腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查及内镜括约肌切开治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的疗效对比

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)联合腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术(laparos copiccommon bile duct exploration,LCBDE)与LC联合内镜括约肌切开(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)取石术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效。方法:回顾分析2009年1月至2011年12月247例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的临床资料,其中91例行LC+LCBDE,156例行LC+EST;对比两种术式手术时间、中转开腹率、术后并发症、残石率、住院时间及住院费用等。结果:LC+LCBDE组手术时间短、术后并发症少、住院费用低,但住院时间稍长,两组中转开腹率、残石率差异无统计学意义。结论:LC联合LCBDE及LC联合EST治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石安全、可靠。应根据患者具体情况进行个体化治疗,病情允许时LC联合LCBDE可作为首选。     

急性结石性胆管炎的腹腔镜治疗

目的 总结应用腹腔镜行胆总管切开取石加T管引流术治疗急性结石性胆管炎的临床经验.方法 回顾性分析北京世纪坛医院普外科2007年3月至2011年7月间98例急性结石性胆管炎急诊行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术的临床资料.结果 93例患者急诊施行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石加T管引流术,2例经胆囊管胆总管探查术,3例行胆总管探查置塑料内引流管胆道一期缝合术.98例手术顺利,无中转开腹,平均手术时间96 min,平均住院时间12d.术后主要并发症:残石8例,胆漏4例,腹腔出血1例,经保守方法治愈.结论 对绝大多急性结石性胆管炎患者而言,急诊行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石加T管引流术是安全、有效、可行的.     

510例腹腔镜联合纤维胆道镜胆总管切开取石术的临床应用

目的探讨腹腔镜联合纤维胆道镜治疗胆总管结石的可行性及临床应用价值。方法1998年～2007年对510例患者行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石(laparoscopic common duct exploration,LCDE),与同期300例开腹(opensurgery,OS)手术者比较。术前确诊者,术中直接行胆总管切开胆道镜取石;术前有黄疸史、胰腺炎史和(或)直接胆红素增高、胆系酶(AKP、GGT)增高者,或胆总管在0.8cm以上者行术中造影,明确有胆总管结石的切开胆总管胆道镜取石。405例置T管引流(留置T管组),105例行胆总管Ⅰ期缝合(I期缝合组)。结果手术均获成功,与OS组比较,手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率(胆瘘、出血)差异无统计学意义;住院日、术后镇痛药使用次数、腹腔或切口感染率、残石率明显减少。无中转开腹。30例T管引流口靠近肋弓而引起术后疼痛,2例术后2dT管才引流出胆汁。留置T管组有24例胆总管残余结石,3月后经胆道镜取石成功。留置T管组手术时间平均(110±15)min,平均术后住院8d;Ⅰ期缝合组手术时间(95±8)min,平均术后住院5d。结论LCDE是治疗胆总管结石安全、有效的方法,同样可起到创伤小、痛苦轻、恢复快、住院时间缩短等微创效果,如能在取净结石的情况下行胆总管Ⅰ期缝合,微创效果尤为明显。     

老年腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查取石术的临床疗效分析

目的:探讨经腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管切开探查取石术(LCBDE)治疗老年胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石患者的临床效果及安全性。方法:回顾性分析采用LCBDE治疗(LCBDE组)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开取石术(EST)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗(LC-EST组)的老年(≥60岁)胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石患者各60例的临床资料。结果:两组患者术前一般资料具有可比性。LCBDE组患者的手术时间、住院时间及手术并发症发生率均明显的低于LC-EST组(均P0.05);术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、手术成功率、一次性手术成功率、中转开腹率、一次性结石清除率两组间差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论:LCBDE治疗老年胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石与LC联合EST手术效果相当,但具有手术时间短、术后恢复快、并发症率低的优点。     

