Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
2.
Gastroenterol Clin Biol ; 31(4): 421-4, 2007 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17483781

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the feasibility and outcome of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a day-case procedure in a French university hospital. METHODS: Since the creation of a surgical day-care centre in 1999, patients without severe chronic disease and anticoagulant therapy were selected for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. They were admitted and operated on in the morning hours and discharged after a double check by the surgeon and an anaesthetist 4 to 6 hours later. They were contacted by telephone the day subsequent to surgery and were seen in the outpatient unit 8 to 10 days after. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed in day-care surgery from January 1999 to December 2005. The proportion of day-case management increased during the six-year period from 32% to 53%. Eighteen percent of patients had an overnight admission. The overall complication rate was 1.8%. None of the patients had an emergency readmission. Incapacity duration went from 1 to 15 days. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be routinely performed as a day-case procedure.


Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios , Colecistectomía Laparoscópica , Adulto , Anciano , Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Selección de Paciente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Factores de Tiempo
3.
Surg Today ; 35(2): 117-21, 2005.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15674491

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Transverse and midline abdominal incisions are both commonly used for laparotomy to perform surgery on the pancreas and stomach, but comparative data are limited, especially from prospective randomized trials. METHODS: During a predefined 2-year recruitment period, 94 patients undergoing an elective major laparotomy for disorders of the pancreas or stomach were enrolled in this study. The outcome measures were pulmonary function, incisional pain, and wound characteristics. RESULTS: The operation groups were equally divided according to the type of incision used. The patients who underwent transverse incision laparotomy had significantly better postoperative pulmonary function and significantly less postoperative incisional pain than those who underwent midline incision laparotomy (P < 0.05), but there were no differences in morbidity and the incidence of wound complications. CONCLUSION: Performing a transverse incision for surgery on the pancreas or stomach results in better postoperative pulmonary function and less incisional pain than a midline incision, without affecting postoperative morbidity.


Asunto(s)
Laparotomía/métodos , Enfermedades Pancreáticas/cirugía , Gastropatías/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Dermatologicos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Pruebas de Función Respiratoria
5.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A ; 14(6): 345-8, 2004 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15684779

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Despite the growing clinical use of active robotic camera holders there is still a lack of clinical feasibility studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the use of a voice controlled robotic camera holder (AESOP 3000, Computer Motion, Goleta, California) to a human camera holder in a series of laparoscopic cholecystectomies and colectomies. Compliance with AESOP, abnormal operative events or complications, operative time, and the duration of hospitalization were prospectively recorded and compared to data recorded before the introduction of the robotic system. RESULTS: Compliance with AESOP was good. There were no abnormal operative events, no differences in operative time, complications, or the mean duration of hospitalization between the patients operated with a robotic or a human camera holder. CONCLUSION: The use of a robotic camera holder does not alter the length of the operative procedure, the duration of hospitalization, or postoperative morbidity. It is a safe and feasible approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or colectomy.


Asunto(s)
Colecistectomía/métodos , Colectomía/métodos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Fotograbar/métodos , Robótica , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Fotograbar/instrumentación , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Estudios Prospectivos , Robótica/instrumentación , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA