腹腔镜胆囊大部切除治疗急性坏疽性胆囊炎的临床分析

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊大部切除治疗急性坏疽性胆囊炎的临床疗效.方法 回顾120例急性坏疽性胆囊炎患者实施腹腔镜胆囊大部切除术后、观察其疗效及并发症的发生率.结果 120例急性坏疽性胆囊炎患者均成功施行腹腔镜胆囊大部切除、手术成功率为100%.平均手术时间(60.2±29.2) min、平均住院时间4～7 d、平均引流管留置时间2～5 d.术后无并发症发生.除择期手术组与急诊手术组手术时间(35.0±10.0) min vs.(55.0±12.0) min两组差异有统计学意义,P<0.05外,其他无统计学意义.结论 腹腔镜胆囊大部切除术治疗急性坏疽性胆囊炎是安全、有效的方法之一.     

腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术的临床应用

目的探讨腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术的临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析2003年1月—2008年10月在我院施行的32例腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术的临床资料,其中急性化脓坏疽性胆囊炎并结石嵌顿20例,Mirris综合征Ⅰ型2例,萎缩性胆囊炎5例,Calot三角"冰冻样"改变3例,胆囊结石合并肝硬化2例。结果32例均成功完成手术,手术时间(75±27)min。无中转开腹,无术后出血及肝外胆管损伤,术后发生胆漏3例,均经保守治疗痊愈。术后住院时间(5±2)d。随访4～30月,未发现远期并发症。结论在困难的胆囊手术中,腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术是一种安全可行、创伤小、并发症少的手术方法,有一定的临床应用价值。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术适应证的探讨

目的　探讨不加选择的情况下腹腔镜胆囊切除术的适应证及临床疗效。　方法　总结 1998年～ 2 0 0 1年 8月未加选择连续实施的 2 4 3例腹腔镜胆囊切除术 ,分析其中转开腹率和手术疗效。　结果　全组 2 4 3例LC病人中共有 3例分别因胆囊床出血、胆管损伤、十二指肠与胆囊致密粘连胆囊三角解剖不清而中转开腹手术 ,中转开腹率为 1.2 %。术中并发症发生率为 1.2 % (3 2 4 3) ,术后并发症发生率为 0 .8% (2 2 4 3) ,总的手术并发症发生率为 2 .1% (5 2 4 3)。　结论　腹腔镜胆囊切除术对于规范化培训过的腹腔镜医师而言即使是急性期和萎缩性胆囊炎病人 ,也可在不明显增加手术并发症和中转开腹率的情况下安全地实施 ,所以LC适应证可以拓宽至 98%以上的有症状胆囊疾病患者。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除与开腹的对比研究

1997年 9月至 2 0 0 2年 6月我院实施腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC) 4 0 0例 (A组 )、开腹胆囊切除术 4 0 0例 (B组 )为评价LC的优越性 ,进行了 2种手术方式的对比研究。1　资料与方法1 1　临床资料　本组 80 0例患者 ,男 2 95例 ,女 5 0 5例 ,16～78岁 ,平均 4 6岁 ,其中急性胆囊炎伴胆结石 14 8例 ,慢性胆囊炎伴胆结石 6 0 0例 ,胆囊良性息肉 5 2例。 2组患者年龄、性别、体重和术者的技术水平基本相似。1 2　手术方法　A组在全麻下使用德国产WSIP腹腔镜进行胆囊切除术 ;B组在连续硬膜外麻醉下行常规胆囊切除术35 8例 ,全麻下行常规胆囊切除…     

复杂性胆囊结石腹腔镜治疗体会

目的总结复杂性胆囊结石的腹腔镜手术治疗体会,探讨其安全性和可行性。方法对2009年5月～2012年5月行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的75例复杂性胆囊结石患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。其中,急性胆囊炎48例,坏疽性胆囊炎12例,萎缩性胆囊炎5例,合并肝硬化5例,胆囊十二指肠瘘1例,Mirizzi综合征1例,合并腹部手术史3例。结果本组手术时间52～180 min,平均(67.5±35.5)min;术中出血量50～140 ml,平均(75.3±55.5)ml;术后住院时间5～30 d,平均(6.5±2.0)d。完成腹腔镜手术73例,其中腹腔镜下顺行胆囊切除术67例,顺逆结合胆囊切除4例,胆囊大部分切除2例。中转开腹2例,1例为胆总管损伤,行开腹胆囊切除加胆总管T管引流,另1例为右肝管和胆囊管并行过长解剖不清同时合并术中出血;术后并发急性脑梗塞1例。无术后大出血、胆瘘、腹腔脓肿、肠梗阻等并发症发生。结论充分的术前准备,术中仔细操作,及时中转开腹,以及认真细致地术后处理,腹腔镜治疗复杂性胆囊结石是安全可行的。     

腹腔镜开窗式胆囊大部切除术的临床应用

目的:探讨腹腔镜开窗式胆囊大部切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的临床应用。方法:回顾分析2010年12月至2017年12月为23例急性胆囊炎行胆囊切除困难的患者行腹腔镜开窗式胆囊大部切除术的临床资料。结果:23例手术均顺利完成,无一例中转开腹,手术时间平均(62±11)min,术中出血量平均(85±25)mL,术后排气时间平均(23.5±2.6)h;术后6 h饮水,24 h进食;无腹腔出血、肠管损伤、肝外胆管损伤、胆汁性腹膜炎等并发症发生;术后5～7 d痊愈出院。随访4～48个月,术前临床症状消失,饮食正常。结论:急性期胆囊炎患者行腹腔镜开窗式胆囊大部切除术可避免强行解剖胆囊三角,减少胆管、血管损伤等并发症的发生,手术安全、可行,是治疗急性胆囊炎及复杂困难型胆囊的有效术式。     

腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术临床应用探讨

为探讨腹腔镜下胆囊大部分切除术在复杂腹腔镜胆囊切除术中应用价值，回顾分析近年来施行的280例腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC），其中31例为腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除的临床资料，对比两种术式的手术疗效及并发症。结果显示，31例均在腹腔镜下完成胆囊大部分切除术，无术后出血、黄疸及肝外胆管损伤,术后胆漏1例,经保守治疗治愈，随访1～28个月,未见与手术有关的并发症。但腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术组术中出血、手术时间和平均住院时间均高于LC组（P＜0.05），两组术后并发症无差异。笔者认为在困难胆囊手术中,腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术可简化手术,降低手术风险,降低腹腔镜胆囊切除手术中的中转率，与LC一样是安全的。     

三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术1000例治疗体会

目的　探讨三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术的可行性。方法　对我院 1 999年 1 0月～ 2 0 0 3年 1 0月 1 0 0 0例三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除手术进行回顾性分析。结果　三孔法完成手术 96 3例 ,成功率 96 .3%。平均手术时间 4 8min ,平均术中出血 2 5ml,平均住院时间 2 .2d。有 4 3例改行四孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术。中转手术 4例 ,1例为胆囊结肠瘘 ,3例为急性胆囊炎。胆总管误伤T管引流 1例 ,胆总管电凝伤 3例 ,经鼻胆管引流痊愈。结论　只要采用正确的手术操作方法 ,三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除术是安全可行的     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术31例严重并发症分析

腹腔镜胆囊切除术 (LC)因其独特的微创外科优点 ,已广泛应用于临床 ,为广大患者所接受。现将我院 31例LC手术中发生并发症情况报道如下。1　临床资料我院 1991年 10月至 2 0 0 2年 4月施行腹腔镜胆囊切除术 (LC) 110 0 0例中发生并发症 31例 ,男 9例 ,女 2 2例 ,19～74岁。其中慢性结石性胆囊炎 2 5例 ,急性胆囊炎 5例 ,胆囊息肉样损害 1例 ,全部病例均经手术和病理证实。2　严重并发症及原因分析2 1　胆管损伤 11例　 7例因牵拉过度 ,误将胆总管横断 ;3例为胆囊萎缩 ,胆总管扩张合并结石 ,将胆总管误认为胆囊管将其游离 ,切断。另 1例…     

经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术64例报告

目的评价经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术的可行性。方法2009年7月～2010年10月,对胆囊息肉样病变14例、胆囊结石伴慢性胆囊炎50例行经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术。脐部做-2em弧形切口,置入R—Port单孔多通道套管（康基公司生产）,建立CO：气腹,使用5mm腹腔镜及硬质弯曲组织分离钳及电钩,完成胆囊切除。结果64例手术均获得成功。第1例手术时间为90rain,第2、3例手术时间均为65min,余61例38～62min,（46．5±2．4）min。不放置引流管,术后未发生出血及胆漏等并发症。术后3～5天出院,脐部无明显手术瘢痕。术后随访2周～17个月,平均6．5月,无切口感染、脐疝、腹腔积液等并发症发生。结论经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术具有并发症少、住院时间短、病人痛苦少及恢复快等特占     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

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。     

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly

Background Few studies have examined the results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the elderly. We reviewed our experience with the procedure in 194 patients age 65 and older. Methods A chart review was performed on patients who underwent attempted LC over a 4-year period. Age, conversion rate to open cholecystectomy (OC), length of stay, and morbidity and mortality rates were compared between elective and inpatients as well as between patients age 65–75 and patients over age 75. Results Conversion rate to OC was 10.6%. Mean length of hospital stay was 2.7 days. Morbidity and mortality rates were 18% and 1%. Elective patients experienced significantly fewer medical complications. There were no differences in complication rates between patients age 65–75 and patients over 75 years, but younger patients had a significantly shorter mean length of hospitalization. Conclusions Elderly patients experience more complications and longer lengths of stay than the general population. However, our results compare favorably with OC series in elderly patients. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Orlando, Florida, USA, 11–14 March 1995     

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.