切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华结直肠疾病电子杂志 ›› 2023, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (01) : 64 -69. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2023.01.009

论著

单孔对比传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的多中心回顾性分析:一项倾向性评分匹配研究
吴远涛1, 黎峰2, 杨斌3, 谭嘉男3, 钟广宇3, 钟林3, 周声宁3,()   
  1. 1. 543100 梧州,苍梧县人民医院普外科
    2. 543100 梧州市红十字会医院普外科
    3. 510120 广州,中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2022-05-25 出版日期:2023-02-25
  • 通信作者: 周声宁

A multicenter retrospective analysis of single-port versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a propensity score matching study

Yuantao Wu1, Feng Li2, Bin Yang3, Jia'nan Tan3, Guangyu Zhong3, Lin Zhong3, Shengning Zhou3,()   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Cangwu People's Hospital, Wuzhou 543100, China
    2. Department of General Surgery, Wuzhou Red Cross Hospital, Wuzhou 543100, China
    3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China
  • Received:2022-05-25 Published:2023-02-25
  • Corresponding author: Shengning Zhou
引用本文:

吴远涛, 黎峰, 杨斌, 谭嘉男, 钟广宇, 钟林, 周声宁. 单孔对比传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的多中心回顾性分析:一项倾向性评分匹配研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(01): 64-69.

Yuantao Wu, Feng Li, Bin Yang, Jia'nan Tan, Guangyu Zhong, Lin Zhong, Shengning Zhou. A multicenter retrospective analysis of single-port versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a propensity score matching study[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(01): 64-69.

目的

分析单孔对比传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的临床疗效,行亚组分析探索影响单孔腹腔镜手术时间的因素,明确获益人群。

方法

回顾性分析三个中心2019年1月至2021年5月连续收治的急性阑尾炎并行腹腔镜阑尾切除术的患者的临床资料,用倾向性匹配方法消除年龄、性别因素对结果的影响,对比单孔和传统三孔腹腔镜手术时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症的区别,行亚组分析影响单孔腹腔镜手术时间的因素。

结果

单孔组的手术时间延长(50.42±10.661 min vs. 37.76±11.023 min,t=6.566,P=0.000),术后VAS疼痛评分降低(3.42±1.98 vs. 4.44±2.37,t=2.569,P=0.011)、需要使用镇痛药比例降低(8.3% vs. 22.9%,χ2=4.600,P=0.032)、疤痕美容SCAR评分降低(4.59±2.87 vs. 6.74±3.34,t=3.910,P=0.000),术中出血量、术后住院时间及术后并发症差异无统计学意义。Logistic回归分析发现手术方式、BMI和阑尾直径是影响手术时间的独立影响因素,亚组分析发现BMI对单孔组和三孔组的手术时间均有影响,但对单孔组的影响更大;阑尾直径对三孔组的手术时间有影响,不影响单孔组的手术时间。

结论

单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎是一种安全、有效的方法,可减少术后疼痛,术后腹壁疤痕更美观,尤其在BMI正常、阑尾直径较大的患者中效果更佳。

Objective

The clinical efficacy of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis was analyzed compared with traditional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the factors affecting the operation time of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and identify patients who benefit more.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with acute appendicitis and laparoscopic appendectomy admitted consecutively from January 2019 to May 2021 in three centers. The influences of age and gender on the results were eliminated by the method of propensity score matching, and the differences of operating time, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications between single-port laparoscopic and traditional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed to analyze the factors affecting the operating time in single-port laparoscopic group.

Results

The operative time was prolonged (50.42±10.661 min vs. 37.76±11.023 min, t=6.566, P=0.000), postoperative Visual Analogue Score was decreased (3.42±1.98 vs. 4.44±2.37, t=2.569, P=0.011), the proportion of patients needing analgesics decreased (8.3% vs. 22.9%, χ2=4.600, P=0.032) and Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating score was decreased (4.59±2.87 vs. 6.74±3.34, t=3.910, P=0.000) in the single-port group when compared with the three-port group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications. Logistic regression analysis clarified that operation method, age, BMI and appendix diameter were independent influencing factors of operation time. Subgroup analysis indicated that BMI had an effect on the operation time of both the single-port group and the three-port group, but had a greater effect on the single-port group. The diameter of appendix had an effect on the operation time of the three-port group, but did not on the single-port group.

