腹腔镜微创技术在急诊普外手术中的应用效果

Application of laparoscopic minimally invasive technique in emergency surgery

摘要:

摘要：目的 评价腹腔镜微创技术在急诊普外手术中的临床价值。方法 选取2016年9月－2018年1月该院急诊普外科收治的手术患者80例作为研究对象，按照随机数字表法分为对照组（n =40）和治疗组（n =40），对照组采取开腹手术治疗，治疗组采取腔镜微创技术治疗，观察并比较两组手术情况、术后并发症及疼痛情况的差异。结果 治疗组手术时间、排气时间和住院时间分别为（69.6±12.5）min、（25.8±2.8）h和（4.9±1.0）d，明显短于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（t =2.45、11.21和5.27，P <0.05）；治疗组术中出血量为（29.7±11.1）ml，明显少于对照组，差异有统计学意义（t =14.94，P <0.05）；治疗组患者术后并发症发生率为7.5%，明显低于对照组患者的25.0%，差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.50，P <0.05）；两组均无无痛病例，治疗组轻度疼痛率高于对照组，重度疼痛率低于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（χ2=6.55，5.16，P <0.05）；中度疼痛率两组比较，差异无统计学意义（P >0.05）。结论 腹腔镜微创技术应用于急诊普外科手术中，具有效果良好、创伤小、恢复快、疼痛程度轻和并发症发生率低等优点，值得在临床中进一步普及和推广。

Abstract:

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the clinical value of laparoscopic minimally invasive technique in emergency surgery. Methods From September 2016 to January 2018, 80 cases of surgical patients were collected as the research objects, through the random number table method of grouping, they were divided into the control group (n = 40) and treatment group (n = 40), control group chose conventional open surgery, and treatment group chose laparoscopic minimally invasive technology treatment. Then observe and compare the two groups of surgery, postoperative complications and pain. Results The treatment group operating time, exhaust time, length of hospital stay (69.6 ± 12.5) min, (25.8 ± 2.8) h, (4.9 ± 1.0) d, respectively, were shorter than the control group (t = 2.45, 11.21, 5.27, P < 0.05), the intraoperative blood loss was (29.7 ± 11.1) ml, less than the control group (t = 14.94, P < 0.05); The incidence of postoperative complications in the treatment group was 7.5%, which was significantly lower than that in the control group with 25.0% postoperative complications, and there was a significant difference between the two groups (χ2 = 4.50, P < 0.05). There were no painless cases in both groups, the mild pain rate in the treatment group was higher than that in the control group, and the severe pain rate was lower than that in the control group, and there was a significant difference between the groups (χ2 = 6.55, 5.16, P < 0.05). There was no difference between the treatment group and the control group (P > 0.05). Conclusion Laparoscopic minimally invasive technique which was applied to emergency general surgery had a good effect in the operation, small trauma, rapid recovery, light pain, low complication rates, was worth further popularity and promotion in clinical.