白花蛇舌草干预湿热瘀滞型肠内多发息肉术后复发的临床研究

目的 临床观察白花蛇舌草干预湿热瘀滞型肠内多发息肉患者内镜治疗术后复发情况。方法 采用前瞻性的随机空白对照试验设计，选取2019年9月1日—2020年12月31日上海中医药大学附属普陀医院消化科收治的门诊及住院结直肠多发息肉患者132例作为研究对象。采用随机方法分为对照组和试验组，每组66例。对照组行内镜治疗术给予常规治疗后无药物干预，试验组在对照基础上给予白花蛇舌草汤剂（每日取白花蛇舌草15 g、大枣3枚，煎取400 mL汤剂，分2次饭后温服）治疗，连续干预1年。观察并比较两组术前与术后1年肠道内息肉的复发率、息肉数目、息肉最大直径、中医证候评分及肝肾功能及血常规的差异。结果 干预1年后，试验组复发9例（14.75%），对照组复发21例（33.33%），两组息肉复发率比较，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。试验组腺瘤、伴重度异型增生、体质量指数（BMI）≥24 kg·m^-2患者治疗后息肉复发率均较对照组同类型降低，差异显著（P＜0.05）；术后1年试验组息肉最大直径及息肉数目均较对照组显著减小，差异显著（P＜0.05）；术后1年试验组中医证候各项评分均显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）；术后1年，两组中医证候疗效比较，差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05），且术前、术后1年两组患者肝肾功能、凝血功能等安全性指标无显著差异。结论 应用白花蛇舌草干预结直肠息肉术后患者，1年后明显降低肠内息肉的复发率，尤以腺瘤性息肉、重度异型增生、BMI超重患者更显著，不仅改善临床症状，还能有效预防结直肠息肉的复发，改善患者的预后。     

Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined.AimsWe aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10 mm.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021.ResultsA total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10–40 mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10–19 mm compared with those ≥20 mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%).ConclusionCSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm.     

The role of extra-hepatic bile duct resection in the surgical management of gallbladder carcinoma. A first meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the clinicopathological and prognostic value of extra-hepatic bile duct resection (EHBDR) in the surgical management of patients with gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), especially in non-jaundiced patients.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 1^st 2021 for comparative studies between bile duct resected and non-resected groups. RevMan5.3 and Stata 13.0 software were used for the statistical analyses.ResultsEHBDR did not correlate with a better overall survival (OS) (P = 0.17) or disease-free survival (P = 0.27). No survival benefit was also observed in patients with T2N1 (P = 0.4), T3N0 (P = 0.14) disease and node-positive patients (P = 0.75), rather, EHBDR was even harmful for patients with T2N0 (P = 0.01) and node-negative disease (P = 0.02). Significantly higher incidences of recurrent disease (P = 0.0007), postoperative complications (P < 0.00001) and positive margins (P = 0.02) were detected in the bile duct-resected group. The duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups was comparable (P = 0.58). Selection bias was also detected in our analysis that a significantly higher proportion of advanced lesions with T3-4 or III-IV disease was observed in the bile duct-resected group (P < 0.00001). EHBDR only contributed to a greater lymph yield (P = 0.01).ConclusionEHBDR has no survival advantage for patients with GBC, especially for those with non-jaundiced disease. Considering the unfairness of comparing OS between jaundiced patients receiving EHBDR with non-jaundiced patients without EHBDR, we could only conclude that routine EHBDR in non-jaundiced patients is not recommended and future well-designed studies with more specific subgroup analyses are required for further validation.     

Conserving resources in the diagnosis of intraoral fibroepithelial polyps

Fibroepithelial polyps (FEPs) are common, benign intraoral lesions that tend to develop slowly at predictable sites, often in response to local irritation or trauma. Historical precedent often results in referral to oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) departments for biopsy, often irrespective of symptoms, and histological assessment. OMFS and pathology services are struggling to cope with an increasing workload that will potentially lead to widespread delays to diagnosis and treatment. Over the past 20 years, clinical pathways and guidance have been developed to ensure that healthcare interventions, such as the removal of third molars, tonsils, skin tags, and benign moles, are evidence-based, have a net patient benefit, and ensure the best use of finite NHS resources. However, no such guidance exists for intraoral lesions and we regard this as an oversight. We analysed the removal of 682 FEPs over a seven-year period and report sensitivities of 92.4% for a “confirmed clinical suspicion of an FEP” and 99.7% for a “confirmed clinical suspicion of a benign diagnosis”. The incidence of non-benign disease was 0.3%. Primary care dentists should be able to diagnose and monitor FEPs and refer only if symptoms are serious or in high-risk patients or sites. Adopting this practice across the UK could free up to 1825 four-hour OMFS clinics, 405 hours of consultant histopathologists’ time, and recurring savings to the NHS estimated to be in the region of £620 000/annum. We believe that the removal of FEPs should be reclassified as an “intervention not normally funded”, and the time and resources put to better use treating patients with lesions of questionable pathology.     

