腹腔镜胆囊切除术转开腹手术的危险因素分析

目的研究多个临床因素对腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)转开腹手术的影响。方法对浙江大学医学院附属邵逸夫医院1994年4月至2001年6月的7134例LC的临床资料进行单因素分析,再进行多元逻辑回归分析(逐步排除法),得出影响LC转开腹手术的独立的危险因素。结果男性、高龄(≥65岁)、上腹部手术史、糖尿病、总胆红素升高(≥20.5μmol/L)、胆囊壁增厚(≥4mm)、胆总管直径增宽(≥8mm)、急性胆囊炎是转开腹手术的危险因素。结论可以根据转开腹手术的危险因素指导临床工作。     

胆囊结石腹腔镜手术中转开腹原因分析

探讨胆囊结石患者腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中转开腹的相关因素。收集481例行LC的胆囊结石患者临床资料。运用单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析LC中转开腹的危险因素。结果显示,481例胆囊切除术,中转开腹25例,中转开腹率5.20%。两组CRP、PLT、白蛋白水平差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),与慢性结石性胆囊炎相比,急性结石性胆囊炎具有更高的中转开腹率(P<0.05)。单因素分析结果显示,中转开腹及未中转开腹患者AST、ALT、GGT、总胆红素、CRP、白蛋白、WBC计数、血小板计数和淋巴细胞百分比具有统计学差异(P<0.05);logistic回归显示,白蛋白、血小板计数是LC术中中转开腹的独立影响因素(P<0.05)。白蛋白ROC曲线下面积0.701(P=0.000),当白蛋白水平为20.6g/L时,预测术中中转开腹的敏感性为81.5%,特异性为66.8%。结果表明,术前低白蛋白血症是胆囊结石患者LC中转开腹的独立危险因素,对于中转开腹风险具有一定的评估价值。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除中转开腹手术的危险因素分析

目的：分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹手术的危险因素。方法：回顾分析我院5年间2 850例LC临床资料,采用单因素分析至Logistic多元回归分析推算出LC中转开腹的危险因素。结果：LC中转开腹手术115例,中转率为4.03%。LC中转开腹的危险因素有近半年胆囊炎急性发作≥2次,胆囊炎病史>2年,伴有右上腹体征（右上腹压痛、肝区叩痛、Murphy′s征阳性）,胆囊壁厚度≥3 mm和胆囊积液。结论：中转开腹的危险因素有近期胆囊炎发作频数、胆囊炎病史、右上腹体征、胆囊壁厚度和胆囊积液。术前仔细询问病史和完善检查,选择适合的LC患者和提高术者手术技术是降低LC中转开腹率的有效措施。对于存在危险因素的患者应适时的选择开腹手术。     

急性胆囊炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术量化手术指征探讨

目的 :探讨并建立一个急性胆囊炎行腹腔镜胆囊切除术 (LC)手术失败的预测模式 ,并确立量化的手术指征。方法 :回顾分析我院 2 2 8例急性胆囊炎LC的诊治经验。结果 :(1)右上腹手术史或发作史 ,临床症状 ,B超表现 ,技术因素在统计学上和LC失败率有相关性 (P <0 0 5 ) ;(2 )急性胆囊炎行LC失败预测方程式 =0 0 5 2 + 0 12 1右上腹部手术史赋值 + 0 0 6 4临床症状赋值 + 0 0 75胆囊B超表现赋值 + 0 182技术因素赋值 (P <0 0 1)。结论 :危险因素术前评分系统PRFSS大于等于 6分组应首选开腹手术。PRFSS是简单 ,实用 ,可行的评分系统。     

