腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆总管结石

目的探讨腹腔镜治疗胆总管结石的合适方法.方法回顾性分析我院2005年5月至2009年7月135例腹腔镜胆总管结石患者临床资料.结果全组均治愈康复,102例手术成功,33例中转开腹手术.102例成功手术患者中,三孔法完成手术13例,四孔法完成手术89例,其中直接经胆总管前壁96例,经胆囊管途径6例.胆总管一期缝合33例,放置"T"管引流63例.其中3例出现一过性胆漏,3～5 d后自愈,2例术后有结石残留,后经"T"管窦道胆道镜成功取出.结论腹腔镜胆总管结石治疗应遵循个体化方案,根据患者病情、医院技术力量、条件不同,采取合适的治疗方式.     

多镜联合治疗肝内外胆管结石

目的 探讨腹腔镜、十二指肠镜和胆道镜多镜联合在肝内外胆管结石治疗中的应用价值.方法 回顾性分析2007年4月至2010年8月吉林大学白求恩第一医院收治的316例肝内外胆管结石患者的临床资料.其中胆囊结石合并胆总管结石269例,胆囊结石合并胆总管结石伴肝内胆管结石10例,胆总管结石37例.对于胆总管直径≥10 mm或伴肝内胆管结石的患者行LC+腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)+胆道镜取石术;对于胆总管直径>5 mm且<10 mm、胆囊管直径<5 mm的患者行EST+LC或LC+EST;对于胆总管直径≤5 mm、胆囊管直径≥5 mm的患者行LC+经胆囊管途径胆总管探查+胆道镜取石术.结果 本组306例患者成功取石,取石成功率为96.8%(306/316).163例行LC+LCBDE+T管引流+胆道镜取石术,平均手术时间为93.6 min,平均住院时间为9.8 d,平均住院费用为2.8万元,5例患者术后出现并发症.54例患者行EST+LC,平均手术时间为45.0 min,平均住院时间为6.6 d,平均住院费用为2.3万元,1例患者术后出现并发症.67例患者行LC+EST,平均手术时间为40.0 min,平均住院时间为6.1 d,平均住院费用为2.4万元,2例患者术后出现并发症.32例患者行胆总管一期缝合及LC+经胆囊管途径胆总管探查+胆道镜取石术.平均手术时间为97.3 min,平均住院时间为7.3 d,平均住院费用2.5万元,1例患者术后出现并发症.272例患者术后平均随访12个月,6例患者术后胆总管结石复发,其余患者未发现残留结石及胆管狭窄.结论 腹腔镜、十二指肠镜和胆道镜三镜联合治疗肝内外胆管结石具有创伤小、恢复快及并发症少的优点.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the application of laparoscope,duodenoscope and choledochoscope in the treatment of intra-and extrahepatic bile duct stone.Methods The clinical data of 3 16 patients with intraand extrahepatic bile duct stone who were admitted to the Bethune First Hospital from April 2007 to August 2010were retrospectively analyzed.There were 269 patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis,10 patients with cholesystolithiasis,choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiagis,and 37 patients with choledocholithiasis.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)+laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE)+choledochoscopy was applied to patients with hepatolithiasis or with the diameter of common bile duct≥10 mm;endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST)+LC or LC+EST was applied to patients with the diameter of common bile duct between 10 mm and 5 mm and the diameter of cystic duct<5 mm;LC+laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration(TC-CBDE)+choledochoscopy wag applied to patients with the diameter of common bile duct≤5 mm and the diameter of cystic duct≥5 mm.Results The success rate of operation was 96.8%(306/316).A total of 163 patients received LC +LCBDE+T-tube drainage+choledochoscopy,and the mean operation time,expense,duration of hospital stay were 93.6 minutes,2.8×104 yuan and 9.8 days,respectively,and 5 patients had complications postoperatively.Fifty-four patients received EST+LC,and the mean operation time,expense,duration of hospital stay were 45.0minutes,6.6 days,2.3×104yuan,respectively,and 1 patient had complication postoperatively.Sixty-seven patients received LC+EST,and the mean operation time,expense and duration of hospital stay were 40.0minutes,6.1 days,2.4×104 yuan,respectively,and 2 patients had complication postoperatively.Thirty-two patients received one-stage repair of common bile duct and LC+TC-CBDE+choledochoscopy,and the mean operation time,expense and duration of hospital stay were 97.3 minutes,7.3 days and 2.5×104yuan,respectively,and 1 patient had complication postoperatively.A total of 272 patients were followed up for 12 months,except for 6 patients with recurrence of common bile duct stone,no residual stone or biliary stricture was etected.Conclusion Combined application of laparoscope,duodenoscope and choledochoscope has advantages of less trauma,quick ecovery and fewer complications in the treatment of intra-and extrahepatic bile duct stone.     

