切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (03): 174 -180. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2022.03.011

论著

"筷子技术"用于经脐单孔腹腔镜全子宫切除术的可行性和安全性研究
钟魁艳1, 邓黎1, 李宇迪1, 姚远洋1, 唐帅1, 胡群英1, 凌开建1, 王延洲1,()   
  1. 1. 400030 重庆,陆军军医大学附属第一医院妇产科
  • 收稿日期:2022-01-25 出版日期:2022-06-30
  • 通信作者: 王延洲

Feasibility and safety of "chopsticks technique" for the laparoendoscopic single-site surgery total hysterectomy

Kuiyan Zhong1, Li Deng1, Yudi Li1, Yuanyang Yao1, Shuai Tang1, Qunying Hu1, Kaijian Ling1, Yanzhou Wang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, First Affilisted Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400030, China
  • Received:2022-01-25 Published:2022-06-30
  • Corresponding author: Yanzhou Wang
目的

"筷子技术"用于经脐单孔腹腔镜(laparoendoscopic single-site surgery,LESS)全子宫切除术与传统多孔腹腔镜(traditional laparoscopic,TL)全子宫切除术,进行围手术期结局,验证其可行性和安全性。

方法

采用回顾性队列研究,纳入2016年12月至2019年6月期间,于陆军军医大学附属第一医院妇产科,行LESS全子宫切除术与同期TL全子宫切除术的患者。比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后12 h和24 h疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale, VAS)、术后住院时间、术中和术后并发症发生情况。

结果

研究共纳入297例患者临床资料,其中LESS全子宫切除术107例(LESS组)、TL全子宫切除术190例(TL组)。两组均顺利完成手术,无中转开腹。两组患者基线均衡。LESS组和TL组的手术时间分别为131 min(102,155)min和125.5 min (92.8,155)min,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术中出血量分别为100 ml(100,200)ml和100 ml(100,150)ml,差异无统计学意义(P >0.05);术后排气时间、术后12 h和24 h VAS、围手术期并发症等,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组阴道残端均愈合良好。LESS组术后住院时间比TL组短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。分别比较子宫≥12孕周、子宫<12孕周的患者,LESS组与TL组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后12 h和24 h VAS、围手术期并发症,差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。子宫<12孕周LESS组比TL组的术后住院时间缩短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

"筷子技术"用于LESS全子宫切除的围手术期结局与TL相似,初步证实了其在LESS术中的可行性和安全性。

Objective

To the feasibility and safety of "chopsticks technique" for the laparoendoscopic single-site surgery total hysterectomy were confirmed by peroperative outcome was compared with traditional laparoscopic total hysterectomy.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was used in this study. Patients who were included in the laparoendoscopic single-site surgery total hysterectomy and the traditional laparoscopic total hysterectomy of the First Affiliated Hospital of the Army Military Medical University from Dec. 2016 to Jun. 2019. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding amount, postoperative exhaust time, VAS score after surgery (12 h, 24 h), postoperative hospitalization time and postoperative complications of the two groups were compared.

Results

A total of 297 patients were included in the study, including 107 laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS group) and 190 traditional laparoscopic(TL group). Both groups successfully completed the operation, no case was transferred to laparotomy. Baseline values of patients were balanced in both groups. The operation time of the LESS and TL groups were 131 min(102, 155)min and 125.5 min (92.8, 155) min with no statistical difference (P> 0.05); intraoperative bleeding was 100 ml(100, 200)ml and 100 ml(100, 150)ml, no statistical difference (P> 0.05); there were no statistical differences in postoperative exhaust time, VAS score after surgery (12 h, 24 h), postoperative complications (P> 0.05); both groups vaginal stump healed well. The LESS group was shorter postoperative hospital stay than the TL group and was statistically significant (P<0.05). For patients at uterine size≥12 weeks gestation and uterine size<12 weeks gestation were compared, there was no statistical difference between LESS group and TL groups in the operation time, postoperative bleeding time, postoperative exhaust time, VAS score after surgery (12 h, 24 h), perioperative complications (P> 0.05). Among them, for the uterine <12 gestational weeks, The LESS group was shorter postoperative hospital stay than the TL group and was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusions

The perioperative outcome of the "chopstick technique" for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery total hysterectomy was similar to that of traditional laparoscopic total hysterectomy. The feasibility and safety in the laparoendoscopic single-site surgery were preliminarily demonstrated.

