论文部分内容阅读
目的:观察腹腔镜下腹膜透析（腹透）置管、经皮穿刺置管和常规手术置管3种手术方式在腹透治疗中的临床疗效。方法:选择2015年5月3日至2020年2月14日宁波市镇海区人民医院收治的87例终末期肾脏病行腹透患者作为研究对象。按患者意愿分为腹腔镜下置管组（23例）、经皮穿刺置管组（29例）和常规手术置管组（35例）。比较3组患者一般资料、围手术情况（手术时间、术后住院时间）、近期并发症（腹腔出血、腹直肌出血、切口疼痛、渗漏、导管移位、腹膜炎）和远期并发症（导管移位、腹膜炎、疝气、胸腹瘘、腹透管阻塞）发生率的差异。结果:与常规手术置管组比较，腹腔镜下置管组和经皮穿刺置管组手术时间均明显缩短（min：32.5±12.3、28.9±11.8比61.3±15.4，均n P0.05）。腹腔镜下置管组和经皮穿刺置管组近期并发症中腹腔出血、腹直肌出血、切口疼痛发生率均明显低于常规手术置管组〔腹腔出血发生率：4.3%（1/23）、3.4%（1/29）比22.9%（8/35），腹直肌出血发生率：4.3%（1/23）、3.4%（1/29）比22.9%（8/35），切口疼痛发生率：8.7%（2/23）、10.3%（3/29）比42.9%（15/35），均n P<0.01〕，而腹腔镜下置管组与经皮穿刺置管组上述指标比较差异无统计学意义；腹腔镜下置管组导管移位发生率均较经皮穿刺置管组和常规手术置管组明显降低〔4.3%（1/23）比27.6%（8/29）、31.4%（11/35），均n P<0.05〕。远期并发症中腹腔镜下置管组导管移位发生率较经皮穿刺置管组和常规手术置管组明显降低〔4.3%（1/23）比24.1%（7/29）、31.4%（11/35），均n P<0.05〕，但常规手术置管组与经皮穿刺置管组比较差异无统计学意义；腹腔镜下置管组疝气发生率明显高于经皮穿刺置管组和常规手术置管组〔21.7%（5/23）比3.4%（1/29）、2.8%（1/35），均n P<0.05〕，且均为脐疝；但常规手术置管组与经皮穿刺置管组比较差异无统计学意义。n 结论:相较于传统的常规手术置管方法，经皮穿刺置管有操作简便、手术时间短、创伤小等优势，但仍无法降低导管移位的发生率；腹腔镜下腹透置管具有手术时间短、创伤小、导管移位率低等优势，却增加了脐疝发生的风险。“,”Objective:To observe the clinical effect of the cannula under laparoscopy, percutaneous puncture cannula, and conventional surgery cannula for peritoneal dialysis.Methods:From May 3, 2015 to February 14, 2020, 87 patients with end-stage renal disease needing peritoneal dialysis in Ningbo Zhenhai People\'s Hospital were enrolled. These patients were divided into three groups including cannula under laparoscopy (23 cases), percutaneous puncture cannula (29 cases), and conventional surgery cannula (35 cases). The baseline characteristics, perioperative conditions (surgical time, post-surgical hospitalization time), the incidence of recent complications (abdominal hemorrhage, direct abdominal hemorrhage, incision pain, leakage, catheter shift, peritonitis), and long-term complications (catheter shift, peritonitis, hernia, thoracic and abdominal fistula, abdominal tube obstruction) among the three groups were compared.Results:Compared with the group of conventional surgery cannula, the operation time in the group of cannula under laparoscopy and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula were significantly shorter (minutes: 32.5±12.3, 28.9±11.8 vs. 61.3±15.4, both n P 0.05). The incidence of abdominal bleeding, rectus abdominis bleeding, and incision pain in the group of cannula under laparoscopy and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula were significantly lower than those in the group of conventional surgery cannula [incidence of abdominal bleeding: 4.3% (1/23), 3.4% (1/29) vs. 22.9% (8/35), incidence of rectus abdominis bleeding: 4.3% (1/23), 3.4% (1/29) vs. 22.9% (8/35), incidence of incision pain: 8.7% (2/23), 10.3% (3/29) vs. 42.9% (15/35), all n P < 0.01]. The difference between the group of cannula under laparoscopy and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula had no statistical significance. Compared with the group of conventional surgery cannula and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula, the incidence of catheter displacement in the group of cannula under laparoscopy was significantly reduced [4.3% (1/23) vs. 27.6% (8/29), 31.4% (11/35), both n P < 0.05]. Compared with the group of conventional surgery cannula and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula, the incidence of catheter displacement in long-term complications in the group of cannula under laparoscopy was significantly reduced [4.3% (1/23) vs. 24.1% (7/29), 31.4% (11/35), both n P < 0.05], however, the difference of that between the group of conventional surgery cannula and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula was not statistically significant. The incidence of hernia in the group of cannula under laparoscopy was significantly higher than that in the group of percutaneous puncture cannula or in the group of conventional surgery cannula [21.7% (5/23) vs. 3.4% (1/29), 2.8% (1/35), both n P < 0.05], and all of that were umbilical hernia, however, the difference of that between the group of percutaneous puncture cannula and the group of conventional surgery cannula was not statistically significant.n Conclusion:Compared with the traditional conventional surgical cannula placement methods, percutaneous puncture has the advantages of simple operation, short operation time, small trauma, but still cannot reduce the incidence of drift tube; laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis tube has the advantages of short operation time, small trauma and low catheter displacement rate, but increases the risk of umbilical hernia.