Search

Analysis of Effect and Quality of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with Common Bile Duct Exploration，Built-in-Tube Drainage, and Primary Suture

ObjectiveTo compare and evaluate the effect and quality of T-tube drainage and bulit-in-tube drainage plus primary suture after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MethodsA clinical trial was taken in 79 cases with T-tube drainage (control group) and 62 cases with built-in-tube drainage (observation group). The treatment success rate, incidence of complications, bilirubin recovered time, length of stay, recuperation time, and treatment cost were measured and compared between the two groups. ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in treatment success rate, incidences of complications, and bilirubin recovered time of patients （Pgt;0.05）, while length of stay, recuperation time, and treatment cost of patients in observation group were significantly less than those in control group （Plt;0.05）. ConclusionsBuilt-in-tube drainage plus primary suture after LC and common bile duct exploration could achieve the same therapeutic effect as the traditional T-tube drainage with less length of stay, recuperation time, and treatment cost.

腹腔引流管拔除困难的原因分析及处理方法（附22例报道）

目的探讨腹腔引流管拔除困难的原因及临床处理方法。 方法回顾性分析笔者所在医院2003年7月至2015年5月期间22例腹部手术后腹腔引流管拔除困难患者的临床资料，总结分析其原因及处理方法。结果本组患者中引流管拔除时间为术后4～7 d者6例，7～10 d者16例。引流管拔除困难的原因1例为固定引流管的缝线从引流管穿过，4例为腹壁戳孔偏小，2例为引流管扭曲，9例为组织嵌入引流管内口或引流管侧孔（其中5例为纤维条索，4例为大网膜），6例无法确定原因。5例通过持续均匀用力牵引拔除，1例拆除缝合固定线拔除，8例通过旋转、来回牵拉或推送引流管拔除，8例应用持续重力牵引法拔除，无并发副损伤。 结论灵活应用各种方法来处理难以拔除的引流管，持续重力牵引法适宜于常规方法不能拔除的引流管。减少不必要的引流管放置，放置引流管时注意其细节和及时拔除引流管可避免引流管的拔除困难。

Clinical analysis of single mediastinal chest drains in perioperative period after thoracoscopic resection of esophageal carcinoma: A randomized controlled study

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube and both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube for the patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection of esophageal carcinoma.MethodsWe enrolled 96 esophageal carcinoma patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection from June 2016 to October 2018. Of them, 49 patients were indwelt with both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube (a chest & mediastinal drainage group, a CMD group) while the other 47 patients were indwelt with single mediastinal drainage tube (a single mediastinal drainage group, a SMD group). The total drainage volume, intubation time and incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) between the two groups were compared. The pain score and comfort score were also compared between the two groups.ResultsThe total drainage volume and intubation time in the SMD group were not significantly different from those in the CMD group (1 321±421 mL vs. 1 204±545 mL, P=0.541; 6.1±3.7 d vs. 6.4 ±5.1 d, P=0.321). The incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) in the SMD group was not significantly different from that in the CMD group (10.6% vs. 6.1%, P=0.712; 4.3% vs. 10.2%, P=0.656; 6.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.121; 2.1% vs. 4.1%, P=0.526). The numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores on the first to the fifth day after surgery and during extubation in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.2±2.1 vs. 5.1±2.4, P=0.041; 2.8±0.6 vs. 4.8±1.4, P=0.015; 2.1±0.4 vs. 4.5±0.4, P=0.019; 1.7±0.7 vs. 4.0±0.8, P=0.004; 1.8±0.7 vs. 3.2±1.2, P=0.006; 1.4±0.2 vs. 2.5±3.4, P=0.012). The VAS comfort scores in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.6±1.7 vs. 6.6±3.7, P=0.018; 2.9±2.0 vs. 5.1±3.4, P=0.007; 2.1±1.4 vs. 5.5±2.4, P=0.004; 3.0±0.9 vs. 4.6±3.8, P=0.012; 1.8±1.1 vs. 4.2±2.7, P=0.003; 2.4±3.2 vs. 5.3±1.7, P=0.020).ConclusionThe clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube in thoracoscopic resection of esophageal carcinoma is similar to that of both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube, but it can significantly improve the comfort of the patients.

