PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the intermediate approach is commonly employed. However, this approach possesses several disadvantages. In this study, we compare priority access to the small bowel mesentery and the intermediate approach.
UNASSIGNED: The clinical data of 196 patients admitted to the First Hospital of Chongqing Medical University for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from January 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected and divided into the small bowel mesenteric priority access and traditional intermediate access groups. The operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph node dissection, postoperative anal venting time, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications were compared between the two different approaches.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 81 cases of small bowel mesenteric priority access and 115 cases of intermediate approach for right hemi-colonic radical resection were compared. The operative time was 191.98 ± 46.05 and 209.48 ± 46.08 min in the small bowel mesenteric priority access and intermediate access groups, respectively; the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative bleeding and lymph node clearance. However, the scatter plot analysis showed that severe intraoperative bleeding was relatively less frequent in the small mesenteric priority access group, compared with that in the intermediate approach group. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in the first exhaust and defecation times, hospital stay after operation, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative complication between the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: In laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach can significantly shorten the operation time compared with the intermediate approach. It can reduce intraoperative bleeding and the operation is simple and safe to perform, making it suitable for less experienced surgeons. Therefore, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach has the potential to be a suitable alternative and deserves further clinical promotion and application.
UNASSIGNED: The clinical data of 196 patients admitted to the First Hospital of Chongqing Medical University for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from January 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected and divided into the small bowel mesenteric priority access and traditional intermediate access groups. The operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph node dissection, postoperative anal venting time, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications were compared between the two different approaches.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 81 cases of small bowel mesenteric priority access and 115 cases of intermediate approach for right hemi-colonic radical resection were compared. The operative time was 191.98 ± 46.05 and 209.48 ± 46.08 min in the small bowel mesenteric priority access and intermediate access groups, respectively; the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative bleeding and lymph node clearance. However, the scatter plot analysis showed that severe intraoperative bleeding was relatively less frequent in the small mesenteric priority access group, compared with that in the intermediate approach group. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in the first exhaust and defecation times, hospital stay after operation, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative complication between the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: In laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach can significantly shorten the operation time compared with the intermediate approach. It can reduce intraoperative bleeding and the operation is simple and safe to perform, making it suitable for less experienced surgeons. Therefore, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach has the potential to be a suitable alternative and deserves further clinical promotion and application.
摘要：
未经授权：对于腹腔镜右半结肠切除术，通常采用中间方法。然而,这种方法有几个缺点。在这项研究中,我们比较了小肠系膜的优先途径和中间途径。
UNASSIGNED：回顾性收集2019年1月至2022年1月重庆医科大学附属第一医院收治的196例腹腔镜右半结肠切除术患者的临床资料，分为小肠系膜优先入路和传统中间入路组。手术时间,术中出血,淋巴结清扫的数量，术后肛门排气时间,固体和液体摄入的耐受性，比较两种不同入路的术后住院时间和并发症。
未经批准：总共，对比81例小肠肠系膜优先入路与115例中间入路右半结肠根治术。小肠肠系膜优先入路和中间入路组手术时间分别为191.98±46.05和209.48±46.08min,分别；差异有统计学意义。术中出血和淋巴结清除率差异无统计学意义。然而,散点图分析表明，在小肠系膜优先通路组中，严重的术中出血相对较少，与中间方法组相比。此外,首次排气和排便时间无统计学差异，手术后住院，固体和液体摄入的耐受性，两组术后并发症。
未经批准：在腹腔镜右半结肠切除术中，与中间入路相比，小肠肠系膜优先入路可明显缩短手术时间。它可以减少术中出血，操作简单安全，使其适合于经验不足的外科医生。因此,小肠肠系膜优先入路有可能成为一种合适的替代方法，值得临床进一步推广和应用。
UNASSIGNED：回顾性收集2019年1月至2022年1月重庆医科大学附属第一医院收治的196例腹腔镜右半结肠切除术患者的临床资料，分为小肠系膜优先入路和传统中间入路组。手术时间,术中出血,淋巴结清扫的数量，术后肛门排气时间,固体和液体摄入的耐受性，比较两种不同入路的术后住院时间和并发症。
未经批准：总共，对比81例小肠肠系膜优先入路与115例中间入路右半结肠根治术。小肠肠系膜优先入路和中间入路组手术时间分别为191.98±46.05和209.48±46.08min,分别；差异有统计学意义。术中出血和淋巴结清除率差异无统计学意义。然而,散点图分析表明，在小肠系膜优先通路组中，严重的术中出血相对较少，与中间方法组相比。此外,首次排气和排便时间无统计学差异，手术后住院，固体和液体摄入的耐受性，两组术后并发症。
未经批准：在腹腔镜右半结肠切除术中，与中间入路相比，小肠肠系膜优先入路可明显缩短手术时间。它可以减少术中出血，操作简单安全，使其适合于经验不足的外科医生。因此,小肠肠系膜优先入路有可能成为一种合适的替代方法，值得临床进一步推广和应用。
