2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaojun Wang ◽  
Haibo Jin ◽  
YongFeng Shuai ◽  
YiZhong Zhang

Abstract Background To discuss the reliability and clinical value of Iconport, a Self-made single port device, which was applied for transumbilical single port laparoscopic appendectomy. Methods The incision was around 2.5 cm long with curved form around umbilicus. And the skin and each layer of the abdominal wall were cut in sequence. Then the silica gel sleeve of the self-made single-incision sealing device was folded, clamped by the forceps, and carefully inserted into the incision for sealing. The operation of laparoscopic appendectomy was accomplished by-use routine linetype laparoscopic instruments via Iconport. The specimen was discharged from peritoneal cavity through the single port device. Two layers of incision, linea alba abdominus and skin, were separately sutured by absorbable thread and each layer was sutured successively. Results Among the 125 patients, 119 were successfully performed single-port laparoscopic appendectomy, with the operation time ranging from 30 to 110 min (69.34±21.4 min on average). In 6 cases, auxiliary operating hole was added or laparotomy was performed. Total hospital stay was 5.0±1.8 (2-14) days. 5 cases of incision infection. All patients were followed up for 1 to 6 months after surgery, with an average of 3 months. There were no complications such as bleeding, intestinal leakage, intestinal obstruction, and residual peritoneal effusion. Conclusion In single-incision laparoscopic surgery, the u-shaped incision around the umbilical margin of 2.5cm for adult can not only meet the requirements of flexibility of instruments in the operation, but also meet the aesthetic requirements because the incision scar is hidden in the umbilical foramen or looks like the umbilical foramen after the operation. Iconport single-hole device, which has potential promotion value, can be used in relatively simple laparoscopic surgery alone or combined with a single puncture device for relatively complex laparoscopic surgery.


2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 336-336
Author(s):  
Ludwig Rinnab ◽  
Norbert M. Blumstein ◽  
Felix M. Mottaghy ◽  
Sven N. Reske ◽  
Richard E. Hautmann ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 173 (4S) ◽  
pp. 317-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Montgomery ◽  
Willam K. Johnston ◽  
J. Stuart Wolf

2005 ◽  
Vol 173 (4S) ◽  
pp. 243-243
Author(s):  
Martin Hatzinger ◽  
Jasmin K. Badawi ◽  
Axel Häcker ◽  
Stefan Kamp ◽  
Achim Lusch
Keyword(s):  

VASA ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 429-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berent ◽  
Sinzinger

Based upon various platelet function tests and the fact that patients experience vascular events despite taking acetylsalicylic acid (ASA or aspirin), it has been suggested that patients may become resistant to the action of this pharmacological compound. However, the term “aspirin resistance” was created almost two decades ago but is still not defined. Platelet function tests are not standardized, providing conflicting information and cut-off values are arbitrarily set. Intertest comparison reveals low agreement. Even point of care tests have been introduced before appropriate validation. Inflammation may activate platelets, co-medication(s) may interfere significantly with aspirin action on platelets. Platelet function and Cox-inhibition are only some of the effects of aspirin on haemostatic regulation. One single test is not reliable to identify an altered response. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to speak about “treatment failure” to aspirin therapy than using the term “aspirin resistance”. There is no evidence based justification from either the laboratory or the clinical point of view for platelet function testing in patients taking aspirin as well as from an economic standpoint. Until evidence based data from controlled studies will be available the term “aspirin resistance” should not be further used. A more robust monitoring of factors resulting in cardiovascular events such as inflammation is recommended.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document