Management of Preoperatively Suspected Choledocholithiasis: A Decision Analysis

Background  The management of symptomatic or incidentally discovered common bile duct (CBD) stones is still controversial. Of patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis, 5–15% will also harbor CBD stones, and those with symptoms suggestive of choledocholithiasis will have an even higher incidence. Options for treatment include preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy (ERCP/ES) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (LC/IOC), followed by either laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) or placement of a common bile duct double-lumen catheter with postoperative management. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the optimal management of such patients. Methods  A decision analysis was performed to analyze the management of patients with suspected common bile duct stones. The basic choice was between preoperative ERCP/ES followed by LC, LC/IOC followed by LCBDE, or common duct double-lumen catheter (Fitzgibbons tube) placement with either expectant management or postoperative ERCP/ES. Data on morbidity and mortality was obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analysis was done varying the incidence of positive CBD stones on IOC with associated morbidity and mortality. Results  One-stage management of symptomatic CBD stones with LC/LCBDE is associated with less morbidity and mortality (7% and 0.19%) than two-stage management utilizing preoperative ERCP/ES (13.5% and 0.5%). Sensitivity analysis shows that there is an increase in morbidity and mortality for LC/LCBDE as the incidence of positive IOC increases but are still less than two-stage management even with a 100% positive IOC (9.4%, 0.5%). If a double-lumen catheter is to be used for positive IOC, the morbidity would be higher than two-stage management only if the positive IOC incidence is more than 65% but still with no mortality. Conclusion  LCBDE has lower morbidity and mortality rates compared to preoperative ERCP/ES in the management of patients with suspected CBD stones even if the chance of CBD stones reaches 100%. Using a common duct double-lumen catheter may be considered if LCBDE is not feasible and the chance of CBD stone is less than 65%. Presented in part at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract [Poster Session], San Diego, CA, May 17–21, 2008     

三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查取石术的经验总结

目的:总结三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查取石术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床经验。方法:总结2014年1月至2019年8月接受三孔法腹腔镜胆囊切除胆道探查取石术的144例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的临床资料,具体探查方式根据患者情况选择,总结分析患者的临床特点、手术效果、术后恢复及并发症情况。结果:144例患者中32例经胆囊管探查,88例采用胆囊管汇入部微切开,24例采用胆总管切开方式;其中2例因手术暴露困难加用辅助孔完成手术,无一例中转开腹。术中3例放置T管,术后行胆道镜治疗。术后10例发生胆漏,保守治疗后3~7 d痊愈。结论:三孔法腹腔镜下胆总管探查取石术是治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石合理、有效的术式,术中胆道镜的应用及胆管缝合是手术成功的关键。     

胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的外科微创治疗

目的探讨胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的外科微创治疗方式的选择,对比研究内镜下乳头括约肌切开术+腹腔镜胆囊切除(endoscopic sphincterotomy+laparoscopic cholecystectomy,EST+LC)和腹腔镜下胆总管探查(laparoscopic explorationof common bile duct/laparoscopic transcystic exploration of common bile duct,LCBDE/LTCBDE)。方法回顾分析2009年8月～2011年9月手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石56例的临床资料,EST+LC组26例,LCBDE/LTCBDE组30例,2组年龄、性别、体重指数、丙氨酸转氨酶、总胆红素、胆总管直径和ASA评分差异无显著性。对比2种微创治疗方式的住院时间、住院费用和治疗效果。结果 2组住院时间差异无显著性[(9.0±3.5)d vs.(10.1±3.4)d,t=-1.191,P=0.256]。EST+LC组住院费用高于LCBDE/LTCBDE组[(20 017.5±4748.8)元vs.(16 249.5±3366.1)元,t=3.459,P=0.001]。2组并发症和中转开腹的发生率差异无显著性[15.4%(4/26)vs.13.3%(4/30),χ2=0.000,P=1.000]。结论 EST+LC和LCBDE/LTCBDE是胆囊结石合并胆总管结石有效、安全的治疗方式,LCBDE/LTCBDE住院费用明显降低,两者之间并发症并无明显差异。     