腹腔镜辅助胆道镜下胆总管切开取石的临床研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜辅助胆道镜下胆总管切开取石的可行性及临床应用价值.方法 将我院普外科2009年1月至2010年10月间择期手术的60例胆囊合并胆总管结石患者随机分为腹腔镜辅助胆道镜下胆总管切开取石治疗组(以下简称二镜组)和传统开腹胆囊切除+胆总管切开取石治疗组(以下简称开腹组),对两组手术时间、术后并发症例数、伤口疼痛、术后肛门排气恢复时间、术后住院时间及住院总费用等指标进行分析.结果 两组病例均无死亡,二镜组未发生中转开腹手术.术后随访6个月以上者二镜组21例、开腹组22例.两组的手术时间、住院总费用比较无明显差异.而术后肛门恢复排气时间、伤口疼痛率、术后住院时间、术后并发症发生率比较,二镜组明显优于开腹组(P<0.01).结论 腹腔镜辅助胆道镜下胆总管切开取石是一种新兴的微创手术,只要正确掌握适应证和禁忌证,手术成功率高,并发症少,是目前治疗胆囊合并胆总管结石较为理想的微创手术方式.     

腹腔镜下硬性胆道镜结合开腹胆道器械行胆总管切开取石术的临床研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术,以寻找较简便、有效的手术方法。方法:为61例患者行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术,其中46例术中使用硬性胆道镜结合开腹胆道器械取石(硬性胆道镜组),15例采用纤维胆道镜网篮取石(纤维胆道镜组),对比分析两种方法的手术时间、住院时间、术后残石率、中转开腹率、手术费用、设备及网篮等耗材费用等。结果:两组患者手术时间、住院时间、残石率、中转开腹率、手术费用及耗材费用等方面差异有统计学意义。结论:腹腔镜下使用开腹胆道取石器械取石方法简便、有效且经济,值得临床推广使用。     

腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术与胆总管切开探查取石的对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石与胆总管切开探查取石的临床疗效。方法:选取80例胆总管结石患者,以随机数字法分为观察组与对照组,每组40例,对照组行腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术,观察组行腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术。比较两组手术情况、术后恢复及术后并发症情况。结果:观察组术中出血量、手术时间、肛门排气时间、住院时间均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者术后血清丙氨酸氨基转移酶、总胆红素水平、并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:与腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术相比,腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术治疗胆总管结石可减少术中出血量,缩短手术时间、术后肛门排气时间及住院时间,不影响血清丙氨酸氨基转移酶水平、总胆红素水平,不增加术后并发症发生率,值得临床推广应用。     

36例经腹腔镜行胆总管探查取石术临床体会

目的探讨经腹腔镜行胆总管探查切开取石术的优点,总结手术操作经验和常见并发症的防治。方法对36例胆总管结石患者采用经腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术,回顾性分析患者的临床资料。结果 34例成功取石,2例中转开腹手术。3例手术后发生胆道出血,6例结石残留,7例胆漏。手术时间:60～135 min,出血量:50～100 mL,住院时间:(9.1±1.1)d。无死亡病例。结论经腹腔镜行胆总管切开取石术创伤小、恢复快、住院时间缩短。值得推广。     

腹腔镜联合胆道镜胆总管切开取石术的临床应用

目的:比较腹腔镜联合胆道镜与传统开腹手术治疗胆总管结石的效果。方法:2006至2008年我院为36例患者行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术,并与同期80例开腹手术对比。结果:36例腹腔镜手术均获成功,无中转开腹,手术时间100~160m in,出血30~80m l,住院时间、术后镇痛药使用次数、腹腔或切口感染率、残石率明显减少。结论:腹腔镜联合胆道镜胆总管切开取石术治疗胆总管结石安全有效,与传统开腹手术相比具有患者创伤小、痛苦轻、康复快、住院时间短等微创效果,如能在取净结石后行胆总管Ⅰ期缝合,微创效果则更为明显。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术联合胆总管探查在老年胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者中的应用

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)联合胆总管探查(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)在老年患者中的安全性及有效性.方法 对2009年1月～2012年1月140例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石行LC联合LCBDE的临床资料进行回顾性分析,按年龄分为老年组(年龄≥65岁,n=42)和对照组(年龄＜65岁,n=98),比较2组手术时间、中转开腹率、术后并发症、术后住院时间、住院费用、术后死亡率有无差异.结果 老年组住院费用(17 149.7 ±8275.8)元,显著高于对照组(13 710.8 ±5228.4)元(t=2.964,P=0.004);老年组手术时间(100.2±25.8) min与对照组(106.3±48.3) min无统计学差异(t=-0.772,P=0.442);老年组中转开腹率7.1％ (3/42)与对照组7.1％ (7/98)无统计学差异(x2=0.000,P=1.000);老年组术后住院时间(13.0±4.5)d与对照组(11.9±4.1)d无统计学差异(t=1.412,P =0.160);老年组术后并发症发生率16.7％ (7/42)与对照组15.3％ (15/98)无统计学差异(x2=0.041,P=0.839).2组均无死亡病例.140例随访8 ～42个月,平均25.9月:老年组2例结石残留,其中1例术后3个月行体外冲击波碎石后胆道镜经T管窦道取出结石,1例术后2个月行ERCP+ EST取石;对照组无结石残留,1例术后20个月胆道结石复发,行ERCP+ EST取石.结论 LC联合胆总管探查不仅对年轻患者,对老年患者也是安全有效的.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术与内窥镜下括约肌切开术治疗胆总管结石的临床应用比较

目的 比较腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)和内镜下括约肌切开术(EST)治疗不同胆总管结石的疗效及并发症,探讨其适应证的差异,指导临床合理应用.方法 202例胆总管结石患者,按手术方式分为腹腔镜胆总管探查术组(LCBDE组,45例)和内镜下括约肌切开术组(EST组,157例);评价两组操作成功率、一期手术治愈率、残余结石和(或)病变率、并发症率、平均住院时间和费用.结果 LCBDE组和EST组操作成功率分别为97.8％(44/45)和98.7％(155/157)(P> 0.05).一期手术治愈率分别为84.4％(38/45)和45.2％(71/157) (P<0.01).LCBDE组术后残余病变主要为残石,残石率为15.6％(7/45); EST组主要为术后遗留未处理的胆囊病变和肝内外胆管结石,残留率为54.8％(86/157)(P<0.01).LCBDE组并发术后胆漏4例、残余感染1例,并发癌率为11.1％;EST组并发术后胆漏3例、出血4例、高淀粉酶血症32例(其中急性胰腺炎14例)、急性胆管炎15例,并发症率34.4％ (P< 0.05).平均住院时间为(10.0±2.8)和(9.4±4.1)d (P>0.05);住院费用为(17504±4128)和(16453±3541)元(P>0.05).结论 LCBDE和EST均有操作成功率高、住院时间短等优点;但LCBDE并发症率、残余病变率均低于EST; LCBDE主要适于胆囊合并胆总管结石的患者,尤其是Oddi括约肌功能完好者;EST主要适于单纯胆总管结石或胆管炎患者,特别是年老体弱、Oddi括约肌无功能或既往有胆道手术史且不愿再次手术者.     

腹腔镜胆道探查取石术应用体会

目的探讨腹腔镜胆道探查取石术的可行性。方法回顾性分析38例腹腔镜胆道探查取石病人的临床资料,对手术适应证、手术方式及并发症的预防进行总结。结果38例病人中,胆总管结石36例,胆总管扩张未见结石2例。同时合并胆囊结石34例,合并有肝内胆管结石2例,合并肝囊肿2例。术前全部病人均行B超和MRCP检查。37例（97．4％）完成腹腔镜胆道探查取石术,1例因致密粘连中转开腹手术,36例同时行腹腔镜胆囊切除,2例同时行肝囊肿开窗引流术。14例行胆总管一期缝合,24例行胆总管T管引流。手术时间为1～4h,平均1．5h。住院时间3～12d,平均5．5d。术后发生胆瘘2例,胆总管下端残余结石1例,胸腔积液1例。结论腹腔镜胆道探查术安全、微创、美观,可明显缩短住院时间,是一种可选择的治疗方法。     

LCBDE术后一期缝合与T管引流治疗老年胆总管结石的效果比较

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术（LCBDE）并一期缝合与LCBDE并T管引流治疗老年胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析汕头市中心医院2017 年1 月至2018 年12 月收治的符合入选标准的老年（年龄≥60 岁）胆总管结石患者158 例,所有患者均行LCBDE术,其中130 例术后行一期缝合（一期缝合组）,28 例行T管引流（T管引流组）。比较两组的术前基线资料、手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、住院费用、术后并发症发生率、结石复发率等资料。结果 两组术前基线资料比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。一期缝合组在手术时间、术后住院时间方面明显短于T管引流组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;两组患者在术中出血量、住院总费用、术后并发症发生率、结石复发率方面比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 老年（年龄≥60岁）并不是腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术并一期缝合的绝对禁忌。正确把握手术适应证及禁忌证,对于合适的老年患者,腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术并一期缝合也是安全可行的。     

