LC+LCBDE+PDC与ERCP+EST+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的对比研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术联合胆总管探查一期缝合（LC+LCBDE+PDC）与内镜下胆管取石联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术（ERCP+EST+LC）两种手术方式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效比较。方法 回顾性分析2017 年5月至2019 年5月郑州大学附属郑州中心医院135 例胆囊结合并胆总管结石的患者临床资料,76例行LC+LCBDE+PDC（PDC组）,59例行ERCP+EST+LC（ERCP组）,比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后疼痛、术后禁食时间、术后活动时间以及术后住院时间、住院费用和并发症情况。结果 术前两组患者在年龄、性别、体重指数、胆总管直径、最大结石直径及数量、血清胆红素水平方面均无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。PDC组在术中出血量[（39.0±18.6）mL vs （59.5±21.3）mL,t=3.574,P=0.038]、术后禁食时间[（42.8±12.9）h vs（72.8±23.9）h,t=4.443,P=0.014]、下床活动时间[（18.7±3.2）h vs（32.6±8.2）h,t=1.553,P=0.017]、术后住院时间[（5.21±1.29）d vs（8.79±2.37）d,t=2.265,P=0.023]和住院费用[（25 187±1 179）元 vs（38 406±1 315）元,t=5.374,P=0.008]方面均优于ERCP组（P＜0.05）,在手术时间、术后疼痛方面两组均无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。两组在术后出血、黄疸方面均无统计学差异（P＞0.05）,PDC组在术后胃肠道反应[11.8%（9/76）vs 25.4%（15/59）,χ2 =4.191,P=0.041]、胰腺炎[2.6%（2/76）vs 13.6%（8/59）,χ2 =4.299,P=0.038]、残余结石[0（0/76）vs 6.8%（4/59）,χ2 =5.310,P=0.034]发生率方面低于ERCP组,但胆漏发生率[7.9%（6/76）vs 0（0/59）,χ2 =4.875,P=0.035]高于ERCP组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 LC+LCBDE+PDC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石安全有效,既能避免术后留置T管,也能保留Oddi括约肌功能,值得临床推广应用。     

LCBDE+LC与ERCP+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的网状Meta分析

目的 近年来,腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）、腹腔镜胆总管探查术（LCBDE）、内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）普遍应用于胆系结石的治疗,本Meta分析比较了三种治疗胆囊结石合并胆管结石的手术方式的疗效及安全性,即LCBDE+LC、术前ERCP（PreERCP）+LC、术中ERCP（IntraERCP）+LC。方法 计算机检索Medline、PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase数据库,查找1990—2019年关于LCBDE+LC、PreERCP+LC、IntraERCP+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的随机对照试验（RCT）研究。按照纳入与排除标准,选择文献、评价质量、提取数据,采用Stata软件进行网状Meta分析。计算累积排序概率曲线下面积（SUCRA）,用于预测各手术方式的有效性及安全性,主要结局指标为结石清除率,病死率,胰腺炎、胆漏、出血,以及中转开腹率。结果 共有19篇RCT研究纳入分析,共计2 627例患者。网状Meta分析结果显示：（1）结石清除率：IntraERCP+LC优于LCBDE+LC、PreERCP+LC,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;（2）病死率：LCBDE+LC、PreERCP+LC、IntraERCP+LC三者之间的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;（3）胰腺炎：PreERCP+LC的发生率高于LCBDE+LC、IntraERCP+LC,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;（4）出血：LCBDE+LC、PreERCP+LC、IntraERCP+LC三者之间的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;（5）胆漏：LCBDE+LC的发生率高于PreERCP+LC、IntraERCP+LC,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;（6）中转开腹率：PreERCP+LC与IntraERCP+LC、LCBDE+LC与IntraERCP+LC之间的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,而LCBDE+LC发生率高于PreERCP+LC,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 LCBDE+LC、PreERCP+LC、IntraERCP+LC三种手术方式均可用于治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石,其中IntraERCP+LC的结石清除率最高,LCBDE+LC的胆漏风险较大,而PreERCP+LC的胰腺炎风险最高。     

基于一体化手术平台的LC联合术中ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的效果研究

目的 探讨一体化手术平台中行腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）联合术中内镜逆行性胆胰管造影（ERCP）治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的效果,并与序贯二步法ERCP+LC进行比较。方法 回顾性分析2019年12月至2020年12月由台州医院和恩泽医院肝胆胰外科完成治疗的82例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者临床资料,其中在一体化手术平台完成LC联合术中ERCP治疗的37例患者分为A组,完成序贯二步法ERCP+LC治疗的45例患者分为B组,比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、结石清除率、疼痛评分、排气时间、下床活动时间、术后并发症发生率、住院时间、住院费用等指标的差异。结果 两组术前基本资料比较无统计学差异,具有可比性（P>0.05）。两组在手术时间、术中出血量、结石清除率、术后疼痛评分、住院费用等方面无明显统计学差异（P>0.05）。A组术后排气时间[（16.0±4.5）h vs （19.9±6.0）h]、下床活动时间[（8.4±2.0）h vs （13.4±3.8）h]以及住院时间[（4.7±0.7）d vs （7.4±1.0）d]均明显短于B组（P<0.05）。两组患者在术后疼痛评分、住院费用方面无明显差异（P>0.05）。A组患者手术并发症总发生率[2.7%（1/37） vs 20.0%（9/45）]明显少于B组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 在一体化手术平台行LC联合术中ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石较序贯二步法ERCP+LC效果更好,能缩短住院时间,减少手术并发症,且不增加住院费用,是一种较好的治疗手段。     

Sonographic Follow-Up of Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Undergoing in Situ Open Neurolysis or Endoscopic Release: The SPECTRE Study

Background:The measurement of cross-sectional area (CSA) is a diagnostic tool to detect entrapments syndrome. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome in elbows undergoing endoscopic and “in situ” open cubital tunnel release for cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) using ultrasound-related changes in the largest CSA of the ulnar nerve. The purpose is to determine the association between clinical outcome and CSA. Methods: From May 2011 to April 2016, 60 patients with CuTS were prospectively followed and not randomly divided in two groups: 30 patients undergoing an endoscopic release (ER) and 30 patients with “in situ” open neurolysis (OR). A sonographic examination was performed by the senior authors at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgical decompression. Results: CSA values were statistically significantly lower in the ER. Hand grip strength difference with Jamar test was not statistically significant a 12 months (39 kg vs 27 kg). Static-2 point discrimination test difference was only statistically significant lower in the endoscopic group at 3, 6 and 12 months but not clinically relevant (5 mm vs 6 mm). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons—Elbow questionnaire (ASES-e) function score, ASES-e Pain score, and ASES-e Satisfaction score were not statistically significant different between the two groups at 3, 6, and 12 months post operatively. Conclusions: The study confirms that in spite of lower values of CSA in the ER, there is not a statistically significant difference between the two techniques in terms of subjective outcomes. Ultrasound (US) measurements seem to have a limited value in clinical results of patients treated for entrapment neuropathy of the ulnar nerve.Type of study/LOE: Prognostic Level III     

Evaluation of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study

ObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsPatients in our hospital with LDH who received PTED (n = 71) and OFD (n = 39) from 2013 to 2014 were retrospectively studied. Patient information, including age, gender, visual analogue scale (VAS) score for low back pain and leg pain, body weight, height, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and recurrence, was collected. The patients in the two groups were followed up for an average of 63 months after surgery.ResultsA total of 136 patients completed the operation and 110 patients were followed up completely. There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative low back pain, leg pain, ODI, and JOA of the two groups were better than those preoperatively (P < 0.05). One week after surgery, the recovery of PTED patients was better than that of OFD. The ODI score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (10 [8, 12] vs 14 [11, 16]; P < 0.05), the waist VAS score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (2 [2, 3] vs 3 [2, 4]; P < 0.05), the leg VAS score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (1 [0,1] vs 1 [1, 2]; P < 0.05), while the JOA score of the PTED group was higher than that of OFD group [19(16, 20) vs 12(10, 17); P < 0.05]. There were no significant differences in ODI, JOA, waist and leg VAS scores between the two groups at 1 month after surgery and at subsequent follow‐up (P > 0.05). At the end of the follow up, 89.7% (35/39) of patients in the OFD group had excellent improvement in the JOA score, and 88.7% (63/71) of patients in the PTED group had an excellent improvement. There was no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the two groups [(5/71) vs (3/39); P > 0.05]. [Correction added on 05 March 2021, after first online publication: “3/29” was amended to “3/39” in the preceding sentence.]ConclusionBoth PTED and OFD can achieve good mid‐term efficacy in the treatment of LDH but PTED has certain advantages, including the small incision, a shorter hospital stay, and quicker, earlier recovery. However, prospective randomized controlled studies with a larger sample size are needed.     

Full‐Endoscopic Foraminotomy with a Novel Large Endoscopic Trephine for Severe Degenerative Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis at L5S1 Level: An Advanced Surgical Technique

To (i) introduce the technical notes of a novel full‐endoscopic foraminotomy with a large endoscopic trephine for the treatment of severe degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis at L₅S₁ level; (ii) assess the primary clinical outcomes of this technique; (iii) compare the effectiveness of this full‐endoscopic foraminotomy technique and other previous techniques for lumbar foraminal stenosis. From January 2019 to August 2019, a retrospective study of L₅S₁ severe degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis was performed in our center. All patients who were diagnosed with severe foraminal stenosis at L₅S₁ level and failed conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks were identified. Patients with segmental instability or other coexisting contraindications were excluded. A total of 21 patients were enrolled in the study. All patients were treated by full‐endoscopic foraminotomy using large endoscopic trephine. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6 months, and 1 year after the surgery, and the modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate clinical outcomes at the last follow‐up. There were 10 males and 11 females with a mean age of 66.38 ± 9.51 years. Five patients had a history of lumbar surgery. The mean operative time was 63.57 ± 25.74 min. The mean follow‐up time was 13.29 ± 1.38 months. The mean postoperative hospital stay time was 1.29 ± 0.56 days. The mean preoperative VAS score significantly decreased from 7.38 ± 1.02 to 2.76 ± 1.09 (t = 19.759, P < 0.01), 2.25 ± 1.02 (t = 21.508, P < 0.01), 1.60 ± 1.05 (t = 31.812, P < 0.01), and 1.45 ± 1.10 (t = 25.156, P < 0.01) at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the operation. The mean preoperative ODI score significantly decreased from 64.66% ± 4.91% to 30.69% ± 4.59% (t = 33.724, P < 0.01), 29.44% ± 4.50% (t = 32.117, P < 0.01), 24.22% ± 4.14% (t = 33.951, P < 0.01), and 22.44% ± 4.94% (t = 30.241, P < 0.01) at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the operation. At the last follow‐up, 19 patients (90.48%) got excellent or good outcomes. One patient suffered postoperative dysesthesia, and the symptoms were controlled by conversion treatment. One patient took revision surgery due to the incomplete decompression. There were no other major complications. Percutaneous endoscopic decompression is minimally invasive spine surgery. However, the application of endoscopic decompression for L₅S₁ foraminal stenosis is relatively difficult due to the high iliac crest and narrow foramen. Full‐endoscopic foraminotomy with the large endoscopic trephine is an effective and safe technique for the treatment of degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis.     

侧后路椎间孔镜下髓核摘除术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的早期疗效观察

目的探讨经皮侧后路椎间孔镜下髓核摘除术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法 2010年2月~2011年7月,我院收治的12例青少年腰椎间盘突出症患者接受了经皮侧后路椎间孔镜下髓核摘除术治疗并获得随访。其中男8例,女4例;年龄12~20岁,平均14.6岁。比较手术前后Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index,ODI)、下肢疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)及术后12个月时Macnab评分对临床疗效进行分析。结果 12例患者均获得随访,随访时间17~30个月,平均21.3个月。术后1周、3个月,6个月,12个月及末次随访时ODI指数、下肢疼痛VAS评分与术前相比均明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。按照Macnab评分标准,术后12个月时,优7例,良4例,可1例,优良率为91.7%(11/12)。结论经皮侧后路椎间孔镜下髓核摘除术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症短期内能取得满意的临床疗效,其长期疗效及安全性有待进一步研究。     

鼻内镜手术后筛窦黏膜转归的病理组织形态学观察及临床意义

目的：了解鼻内镜手术后修复各阶段筛窦黏膜的组织学转归情况，探讨术后筛窦黏膜转归过程的组织形态学规律，为完善治疗、提高手术治愈率提供科学的依据。方法：采用Messerklinger术式治疗22例成年慢性鼻窦炎（CS）及慢性鼻窦炎鼻息肉（CSNP）患者，分别在术后恢复的3个阶段进行形态学观察和光镜、电镜检查。结果：（1）术腔清洁阶段术腔分泌物潴留，光镜下上皮缺失、黏膜缺损，水肿，炎性细胞浸润，黏膜下出血；（2）黏膜转归竞争阶段可有囊泡、小息肉和肉芽生长，光镜下上皮细胞增生，部分杯状细胞增生，黏膜下腺体增生或减少；（3）上皮化完成阶段见术腔清洁，镜下大部分黏膜基本恢复正常，部分固有层为致密结缔组织取代，可见不典型腺体。结论：鼻内镜术后筛窦黏膜可以再生，鼻内镜术中、术后筛窦黏膜的正确保护和处理对黏膜再生修复有重要作用。     

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD)

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a new technique for the decompression of the lumbar disc space and removal of nucleus pulposus via a posterolateral approach. The technique was introduced in Germany by the authors in April 1987. The method is indicated in patients with non-equestrated lumbar disc herniation with an intact lorsal longitudinal ligament. In local anesthesia, a working cannula (OD 5 mm) is placed at the dorsal lateral border of the disc. The disc space is opened with anulus trephines and the nucleus pulposus is removed with rigid and flexible forceps as well as with automated shaver systems under intermittent endoscopic control (discoscopy). The procedure is performed in local anesthesia. The results of the first thirty patients with a follow-up time between 6 months and 17 months could be graded as excellent in 13 cases, as good in 9 cases, as fair in 6 cases, and as bad in 2 cases. The relief of symptoms as judged by the patients was between 70–100 percent in the majority of the cases. Three patients had to be reoperated at the same level and site, because of either persistent or recurrent sciatica. The performance in local anesthesia, the atraumatic extraspinal approach, the reduced time of hospitalization and post-operative morbidity as well as the reduced time of work incapability are the main advantages of this new method.