Current standards and future perspectives in adjuvant treatment for biliary tract cancers

Biliary tract cancer, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and gallbladder cancer (GBC) are rare tumours with a rising incidence. Prognosis is poor, since most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease. Only ~20% of patients are diagnosed with early-stage disease, suitable for curative surgery. Despite surgery performed with potentially-curative intent, relapse rates are high, with around 60–70% of patients expected to have disease recurrence. Most relapses occur in the form of distant metastases, with a predominance of liver spread. In view of high tumour recurrence, adjuvant strategies have been explored for many years, in the form of radiotherapy, chemo-radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Historically, few randomised trials were available, which included a variety of additional tumours (e.g. pancreatic and ampullary tumours); most evidence relied on phase II and retrospective studies, with no high-quality evidence available to define the real benefit derived from adjuvant strategies.Since 2017, three randomised phase III clinical trials have been reported; all recruited patients with resected biliary tract cancer (CCA and GBC) who were randomised to observation alone, or chemotherapy in the form of gemcitabine (BCAT study; included patients diagnosed with extrahepatic CCA only), gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (PRODIGE-12/ACCORD-18; included patients diagnosed with CCA and GBC) or capecitabine (BILCAP; included patients diagnosed with CCA and GBC). While gemcitabine-based chemotherapy failed to show an impact on patient outcome (relapse-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS)), the BILCAP study showed a benefit from adjuvant capecitabine in terms of OS (pre-planned sensitivity analysis in the intention-to-treat population and in the per-protocol analysis), with confirmed benefit in terms of RFS. Based on the BILCAP trial, international guidelines recommend adjuvant capecitabine for a period of six months following potentially curative resection of CCA as the current standard of care for resected CCA and GBC. However, BILCAP failed to show OS benefit in the intention-to-treat (non-sensitivity analysis) population (primary end-point), and this finding, as well as some inconsistencies between studies has been criticised and has led to confusion in the biliary tract cancer medical community.This review summarises the adjuvant field in biliary tract cancer, with evidence before and after 2017, and comparison between the latest randomised phase III studies. Potential explanations are presented for differential findings, and future steps are explored.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中意外胆囊癌12例诊治分析

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中意外胆囊癌(unexpected gallb ladder carc inom a,UGC)的处理措施。方法:回顾分析本院955例LC术中遇到的12例(1.26%)UGC的临床资料。结果:随诊3~36个月,平均18个月。迄今全部存活。5例PT1、5例PT2、1例PT3(中转开腹)随访至今未发现癌复发及转移。1例PT2因拒绝根治术,现出现肝多发转移。1例PT4因腹腔种植转移,无法根治,故仅部分切除胆囊(胆囊粘连重),以解决急性胆囊炎问题,现有腹水、恶液质表现。所有病例均未见脐部戳孔处肿瘤种植转移。结论:LC术中应常规切开胆囊标本,必要时送术中冰冻。PT1单纯切除胆囊已足够;PT2要额外楔形切除肝组织及区域淋巴结;PT3中转开腹,行根治手术或姑息手术。     

MR T2加权成像显示胆囊壁增厚点状高信号的意义

目的研究病理组织学证实的胆囊腺肌瘤病、慢性胆囊炎和管壁增厚型胆囊腺癌在MRL加权成像（T2WI）显示病变胆囊壁点状高信号的特征。方法38例患者（胆囊腺肌瘤病16例，慢性胆囊炎13例，管壁增厚型胆囊腺癌9例），每例均进行了MR常规T1WI、常规T2WI和3mm薄层T2WI及MR胰胆管成像（MRCP）。所有患者均接受了胆囊切除手术。2名高年资放射科医生共同分析不同序列MRI，观察胆囊壁增厚及T2WI显示病变胆囊壁点状高信号的不同表现，将观察结果与病理组织学检查所见对照。结果所有患者的胆囊壁均明显增厚，厚度范围5～15mm，平均9mm。T2WI显示病变胆囊壁存在各种各样的点状高信号，在胆囊腺肌瘤病，点状高信号分布于整个增厚的胆囊壁，且数量较多（5～15个／cm^2），较大（直径2～7mm），边界清楚，呈现中等至明显高信号；在慢性胆囊炎，点状高信号主要位于增厚胆囊壁的黏膜侧，数量较少（3～5个／cm^2），较小（直径2～4mm），边界清楚，呈中等至明显高信号；在管壁增厚型胆囊腺癌，点状高信号边界欠清，呈现稍高信号，其数量和大小差异较大，分布范围取决于癌组织浸润胆囊壁的深度。结论胆囊腺肌瘤病、慢性胆囊炎和管壁增厚型胆囊腺癌在T2WI呈现的点状高信号有一定差别，正确识别这些点状高信号的特征有助于鉴别诊断良恶性胆囊壁增厚。     

补钙预防结直肠息肉及结直肠癌的作用

本文概述了人体补充钙后对大肠息肉及结肠癌发生的影响。     

Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a reality.

BACKGROUND: The author reports on his personal experience with outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), focusing on the main guidelines for preoperative and postoperative care and operating technique. METHODS: From January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, 71 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed on outpatients. The patients remained in the outpatient surgery center for 36 hours. In 4 cases, the operation was converted into laparotomy. Twenty patients remained in the hospital and were discharged 5 to 7 days later. Twelve were rehospitalized due to pathologies that could not be treated at home. RESULTS: In all 71 cases, a complete remission of the symptoms occurred, and none of the patients died either during the operation or during the postoperative period. Eighty percent of patients were treated in outpatient surgery centers. CONCLUSIONS: With clear guidelines, LC is a major surgical operation that can be performed in outpatient surgery centers without death or other major complications and with very good remission of symptoms.