经胆囊管腹腔镜胆道探查术治疗胆总管结石的临床研究

目的:比较分析腹腔镜下经胆囊管和经胆总管切开T管引流两种方法胆道镜取石治疗胆囊结石继发胆总管结石的疗效,以评价经胆囊管腹腔镜胆道探查术治疗胆总管结石的临床价值。方法:2001年3月至2003年3月按胆道探查途径不同将28例胆石症患者分为胆囊管组(n=8)和胆总管切开组(n=20)。患者经B超和术中胆道造影或加内窥镜逆行胆管造影(ERC)确诊。观察两组病例的术后肛门排气时间、腹腔引流时间、术后住院日、住院费用及手术并发症的发生情况,术后对患者进行全程跟踪随访。结果:胆总管切开组肛门排气时间、腹腔引流时间、术后住院日、住院费用明显长于或高于胆囊管组(P>0.05)。胆囊管组发生手术并发症1例(12.5%);胆总管切开组5例(25.0%),其中胆道并发症4例(20.0%),需要再次微创处理2例(10.0%),需再次手术治疗的严重并发症2例(10.0%);手术并发症发生率胆总管切开组明显高于胆囊管组(P<0.05)。随访两组患者均无胆管狭窄、急性胆管炎及急性胰腺炎发生和结石复发。结论:经胆囊管途径的腹腔镜胆道探查术充分体现了微创外科技术的优点,适于胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者,其疗效优于胆总管切开T管引流途径的腹腔镜胆道探查术。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术587例临床分析

目的总结腹腔镜胆总管探查术的治疗经验。方法对1992年6月至2006年5月在我院行腹腔镜胆总管探查术的587例患者的资料进行回顾性分析。结果585例患者行腹腔镜胆总管探查术成功,2例中转开腹,成功率99．7％;手术时间60～230min,平均85min。术后发生胆漏13例,十二指肠损伤1例,腹腔残石致引流管口脓肿形成1例,胆管残石35例,T管引流出钛夹3例。所有患者术后第2天进流质食物并下床活动,平均住院4．6d。结论腹腔镜胆总管探查术对于治疗胆管结石是安全有效的手术方式。     

Transcystic common bile duct exploration in the management of patients with choledocholithiasis

Common bile duct stones are found in approximately 16% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. If the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis is made at the preoperative workup, it is common practice to refer the patient for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic sphincterotomy. However, if the diagnosis is established during intraoperative cholangiography, the surgeon is confronted with a therapeutic dilemma-that is, the choice between laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, conversion to open surgery, or postoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy. We have opted to treat patients with choledocholithiasis in only one session during the laparoscopic cholecystectomy; we use the transcystic common bile duct exploration technique employing the choledochoscope. We report our early experience in terms of success of stone removal, operative time, morbidity and mortality, and length of hospital stay. From 1992 to 2002, we performed 350 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Selective cholangiography was used in 105 patients (30%); 40 of them were found to have common bile duct stones, for an incidence of 11.4%. Among this group, we performed laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration in all but six patients. Our success rate for stone removal was 94.1% (32 of 34 patients), with only two failures related to multiple stones and impaction at the ampulla, for a conversion rate of 5.8%. The mean operative time was 120 ± 40 minutes. The morbidity rate was 8.8%, and there were no deaths. Length of hospital stay was 24 to 48 hours. Mean recovery time was 7 days, and time to return to work was 15±3 days. We concluded that most of the patients with common bile duct stones found during laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be treated successfully by means of the transcystic technique with choledochoscopy, with no increase in morbidity or mortality and a shortened hospital stay and recovery time, similar to patients who undergo only laparoscopic cholecystectomy. On the basis of our results, we recommend that this method become the primary strategy in the great majority of patients with common bile duct stones found during intraoperative cholangiography. Presented at the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, San Francisco, California, May 19–22, 2002 (poster presentation).     

Laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct: A solution to difficult choledocholithiasis

Objective: To evaluate the role of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct (LECBD) in the management of common bile duct stone, particularly for patients with failed endoscopic extraction and patients younger than 60 years old. Method: Prospective data of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct during 1995–1999 were analysed. Results: During 1995–1999, 27 laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct (LECBD) were performed in patients with concomitant gallstone and common bile duct stone, in which half of these LECBD were performed after unsuccessful endoscopic retrieval (13 patients). LECBD was also indicated in patients younger than 60 years old (14 patients) because there was a concern about the potential long‐term complications of papillotomy‐like papillary stenosis and ascending cholangitis. One transcystic duct exploration and 26 choledochotomies were performed. Mean operating time was 138.7 min (70–300 min) and additional procedures included 19 laparoscopic ultrasounds (LUS), three laparoscopic intraoperative cholangiograms (LIOC) and two laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomies. Stone clearance rate was 96% with only one exception. Complications were encountered in nine patients (33%) and one patient died of sepsis subsequent to major bile leak (3.7%). Complications included bile leak/stent migration/collection (4), wound infection (3), minor wound bleeding (1) and self‐limiting postoperative intestinal obstruction (1). Conclusion: LECBD has a high success rate of ductal clearance in patients with ‘difficult common bile duct stones’ despite unsuccessful attempts at endoscopic extraction.     

Micro-Incision of the Cystic Duct Confluence in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Elderly Patients with Choledocholithiasis

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are common in elderly patients. The laparoscopic transcystic approach with micro-incision of the cystic duct confluence in common bile duct exploration (LTM-CBDE) is a modified laparoscopic transcystic approach. Its safety and efficacy have not been studied in elderly patients with secondary choledocholithiasis. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of LTM-CBDE in elderly (≥65 years) patients with secondary choledocholithiasis and compares the results with those in younger patients. In this retrospective analysis, 128 patients underwent LTM-CBDE from March 2007 to December 2013. The patients were divided into two groups according to age: the elderly group consisted of 50 patients aged ≥65 years and the younger group consisted of 78 patients aged <65 years. The preoperative morbidity rate, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, previous abdominal operations, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, open conversion rate, postoperative complication rate, residual stone rate, recurrence rate and mortality were compared in both groups. The preoperative morbidity (41 vs. 28) and ASA score (2.5 ± 0.7 vs. 1.8 ± 0.6) were higher in the elderly group (P = 0.000, in both groups). No significant differences in previous abdominal operations, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, open conversion rate, postoperative complication rate, residual stone rate, recurrence rate and mortality (P > 0.05) were found between the two groups from March 2007 to December 2013. LTM-CBDE is a safe and effective treatment procedure for elderly patients with secondary choledocholithiasis. For suitable patients, we recommend LTM-CBDE as the treatment of choice.     

小切口胆总管探查术安全性及疗效评估的随机对照研究

目的 系统评价小切口胆总管探查术的安全性、可行性以及疗效.方法 采用前瞻性随机对照方法,分别对290例小切口和120例传统切口行胆总管探查术的病人,就术中意外伤、术后并发症、结石残留、术后一般情况和预后等临床资料进行对比分析.结果 手术时间、术中出血量、术后血浆管引流量、术后肠功能恢复时间、下床活动时间、住院时间等,小切口组少于传统切口组;小切口组术中意外损伤发生率为1.72%(5/290),术后结石残留率为3.45%(10/290),结石复发率为5.18%(15/290);传统切口组术中意外损伤发生率为1.67%(2/120),术后结石残留率为3.33%(4/120),结石复发率为5.0%(6/120),统计显示两组差异无显著性(P>0.05);小切口组术后发生并发症17例,传统组为16例,两组比较有统计学差异(P<0.05).结论 小切口胆道探查手术是一种安全、有效、预后良好、恢复时间快的手术方式.     

快速康复外科理念在胆总管探查围手术期应用

目的探讨快速康复外科理念在胆总管探查围手术期的应用价值。方法将2008年5月至2011年5月我院腹腔镜应用中心收治的择期行胆总管探查病人105例按年龄、性别、体重、病程接近原则随机分成快速康复外科理念指导的围手术处理组(n=53)和传统的围手术处理组(n=52),比较两组术后排气排便时间、住院天数、住院费用及并发症发生率。结果快速康复外科理念指导的围手术处理组术后排气排便时间、住院天数、住院费用明显减少(P<0.05),并发症发生率无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论快速康复外科理念在胆总管探查围手术期的应用安全、有效。