Conclusion

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective method for the treatment of acute appendicitis, which can reduce postoperative pain and bring better cosmesis appearance of abdominal wall, especially in patients with normal BMI and big diameter of appendix.

图1 传统三孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的切口情况。1A:三个套管针的布置位置;1B:术后切口情况(缝合后);1C:术后半年切口愈合情况。(三张图方向均为:上方为患者头侧,下方为患者尾侧)
图2 单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术的切口情况。2A:沿脐上缘标记弧形切口;2B:单孔装置的布置;2C:术后切口情况(胶水粘合后);2D:术后半年切口愈合情况。(三张图方向均为:右侧为患者头侧,左侧为患者尾侧)
表1 患者临床基线及围手术期资料(
xˉ
±s,例)
[1]
Rollins KE, Varadhan KK, Neal KR, et al. Antibiotics versus appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials[J]. World J Surg, 2016, 40(10): 2305e18.
[2]
Sauerland S, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, 6(10): CD001546.
[3]
Yau Kwok Kay, Wing TaiSiu, Tang Chun Ngai, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2007, 205(1): 60e5.
[4]
Kirshtein B, Haas EM. Single port laparoscopic surgery: concept and controversies of new technique[J]. Minim Invasive Surg, 2012, 2012: 456541.
[5]
Rao Prashanth P, Rao Pradeep P, Bhagwat S. Single incision laparoscopic surgery-current status and controversies[J]. J Minimal Access Surg, 2011, 7(1): 6e16.
[6]
Noguera Jose F, Cuadrado A. NOTES, MANOS, SILS and other new laparoendoscopic techniques[J]. World J Gastrointest Endosc, 2012, 4(6): 212e7.
[7]
Zaman S, Mohamedahmed AYY, Srinivasan A, et al. Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials[J]. Surgeon, 2021, 19(6): 365-379.
[8]
Deng L, Xiong J, Xia Q. Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials[J]. J Evid Base Med, 2017, 10(3): 196e206.
[9]
SCARLESS Study Group, Ahmed I, Cook JA, et al. Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery compared with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015, 29(1): 77-85.
[10]
Roh, MR. The SCAR (Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating) scale: new evaluation method for postoperative scars[J]. Brit J Dermatol, 2016, 175(6): 1151-1152.
[11]
Wise ES, Gadomski SP, Ilg AM, et al. Independent preoperative predictors of prolonged length of stay after laparoscopic appendectomy in patients over 30 years of age: experience from a single institution[J]. Am Surg, 2016, 82(11): 1092-1097.
[12]
Lasek A, Pędziwiatr M, Kenig J, et al. The significant impact of age on the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy: Results from the polish laparoscopic appendectomy multicenter large cohort study[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018, 97(50): e13621.
[13]
Zaman S, Mohamedahmed AYY, Stonelake S, et al. Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Pediatr Surg Int, 37(1): 119-127.
[14]
Duza G, Davrieux CF, Palermo M, et al. Conventional laparoscopic appendectomy versus single-port laparoscopic appendectomy, a multicenter randomized control trial: a feasible and safe alternative to standard laparoscopy[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv S, 2019, 29(12): 1577-1584.
[15]
Sozutek A, Colak T, Dirlik M, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of single-port laparoscopic procedure with open and standard 3-port laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of acute appendicitis[J]. Surg Laparo Endo Per, 2013, 23(1): 74-78.
[16]
Choi BJ, Jeong WJ, Kim SJ, et al. Impact of obesity on the short-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer in the Asian population: A retrospective cohort study[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017, 96(28): e6649.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[10] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[11] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[12] 冯旺, 马振中, 汤林花. CT扫描三维重建在肝内胆管细胞癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 104-107.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要