食管癌术后不同引流方法的临床效果比较

目的 探讨食管癌术后更有利于患者术后恢复及减少并发症发生的胸腔引流方法。 方法 泸州医学院附属医院对200例食管癌患者行外科手术治疗，按手术后放置胸腔引流管的数量不同分为两组，双胸腔引流管组（双引流管组）：2008年8月至2009年8月收治的100例食管癌患者（男80例，女20例；年龄61.8±11.4岁），术后行双胸腔引流管引流；单胸腔引流管组（单引流管组）：2006年1月至2008年7月收治的100例食管癌患者（男76例，女24例；年龄57.5±9.3岁）作为对照，术后均行单胸腔引流管引流。术后观察两组患者胸腔引流时间、胸腔引流总量、气胸或肺不张发生情况、术后拔管后胸腔穿刺或再次胸腔引流情况，并进行对比分析。 结果 双引流管组患者术后胸腔引流时间明显短于单引流管组（50.8±7.3 h vs. 75.6±9.4 h，Plt;0.05），术后气胸或肺不张发生率明显低于单引流管组（2％ vs.12％，Plt;0.05）。双引流管组患者术后拔管后仅有2例因术侧胸腔内有残余积液需行胸腔穿刺，无须行再次胸腔引流；单引流管组拔管后有10例因胸腔内有积液或气胸需行胸腔穿刺，有6例需行再次胸腔引流，两组间比较差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 食管癌患者手术后放置双胸腔引流管引流更有利于肺充分复张，缩短胸腔引流时间，减少患者术后并发症的发生。

鼓泡式改良左心引流管在心内直视手术中的应用

目的介绍鼓泡式改良左心引流管在心内直视手术中的应用。方法138例先天性心脏病、风湿性心瓣膜病及其它心脏疾病患者在心内直视手术中采用鼓泡式改良左心引流管进行左心减压引流。结果全部患者置入鼓泡式改良左心引流管顺利,拔除不困难,引流效果良好。结论鼓泡式改良左心引流管在负压吸引过程中侧孔不容易因吸附被软组织堵塞,引流效果可靠。

自制三腔三套引流管在胆道手术中的应用(附615例报告)

Preliminary experience of uniportal thoracoscopic surgery for benign thoracic diseases without chest tube placement after surgery

目的 介绍胸部良性疾病经单孔胸腔镜切除术后免胸腔引流管的临床经验。 方法 回顾性分析 2015 年 10 月至 2016 年 10 月我院胸外科 17 例行单孔胸腔镜手术患者的临床资料，其中男 9 例、女 8 例，年龄 33.8（17～58）岁。行肺大疱切除术 7 例，肺楔形切除术 9 例，交感神经烙断术 1 例。 结果 所有患者均经单孔胸腔镜手术有效切除，期间无中转开胸或再次开操作孔，术后不放置胸腔引流管，手术时间为（60.3±8.2）min，术中出血量为（15.2±5.1）ml，术后第 1 d、2 d、3 d 疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS） 为 6.5±2.2，5.8±2.1，3.5±1.3，术后舒适度评分分别为 8.6±1.3，术后早期下床活动时间为（1.0±0.3）d，切口甲级愈合率 100.0%。17 例患者均无心律失常、肺部感染等并发症，术后随访 6 个月气胸均无复发。 结论 合理选择及严格基线评估，胸部良性疾病经单孔胸腔镜切除术后免胸腔引流管是安全可行的，可能有利于患者术后快速康复。