图1 病例资料筛选流程
表1 两组全子宫切除术患者一般资料比较
表2 两组全子宫切除术患者围手术期指标对比
表3 LESS组107例患者不同子宫大小的临床资料比较
表4 两组子宫大小≥12孕周患者的临床资料比较
表5 两组子宫大小<12孕周患者的临床资料比较
1
Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev20152015(8): 3677.
2
Demirayak G, Özdemir ĪA, Comba C, et al. Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery and conventional multi port laparoscopic (CMPL) surgery for hysterectomy: long-term outcomes of abdominal incisional scar[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol202040(2):217-221.
3
Pelosi MA. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture[J]. N J Med199188(10):721-726.
4
荣风年,赵珊.限制单孔腹腔镜技术发展的因素分析[J].山东大学学报:医学版201957(12):26-30.
5
刘海元,孙大为,张俊吉,等. 《妇科单孔腔镜手术技术专家共识》解读[J/CD]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版)201710(1):1-6.
6
王延洲,陈诚,徐嘉莉,等. "筷子法"单孔腹腔镜技术在宫颈癌中的应用[J/CD].中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版 )201811(1):28-31.
7
Ferreira H, Campo R. Surgical steps of total laparoscopic hysterectomy part 1: benign disease by the european society for gynaecological endoscopy (ESGE)[J]. Facts, News and Views, 2019, 11:103-110.
8
许丽娜,李立峰.腹腔镜下大子宫切除87例临床分析[J].腹腔镜外科杂志200510(4):233-234.
9
李光仪,冯虹.腹腔镜全子宫切除术357例总结 [J].中国内镜杂志19995(1):28-29.
10
Kim SM, Park EK, Jeung IC, et al. Abdominal, multi-port and single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: eleven-year trends comparison of surgical outcomes complications of 936 cases[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet2015291(6):1313-1319.
11
Chung JH, Baek JM, Chung K, et al. A comparison of postoperative pain after transumbilical single-port access and conventional three-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand201594(12):1290-1296.
12
Sandberg EM, Chapelle CF, Tweel MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet2017295(5):1089-1103.
13
Weiss HG, Brunner W, Biebl MO, et al. Wound complications in 1145 consecutive transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic procedures[J]. Ann Surg2014259(1):89-95.
14
王晓樱,李妍. 单孔腹腔镜全子宫切除术临床疗效分析[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志2019, 23(3):5.
15
Michener CM, Lampert E, Yao M, et al. Meta-analysis of laparoendoscopic single-site and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy compared with multiport hysterectomy: real benefits or diminishing returns[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol202128(3):698-709.
16
Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Tang TY, et al. Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2009144(1):3-7.
17
刘海元,孙大为,陶陶,等.单孔腹腔镜大子宫切除术初步探讨[J/CD].中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版)20158(5):2-4.
18
金振伟,李颖,张广英,等.经脐单孔腹腔镜下巨大子宫切除术1例报道并文献复习[J].山东大学学报:医学版201957(12):114-117.
[1] 陈代娟, 徐金凤, 田园, 王晓东, 彭冰. 凶险性前置胎盘术前评估及手术诊治研究现状[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 16(06): 634-640.
[2] 王中显, 王平, 王冬花, 龚世雄. 老年女性患者腹腔镜下悬吊式子宫切除术临床疗效[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 16(06): 727-732.
[3] 王素美, 杜非凡, 鲁奇, 王宏. 改良阴道全封闭伴子宫切除术治疗高龄女性重度全盆底缺陷器官脱垂的安全性评估[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(04): 329-332.
[4] 戴文娟, 陆建红, 李加芬. 人文医疗在阴式全子宫切除术联合阴道后壁修补术治疗子宫脱垂合并肠疝患者中的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(01): 71-75.
[5] 何英第, 张玉林, 唐均英, 龚瑶. "画碗式"全子宫切除术在单孔及多孔腹腔镜手术中临床效果分析[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(01): 46-50.
[6] 秦真岳, 张守枫, 陈继明, 鲍明月, 刘俊玲, 肖惠超, 魏炜炜, 郑虹, 唐斌, 郑亚峰, 蒋云芬, 施如霞. 改良单孔腹腔镜残角子宫切除术[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(01): 55-57.
[7] 张葛, 金振伟, 李颖, 刘腾, 杨晓英, 徐晓萌, 马迎春. 经脐单孔腹腔镜加辅助孔行卵巢巨大恶性肿瘤全面分期手术一例[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(01): 58-61.
[8] 谢修婷, 陆卉, 覃君, 陈坤. 经脐单孔腹腔镜巨大腹膜后囊腺瘤剥除术一例[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(06): 368-371.
[9] 张婷, 秦珊珊, 郁胜胜, 于鹃鹏, 宋禹辰, 高迎春. 腹腔镜子宫深静脉入路宫颈癌根治术[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(06): 363-364.
[10] 王祉, 王卡娜, 闵玲, 杨帆, 綦小蓉, 郑莹. 妊娠期行经脐单孔腹腔镜附件手术14例临床分析[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(05): 304-308.
[11] 苏英杰, 窦磊, 田东立, 芦恩婷, 张颐. 全脏器反位患者机器人辅助下宫颈癌根治术一例[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(04): 245-247.
[12] 金贝贝, 张玉泉, 李季, 高赛楠, 朱春玉, 丁晓颖, 杨晓清. 普通及机器人辅助经脐单孔腹腔镜在子宫肌瘤剔除术中的应用比较[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(03): 163-167.
[13] 王永鹏, 孙大为. 单孔腹腔镜手术治疗妊娠早期子宫圆韧带肌瘤一例[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(02): 116-118.
[14] 杨鑫, 沈杨, 徐敬云, 丁波. 经脐单孔腹腔镜在不同类型全子宫切除术应用[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(05): 274-277.
[15] 李丹, 何志晖. 严重产后出血及与其相关的子宫切除危险因素分析[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2021, 10(04): 220-224.
阅读次数
全文


摘要