Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) · 1999
Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: outcome and efficacy in 30 consecutive patients.
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.
Katkhouda N, Mavor E, Mason R J, Campos G M, Soroushyari A, Berne T V
Аннотация
HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic management of perforated duodenal ulcers is safe and effective.
DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Tertiary care academic center.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1993 and October 1997, 30 patients underwent laparoscopic Graham patch repair of perforated duodenal ulcers and 16 had an open repair.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity, operating time, analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, and time to return to work.
RESULTS: There was no difference in morbidity between the 2 groups. Operating time was longer in the laparoscopy group (106 vs. 63 minutes; P = .001). Patients with shock on admission or symptoms for more than 24 hours had a higher conversion rate (P<.05). The laparoscopy group required fewer analgesics, had a shorter stay, and a quicker recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair for perforated ulcers is safe and maintains benefits of the minimally invasive approach. Laparoscopy is not beneficial in patients with shock.
DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Tertiary care academic center.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1993 and October 1997, 30 patients underwent laparoscopic Graham patch repair of perforated duodenal ulcers and 16 had an open repair.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity, operating time, analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, and time to return to work.
RESULTS: There was no difference in morbidity between the 2 groups. Operating time was longer in the laparoscopy group (106 vs. 63 minutes; P = .001). Patients with shock on admission or symptoms for more than 24 hours had a higher conversion rate (P<.05). The laparoscopy group required fewer analgesics, had a shorter stay, and a quicker recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair for perforated ulcers is safe and maintains benefits of the minimally invasive approach. Laparoscopy is not beneficial in patients with shock.