OBJECTIVE: The feasibility and perspective of pyloric chisel were discussed through the comparison of pyloric chisel and knife in the treatment of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS) in single-site umbilical laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (SSULP). METHODS: Fifty-eight cases of HPS treated in our hospital from February 2011 to March 2016 were retrospectively analyzed, in which 30 patients underwent pyloric chisel (Pyloric chisel Group) and 28 patients underwent knife (Knife Group). Operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications between the two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: The operative time was shorter in Pyloric chisel Group than Knife Group (P < .05). The estimated blood loss was lower in Pyloric chisel Group than Knife Group (P < .05). The complication was less in Pyloric chisel Group than Knife Group (P < .05). There were 2 cases of mucosal perforations requiring conversions to open in Knife Group. Five cases of serous tearing occurred in the Knife Group. There was 1 case of serous tearing in the Pyloric chisel Group. All patients were followed up for 3 months, and there was no distinct scar in the umbilical. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were satisfied with no distinct scars in abdominal wall by pyloric chisel or knife to treat HPS in SSULP, but pyloric chisel is more effective and safer.
OBJECTIVE: The feasibility and perspective of pyloric chisel were discussed through the comparison of pyloric chisel and knife in the treatment of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS) in single-site umbilical laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (SSULP). METHODS: Fifty-eight cases of HPS treated in our hospital from February 2011 to March 2016 were retrospectively analyzed, in which 30 patients underwent pyloric chisel (Pyloric chisel Group) and 28 patients underwent knife (Knife Group). Operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications between the two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: The operative time was shorter in Pyloric chisel Group than Knife Group (P < .05). The estimated blood loss was lower in Pyloric chisel Group than Knife Group (P < .05). The complication was less in Pyloric chisel Group than Knife Group (P < .05). There were 2 cases of mucosal perforations requiring conversions to open in Knife Group. Five cases of serous tearing occurred in the Knife Group. There was 1 case of serous tearing in the Pyloric chisel Group. All patients were followed up for 3 months, and there was no distinct scar in the umbilical. CONCLUSIONS:Patients were satisfied with no distinct scars in abdominal wall by pyloric chisel or knife to treat HPS in SSULP, but pyloric chisel is more effective and safer.