急性胆囊炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹相关风险因素的分析

目的:探讨致急性胆囊炎患者腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中转开腹的影响因素。方法:回顾分析2011年1月—2015年6温州医科大学附属浙江省台州市中心医院及台州医院1 161例急性胆囊炎行LC患者的临床资料,选择中转开腹的56例患者为研究组,随机选取78例顺利完成LC术患者为对照组,分析中转开腹的相关风险因素。结果:单因素分析表明,纤维蛋白原、白蛋白、糖尿病、胆囊壁厚度、是否胆囊坏疽、术中出血量均与LC中转开腹有关(均P0.05)。Logistic回归分析结果表明,低白蛋白(OR=1.258)、术中出血量(OR=0.988)是LC中转开腹独立危险因素(均P0.05)。结论:低白蛋白、纤维蛋白原、糖尿病、胆囊坏疽及胆囊壁增厚及术中出血量是LC中转开腹的危险因素。     

急性胆囊炎术前超声征象与腹腔镜胆囊切除术转开腹的关系

目的：探讨急性胆囊炎术前腹部超声检查征象与腹腔镜胆囊切除术（laparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC）中转开腹的关系。
方法：对226例急性胆囊炎LC患者术前行腹部超声检查,记录胆囊容积,胆囊壁厚度,胆囊窝有无积液,胆囊颈管是否有结石嵌顿,胆囊与周围粘连,胆囊三角粘连情况。分析超声显像与LC转开腹的关系。
结果：208例成功完成LC,18例中转开腹。单因素分析显示超声检查胆囊容积增大,胆囊壁增厚,胆囊颈管结石嵌顿,胆囊颈粘连是中转开腹的危险因素（P＜0.05）。多因素回归分析显示胆囊壁增厚和胆囊颈粘连是影响腹腔镜中转开腹率的独立危险因素。
结论：术前超声检查预测急性胆囊炎LC转开腹简便易行,对急性胆囊炎行腹腔镜手术适应证的选择有重要指导意义。

     

急性胆囊炎LC术中转开腹的危险因素及预后分析

目的探讨急性胆囊炎LC术中转开腹的危险因素及预后情况。 方法回顾性分析2014年3月至2017年7月231例急性胆囊炎行LC术的患者的临床资料,根据患者LC术中是否转开腹,分为LC术组(205例)和转开腹组(26例)对比分析两组患者性别、年龄、BMI指数、病程、胆囊壁厚及生化检查等情况,本研究采用Stata 14.1统计软件对数据处理。计量资料单因素分析采用t检验,计数资料单因素分析采用卡方检验。采用Logistic回归模型分析LC术中转开腹危险因素,并拟合ROC曲线评价模型价值,P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。 结果单因素分析显示,BMI指数、病程、胆囊壁厚度、白细胞计数、碱性磷酸酶5个因素与LC术中转开腹有关;多因素Logistic回归分析显示,BMI指数(OR＝1.407, P＝0.000)、白细胞计数(OR＝1.600, P＝0.003)、碱性磷酸酶(OR＝1.042, P＝0.000)是LC术中转开腹的独立危险因素。26例转开腹患者术后观察无严重的并发症发生。 结论手术医师在LC术前应对患者体质状况,白细胞水平、碱性磷酸酶等情况进行合理的评估,以降低LC术中转开腹率。     

B超检查对预测腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹的意义

目的:探讨B超检查结果用于预测腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)中转开腹的意义。方法:回顾分析2005年1月至2007年1月施行LC 510例患者的术前B超检查结果与LC中转开腹的关系。结果:LC成功492例,中转开腹18例,中转率3.5%(18/510)。B超诊断结果与手术结果相符。结论:胆囊萎缩、囊壁增厚、胆囊颈部嵌顿结石会增加LC的中转开腹率,术前B超检查对预测LC中转开腹具有重要意义。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹危险因素的分析

目的分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中转开腹的危险因素,为在保证安全前提下,降低中转开腹率提供参考。方法回顾分析328例LC患者的临床资料,采用Logistic回归分析方法,分析LC中转开腹的危险因素。结果 328例LC患者中转开腹26例,占7.93%,主要原因是Calot三角解剖不清(12/26,46.12%),腹腔粘连(9/26,34.62%)。墨菲氏征阳性、胆囊壁厚≥3mm、近6个月发作频数≥2次和黄疸为中转开腹的危险因素。结论对存在危险因素的患者,应术前做好中转开腹和适时选择开腹手术的准备。     

腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术在复杂胆囊手术中的应用

目的　探讨胆囊大部分切除在复杂腹腔镜胆囊切除术中应用的可行性及安全性。　方法　对 1999～ 2 0 0 1年施行的 2 6例腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术的方法、手术疗效及并发症进行了回顾分析。手术指征为化脓性胆囊炎、Mirris综合征Ⅰ型、Calot三角“冰冻样”改变、萎缩性胆囊炎、胆囊床与肝脏瘢痕样致密粘连等。　结果　手术时间为 (5 1± 16 5 )分钟 ,开始下床活动时间 (11± 4 3)小时 ,开始进食时间 (2 2± 8 5 )小时 ,住院时间 (4 5± 1 5 )天 ,术后胆漏 2例 ,均经保守治疗治愈。随访 6月～ 2 5月 ,未见与手术有关的并发症。　结论　在困难胆囊手术中 ,腹腔镜胆囊部分切除术可简化手术 ,降低手术风险 ,可收到胆囊造瘘与标准胆囊切除相结合的疗效。     

腹腔镜与开腹胆囊切除术对比分析

我院于1994年8月～1996年6月完成腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)70例,为了客观地评价LC的优越性及不足之处,本文随机将1993年7月～     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹手术105例临床分析

目的探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中转开腹的原因及防治措施。方法回顾性分析2003年1月至2012年12月我科收治3047例LC中105例中转开腹的临床资料,分析其中转开腹的原因并总结。结果本组患者的中转开腹率为3.45%,分析原因主要为胆囊三角严重粘连、解剖困难、胆囊管结石嵌顿、胆管损伤、大出血、意外胆囊癌等,105例患者经中转开腹后无严重并发症,均痊愈出院。结论准确严格把握LC手术适应证,术中规范、精细操作可有效降低中转开腹率,而当操作困难或对手术没把握时,应及时中转开腹以确保手术安全性。     

腹腔镜与小切口胆囊切除治疗胆囊结石的疗效探讨

目的比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术与小切口胆囊切除术两种术式治疗胆囊结石的临床疗效。方法选取2009年5月至2012年6月我院行手术治疗胆囊结石患者120例,其中60例行腹腔镜胆囊切除术作为实验组,小切口胆囊切除术手术治疗60例作为对照组。观察并比较两组临床疗效结果。结果实验组术中出血量少于对照组,手术时间、胃肠道功能恢复时间及术后住院时间短于对照组,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);对照组、观察组术后并发症发生率分别为21.7%、8.3%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜胆囊切除术具有创伤小、恢复快、住院时间短和并发症少等优点,值得临床推广。     

Micropuncture cholecystectomy vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background:The aim of this study was to compare micropuncture laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC), with three 3.3-mm cannulas and one 10-mm cannula with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Methods: Patients were randomized to undergo either CLC or MPLC. The duration of each operative stage and the procedure were recorded. Interleukin-6 (IL-6), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and vasopressin were sampled for 24 h. Visual analogue pain scores (VAPS) and analgesic consumption were recorded for 1 week. Pulmonary function and quality of life (EQ-5D) were monitored for 4 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney test or Fishers exact test. Results are expressed as median (interquartile range). Results: Forty-four patients entered the study, but four were excluded due to unsuspected choledocholithiasis (n = 3) or the need to reschedule surgery (n = 1). The groups were comparable in terms of age, duration of symptoms, and indications for surgery. Total operative time was similar (CLC, 63 [52–81] min vs MPLC 74 [58–95] min; p = 0.126). However, time to place the cannulas after skin incision (CLC, 5:42 [3:45–6:37] min vs MPLC, 7:38 [5:57–10:15] min; p = 0.015) and to clip the cystic duct after cholangiography (CLC, 1:05 [0:40–1:35] min vs MPLC, 3:45 [2:26–7:49] min; p < 0.001) were significantly longer for MPLC. Six CLC patients and one MPLC patient required postoperative parenteral opiates (p = 0.04). Oral analgesic consumption was similar in both groups (p = 0.217). Median VAPS were lower at all time points for MPLC, but this finding was not significant (p = 0.431). There were no significant differences in postoperative stay, IL-6, ACTH or vasopressin responses, pulmonary function, or EQ-5D scores. Conclusions: The thinner instruments did not significantly increase the total duration of the procedure. MPLC reduced the use of parenteral analgesia postoperatively, which may prove beneficial for day case patients, but it did not have a significant impact on laboratory variables, lung function or quality of life.     

