Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 7, 2015; 21(29): 8903-8911
Published online Aug 7, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i29.8903
Published online Aug 7, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i29.8903
Table 1 General characteristics, operative data, and complications n (%)
Characteristic | CLP (n = 30) | SILP (n = 28) | H-SILP (n = 32) | P value |
Median age (mo) (range) | 3.8 ± 2.6 (1.0-90.2) | 3.4 ± 2.1 (1.0-78.8) | 3.6 ± 2.1 (1.0-78.6) | > 0.05 |
Sex, male | 21 (70.0) | 18 (64.3) | 24 (75.0) | > 0.05 |
General operative time (min) | 115 ± 22 (75-156) | 118 ± 22 (90-178) | 115 ± 24 (75-158) | > 0.05 |
Conversion to open surgery | 0 | 0 | 0 | > 0.05 |
Estimated blood loss (mL) | 5.0 ± 1.0 | 6.0 ± 1.5 | 4.5 ± 1.0 | > 0.05 |
Hospital stays (d) | 7.0 ± 1.5 | 7.0 ± 1.0 | 7.0 ± 1.0 | > 0.05 |
Intraoperative complications | 0 | 0 | 0 | > 0.05 |
Time of passage of flatus (h) | 22.0 ± 5.0 | 21.5 ± 4.5 | 21.5 ± 4.0 | > 0.05 |
Early postoperative complications | 11 (36.7) | 8 (33.3) | 8 (31.3) | > 0.05 |
Perianal excoriation | 10 (33.3) | 7 (25.0) | 9 (28.1) | |
Anastomotic leak | 1 (3.3) | 0 | 0 | |
Enterocolitis | 0 | 1 (3.6) | 1 (3.1) | |
Defecation frequency, times per day | ||||
1 wk postoperatively | 5 ± 4 | 6 ± 4 | 5 ± 4 | > 0.05 |
1 mo postoperatively | 4 ± 2 | 4 ± 3 | 4 ± 2 | > 0.05 |
3 mo postoperatively | 2 ± 1 | 2 ± 1 | 2 ± 1 | > 0.05 |
Recurrent constipation | 0 | 0 | 0 | > 0.05 |
Table 2 Operative time among the three procedure groups relative to the age and transitional zone
Group | CLP(n = 30) | SILP(n = 28) | H-SILP(n = 32) |
Patients < 1 yr of age, n | 21 | 20 | 22 |
Operative time (min) | 113 ± 23 | 109 ± 8 | 113 ± 12 |
Patients > 1 yr of age, n | 9 | 8 | 10 |
Operative time | 120 ± 15a | 140 ± 7 | 119 ± 12a |
Rectosigmoid colon, n | 27 | 26 | 27 |
Operative time (min) | 111 ± 20 | 114 ± 17 | 109 ± 20 |
Descending colon, n | 3 | 2 | 5 |
Operative time (min) | 152 ± 4a | 176 ± 2 | 154 ± 4a |
Table 3 Cosmetic assessment
Assessment | CLP(n = 30) | SILP(n = 28) | H-SILP(n = 32) | P value |
Number of visible scars on the abdomen | 2 | 0 | 1 | - |
Scar appearance on the abdomen | Visible | Scarless | Near scarless | - |
MSS score of visible scar on the abdomen | 10.00 ± 0.72 (good) | - | 5.00 ± 0.72 (excellent) | < 0.05 |
Appearance at the umbilicus | Normal | Normal | Normal | - |
Table 4 Manchester scar scale: 5 (best) to 18 (worse)
Category | Visual analog scale descriptor | Poor |
Color | Perfect | 1 |
Slight mismatch | 2 | |
Obvious mismatch | 3 | |
Gross mismatch | 4 | |
Matte vs shiny | Matte | 1 |
Shiny | 2 | |
Contour | Flush with surrounding skin | 1 |
Slightly proud/indented | 2 | |
Hypertrophic | 3 | |
Keloid | 4 | |
Distortion | None | 1 |
Mild | 2 | |
Moderate | 3 | |
Severe | 4 | |
Texture | Normal | 1 |
Just palpable | 2 | |
Firm | 3 | |
Hard | 4 |
- Citation: Aubdoollah TH, Li K, Zhang X, Li S, Yang L, Lei HY, Dolo PR, Xiang XC, Cao GQ, Wang GB, Tang ST. Clinical outcomes and ergonomics analysis of three laparoscopic techniques for Hirschsprung's disease. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(29): 8903-8911
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i29/8903.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i29.8903