique.