Quill免打结缝合线与薇乔线在腹腔镜下胆总管连续缝合的应用比较  

Quill Versus Vicryl Continuous Suturing in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

作　　者：王江华[1] 吴黎明[1] 刘小波[1] 周晋航[1] 王伟[1] 陈先祥[1] 徐兵[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖北医药学院附属人民医院肝胆胰腺外科,十堰442000

出　　处：《中国微创外科杂志》2014年第6期503-505,515,共4页Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery

摘　　要：目的探讨Quill免打结缝合线在腹腔镜下胆总管连续缝合的应用效果。方法2011年3月～2013年6月79例腹腔镜胆总管探查术Quill免打结缝合线连续缝合胆总管作为Quill线组，同期72例薇乔线连续缝合胆总管作为薇乔线组，比较2组胆漏发生率、胆总管缝合时间、术后肠功能恢复、住院费用、住院时间等。结果Quill线组缝合时间（6．1±1．6）min，显著短于薇乔线组（14．2±2．5）min（t=23．923，P=0．000）；Quill线组住院时间（8．4±1．2）d，显著短于薇乔线组（11．5±3．2）d（t=8．016，P=0．000）；Quill线组术后胆漏发生率0，显著低于薇乔线组6．9％（5／72）（Fisher’s检验，P=0．023）。2组术后肠功能恢复时间、住院费用无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。结论腹腔镜胆总管探查术Quill线连续缝合可预防胆漏的发生，比薇乔线缝合更简单、快捷。Objective To explore the effects of continuous suturing by Quill suture in laparoscopie common bile duet exploration. Methods From March 2011 to June 2013, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with continuous suturing were performed either by Quill sutures （79 cases） or by Vicryl sutures （72 cases）. The biliary leakage incidence, suturing time, postoperative recovery of intestinal function, cost of hospitalization, as well as interval of hospitalization were compared between the two groups. Results The Quillgroup had shorter suturing time[（6.1 ±1.6） min vs. （14.2±2.5） min, t=23.923, P=0.000], shorter interval of hospitalization i （8.4 ± 1.2） d vs. （ 11.5 ± 3.2） d, t = 8. 016, P = 0. 000 ] than those of the Vicryl group. The biliary leakage incidence of the Quill group was significantly less than that of the Vicryl group [0 vs. 6.9% （5/72）, Fisher＇ s test, P =0. 023 ]. There was no significant difference in recovery of intestinal function and cost of hospitalization between the two groups （P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion Quill suture in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is easier and faster to use than conventional suture material, with the advantage of less biliary leakage.

关 键 词：免打结缝合线 腹腔镜胆总管探查术 连续缝合 

分 类 号：R657.4[医药卫生—外科学]