糖尿病患者行腹腔镜及开腹胆囊切除术81例报告

目的探讨外科治疗胆囊结石合并糖尿病的手术方式和时机的选择。方法回顾分析手术治疗胆囊结石合并糖尿病81例临床资料,其中腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）组41例,开腹胆囊切除术（OC）组40例。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、并发症发生率及围手术期血糖变化。结果LC与OC组相比,术中出血量少、手术时间短、术后住院时间少,两组比较差异有统计学意义。LC组总并发症发生率明显低于开腹组（P〈0．05）,其中切口并发症发生率低于OC组（P〈0．05）。LC组术中血糖明显低于OC组,但术前和术后血糖的变化,差异无统计学意义。结论腹腔镜胆囊切除术具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少等优点,用于治疗胆囊结石合并糖尿病可行,且安全有效。急性结石性胆囊炎合并糖尿病患者应尽量早期手术治疗。     

胆囊结石并肝硬化患者行腹腔镜与开腹胆囊切除术的对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)治疗胆囊结石合并肝硬化患者的优点、可行性和疗效。方法:胆囊结石合并肝硬化患者72例,随机分成LC组39例和开腹胆囊切除术(open cholecystectomy,OC)组33例,同组按编号、年龄、性别、肝功能分级等收集和分析数据。结果:LC组和OC组平均手术时间分别为(56.0±4.1)min和(70.8±5.2)min(P<0.05),术中平均出血量分别为(97.7±4.03)ml和(133.9±8.64)ml(P<0.05),平均住院时间分别为(6.2±1.9)d和(9.11±2.3)d(P<0.05),手术并发症发生率分别为10.2%(4例)和27.3%(9例)(P<0.05)。结论:胆囊结石合并肝硬化的患者用LC治疗优势明显,与OC相比更加安全可靠。     

老年人开腹和腹腔镜胆囊切除术临床对照分析

目的:比较老年人开腹(OC)和腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的并发症和术后康复状况,评价老年人腹腔镜胆囊切除术的优越性。方法:前瞻性设计,随机将诊断为胆囊结石的老年患者分为两组,开腹组(OC)和腹腔镜组(LC)。对并发症和术后康复状况进行统计学处理。结果:OC组切口感染8例(28.6％),肺部感染7例(25.0％),低蛋白血症14例(50.0％)。LC组无切口及肺部感染,低蛋白血症5例(17.2％),胆漏1例(3％),皮下气肿2例,术中高碳酸血症3例,胆囊癌切口种植1例。结论:与OC相比老年胆结石患者施行LC具有并发症发生率低,住院时间短,康复快等优点。     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

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.     

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。     

Early minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND: Recently, techniques using fine-caliber instruments (2 or 3 mm in diameter) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, called minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC), were reported to be superior to conventional LC (CLC, using 5 mm instruments) in postoperative course and cosmetic outcome. However, the use of MLC to date has been largely restricted to uncomplicated situations. Since CLC has been proved to be a safe and efficient technique for acute cholecystitis especially if conducted early, this study tests the feasibility and safety of MLC for acute cholecystitis. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients with acute cholecystitis were prospectively randomized to minilaparoscopic (n = 38) or conventional laparoscopic (n = 31) cholecystectomy, and the operations were conducted within 2 days of admission whenever possible. Despite different operative techniques, both groups of patients received identical preoperative preparation, evaluation and postoperative care. The two groups were compared for patient characteristics, results of laboratory tests, predictive score for LC difficulties, operative time, operative complications, hospitalization days and need for meperidine injection for wound pain. RESULTS: The conversion rate was 7.9% (3 of 38) for the MLC group and 6.5% (2 of 31) for the CLC group. Nine patients in the MLC group and 7 in the CLC group had concomitant choledocholithiasis and underwent endoscopic stone retrieval before operation. The age, sex, predictive score for LC difficulties, preoperative leukocyte count, length of hospital stay and requirement of intramuscular meperidine injections were similar for both groups of patients, while, the operative times were marginally longer in the MLC group (113.8 +/- 30.8 versus 98.2 +/- 33.2 minutes, P = 0.056). No major complications occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis by MLC are as good as those of CLC if the operation is performed early, with obvious smaller incisions and minimal complications. MLC is a safe and effective procedure for patients with acute cholecystitis, and has an acceptable low conversion rate.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术与开腹胆囊切除术对肝功能影响的比较研究

目的 对腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）与开腹胆囊切除术（OC）手术前后肝功能的临床资料进行对比研究，旨在观察术后肝功能变化规律及两种术式对肝功能的影响有无差异，并为今后手术病例及术式选择提供依据。方法 选择胆囊良性病变且肝功能正常需行胆囊切除术者作为研究对象。将30例病人分为LC组和OC组，并分别按开放法或腹腔镜方法实施胆囊切除术。术前、术后第1、3、7天，分别取空腹外周静脉血测定肝功能指标，包括ALT、AST、TBIL、DBIL、GGT、ALB、ALP。结果 两组病人年龄构成及术前肝功能无显著差异，LC与OC术后各项指标变化趋势相同。LC与OC术后血清ALT、AST、TBIL均较术前升高；上述指标术后第3天即明显下降，至术后第7天达正常水平，且所有病人术后顺利恢复。LC与OC术后血清ALB均有下降，血清DBIL、GGT、ALP均无显著变化。结论 本研究结果表明：（1）LC与OC对肝功能均有影响，但仅为一过性现象，不影响病人恢复；（2）在全麻下，腹腔内气腹压力为12～15mmHg时，LC对肝功能的影响与OC相比无显著性差异，说明在此情况下施行LC是安全的。     

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。     

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小切口胆囊切除术的比较

目的：探讨胆囊切除术适应证患者的理想术式。方法：回顾219例腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)与107例小切口胆囊切除术(MC)的临床资料,从手术适应证、手术创伤、并发症、术后恢复经过等方面对比分析两者的优缺点。结果：两者比较,LC创伤小,术后并发症较多。MC手术适应证宽。两者术后恢复差异无显著性。结论：两种术式各有优缺点,其中一种术式并不适应所有胆囊切除适应证的患者。选择何种术式,应根据患者的具体情况决定。     

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.