Indications about removing abdominal drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Objective To investigate the appropriate indication about removing abdominal drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Method The clinical data of 156 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hospital from January 2014 to June 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups, with 76 patients in the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) group and 80 patients in the control group according to the type of indications about removing abdominal drainage. The time of removing abdominal drainage, hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and readmission rate during 30 days after surgery were compared between the2 groups. Results Compared with the control group, the time of removing abdominal drainage 〔(6.2±2.5) dvs. (10.8±2.2) d,P<0.001〕and hospital stay〔(11.8±3.4) dvs. (15.7±3.6) d,P<0.001〕 of the ERAS group were both shorter, incidence of abdominal infection was lower〔1.3% (1/76)vs. 10.0% (8/80), P=0.020〕 , but there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula 〔18.4% (14/76) vs. 21.3% (17/80)〕 , delayed gastric emptying〔1.4% (1/76) vs. 7.5% (6/80)〕 , and the readmission rate during 30 days after surgery〔5.3% (4/76) vs. 3.8% (3/80)〕 , P>0.05. Conclusions Indications about removing abdominal drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy by authors are safe.

新型结直肠灌洗引流管在肠漏合并伤口感染中的应用

目的观察新型结直肠灌洗引流管在肠漏合并伤口感染患者治疗中的使用效果。 方法选择2013年3月－12月术后肠漏合并伤口感染患者7例，采用新型一次性结直肠冲洗引流管进行结直肠持续灌洗，伤口局部采用银敷料抗感染。 结果6例患者采用新型一次性结直肠灌洗引流管进行结直肠持续灌洗治疗后伤口感染及肠漏口愈合，愈合时间为15～82 d，平均36.78 d；1例患者因肠漏口较大，预计短期内难以愈合而行横结肠造瘘术，3个月后行二期手术还纳，伤口愈合时间为21 d。 结论在泌尿手术后肠漏合并伤口感染的处理方法中，使用新型一次性结直肠灌洗引流管进行结直肠灌洗可有效促进肠漏口及伤口愈合，且经济实用，效率高，患者痛苦小，可有效减少护理工作量，提高工作效率。

Different methods to treat injured pleural following off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting using an internal mammary artery: A randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveThe pleural injury caused by harvesting internal mammary artery (LIMA) can significantly increase the possibility of early pleural effusion after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). We compared the differences in pleural effusion, pain severity, and early lung function in different treatments to find the optimal strategy.MethodsA total of 300 patients receiving OPCABG using LIMA with left pleural lesion were selected (176 males and 124 females, mean age of 63.1±8.7 years). After bypass surgery, patients with pleural rupture were randomly divided into three groups: group A (n=100) received a pericardial drainage tube and a left chest tube inserted from the midline (subxyphoid); group B (n=100) had a pericardial drainage tube and a tube placed in the sixth intercostal space at the midaxillary line; group C (n=100) with the broken pleura sutured, had a pericardial drainage tube and a mediastinal drainage tube inserted. All patients underwent pulmonary function testing and arterial blood gas analysis on postoperative days (PODs) 5. The three methods were analyzed and evaluated.ResultsTotal drainage: group B (852±285 ml)>group C (811±272 ml)>group A (703±226 ml); there was no significant difference between the group B and group C, but they were statistically different from the group A (P<0 05="" patients="" with="" pleural="" effusion="" after="" removal="" of="" drainage="" tubes:="" group="" a="" 13="" patients="">group B (7 patients)>group C (3 patients), and there was significant difference among the three groups (P<0 05="" pain="" sensation="" the="" day="" after="" extubation:="" group="" b="" 2="" 4="" 0="" 8="" 3="" 8="" 0="" 9="">group A (1.9±0.7, 3.3±0.8)>group C (1.1±0.6, 2.5±0.8), there was significant difference among the three groups (P<0 05="" pain="" sensationon="" on="" postoperative="" days="" 5:="" group="" b="" 0="" 3="" 0="" 2="" 0="" 6="" 0="" 5="">group A (0.3±0.3, 0.5±0.4)>group C (0.2±0.2, 0.5±0.3), and there was no significant difference among the three groups. Vital capacity on postoperative days 5: there was no significant difference between the group B and group C, and both groups were greater than group A (P<0.05). There was no difference in FEV1 and PCO2 among the three groups. Group C was better than group A in PO2 on postoperative day 5 (P<0.05).ConclusionSuturing the broken pleura during the operation can not only reduce the degree of postoperative pain but also have less pleural effusion and better pulmonary function. It can be used as the preferred method.