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy

In 1,300 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) 56 patients (4.3%) required conversion to open cholecystectomy (OC); 41 (73%) of the conversions were elective, whereas 15 (27%) were enforced. The causes of the 56 conversions are described and analyzed. Logistic regression analysis of 23 parameters identified the following data as associated with a higher risk for conversion: pain or rigidity in the right upper abdomen (P<0.01), thickening of the gallbladder wall on preoperative ultrasound (P<0.05), intraoperatively found dense adhesions to the gallbladder or in Calot's triangle (P<0.001), and intraoperatively found acute inflammation of the gallbladder (P<0.01). Clinical findings of an acute cholecystitis associated with intraoperative dense scarring in Calot's triangle were the best factors predicting conversion from LC to OC. As a result of the study we preoperatively select our patients for either LC or OC, and a difficult case is performed by a more experienced surgeon to keep conversion rate and complications low.     

Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy

Summary The standard treatment of cholelithiasis in the United States is surgical removal of the gallbladder, but this treatment often has a major economic impact on the patient: major surgery, lengthy hospitalization, and several weeks' absence from work. Because of this economic factor, there has been a movement toward non-invasive methods, but they, too, have their drawbacks: long-term medical therapy; a high risk of stone recurrence because the diseased gallbladder is still in place. We therefore developed a means of performing a cholecystectomy through a laparoscope using laser technology, the results of which are compared here with the results in a series of mini-lap cholecystectomies that we also performed during the same time period.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术与传统开腹胆囊切除术治疗胆囊结石临床疗效比较

目的 比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术与开腹胆囊切除术两种术式治疗胆囊结石的临床疗效.方法 选取2012年5月至2013年3月我院行手术治疗胆囊结石患者120例,其中60例行腹腔镜胆囊切除术作为观察组,开腹胆囊切除术手术治疗60例作为对照组.观察并比较两组临床疗效结果.结果 研究组术中出血量少于对照组,手术时间、胃肠道功能恢复时间及术后住院时间短于对照组,两组比较,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;对照组、观察组术后并发症发生率分别为20％、5.0％,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 腹腔镜胆囊切除术具有创伤小、恢复快、住院时间短和并发症少等优点,值得临床推广.     

Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been reported to be safe and feasible. However, whether it offers any additional advantages remains controversial. This study reports a randomized trial that compared the clinical outcomes of two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: One hundred and twenty consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to receive either the two-port or the four-port technique. All patients were blinded to the type of operation they underwent. Four surgical tapes were applied to standard four-port sites in both groups at the end of the operation. All dressings were kept intact until the first follow-up 1 week after surgery. Postoperative pain at the four sites was assessed on the first day after surgery using a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS). Other outcome measures included analgesia requirements, length and difficulty of the operation, postoperative stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars. Results: Demographic data were comparable for both groups. Patients in the two-port group had shorter mean operative time (54.6 ± 24.7 min vs 66.9 ± 33.1 min for the four-post group; p = 0.03) and less pain at individual subcostal port sites [mean score using 10-cm unscaled VAS: 1.5 vs 2.8 (p = 0.01) at the midsubcostal port site and 1.3 vs 2.3 (p = 0.02) at the lateral subcostal port site]. Overall pain score, analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction score on surgery and scars were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Two-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in less individual port-site pain and similar clinical outcomes but fewer surgical scars compared to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Thus, it can be recommended as a routine procedure in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Paper presented at the Fifth World Congress of the International Hepato-pancreato-biliary Association, Tokyo, Japan, April 2002