腹腔镜配合胆道镜治疗胆总管结石30例分析

目的:探讨腹腔镜联合胆道镜行胆总管切开取石术(LCTDO)的可行性。方法:30例胆管结石患者全部采用腹腔镜下配合纤维胆道镜行胆管切开取石术,20例放置“T”管,10例未置“T”管。结果:29例患者术后恢复顺利,1例未放置“T”管患者有少许胆漏,经引流后痊愈。结论:双镜联合行胆管取石方法可行,只要掌握手术适应证,将是一种创伤小、恢复快、安全有效的新技术,而是否放置“T”管可根据术中情况决定。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管切开取石Ⅰ期缝合术58例报告

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)联合胆总管探查(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)Ⅰ期缝合术治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的可行性.方法:回顾分析2008年10月至2009年11月为58例胆囊结石并胆总管结...     

腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石

目的:探讨分析腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的方法。方法:我院2008年3月至2009年12月收治26例胆囊结石并胆总管结石患者,腹腔镜胆囊切除术中切开胆囊管或胆总管,行纤维胆道镜胆总管取石术。结果:26例患者均按常规行腹腔镜胆囊切除术,12例行胆囊管切开取石术,胆总管未放置"T"管;14例行胆总管切开取石术,其中8例未放置"T"管,行一期缝合,6例胆总管内放置"T"管,术后6~8周行纤维胆道镜检查,2例发现残余结石,并取净,4例未发现胆总管残余结石,再次行胆道造影后未发现结石,拔除"T"管。所有病例均无并发症发生。结论:腹腔镜胆囊切除联合纤维胆道镜取石术治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石,患者创伤小,康复快,安全有效。术中不能取净胆总管结石者,术后可通过"T"管窦道行纤维胆道镜取石。     

LC＋LCBDE与ERCP／EST＋LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的梗阻性黄疸患者的临床对照研究

目的探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）联合腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术（LCBDE）与内镜下逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）及乳头括约肌切开取石术（EST）联合LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的梗阻性黄疸患者的疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析我院2011年1月至2012年6月期间分别采用LC＋LCBDE（LC＋LCBDE组,n-48）及ERCP／EST＋LC（ERCP／EST＋LC组,n=76）治疗的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的梗阻性黄疸患者的临床资料,比较分析2组患者的临床治疗情况。结果①2组患者的一般临床资料如年龄、性别、术前总胆红素和丙氨酸转氨酶、结石数量、最大结石直径及胆总管内径比较,差异均无统计学意义∽〉0．05）,具有可比性。②2组均无同手术期死亡病例。2组患者的取石成功率、中转开腹率及并发症发生率比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,但是LC＋LCBDE组手术时间及术后住院时间均明显短于ERCP／EST＋LC组P〈0．05）,手术费用及住院费用也少于ERCP／EST＋LC组P〈0．05）。结论ERCP／EST＋LC与LC＋LCBDE治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的梗阻性黄疸患者同样安全、有效。但LC＋LCBDE成本效益更高,有利于患者恢复,尤其是当胆总管直径大于1．0cm或多发结石,LC＋LCBDE是最佳选择。总之,应根据患者实际病情及医院条件,个体化选择最适合患者的微创治疗方式。     

内镜与腹腔镜联合一期与二期治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石疗效的前瞻性研究

【摘要】 目的 探讨一期与二期腹腔镜联合内镜的不同治疗方法对胆囊结石同时合并胆总管结石患者的治疗疗效及安全性。 方法〓104例符合标准的患者分为2组:一期腹腔镜胆总管探查联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LCBDE+LC组,n=55)和二期内镜逆行性胰胆管造影术联合Oddi括约肌切开序贯腹腔镜胆囊切除术(ERCP/S+LC组,n=49)。分析探讨两组患者手术成功率、术后并发症和术后住院时间的差异。 结果〓两组患者在流行病学和临床病例特点方面无明显差异,提示两组患者具有可比性。LCBDE+LC组和ERCP/S+LC组的患者手术成功率相近(分别为90.0%和95.9%, P=0.309),但ERCP/S+LC组的患者结石清除率更高(分别为93.6%和80.0%, P=0.046),两组患者术后并发症发生率无明显差异。此外,两组患者在术后住院时间和总体住院费用方面亦相近。在术后随访期间,LCBDE+LC组和ERCP/S+LC组分别有5.9%(3/51)和6.3%(3/48)的患者发现胆总管结石残留,差异无显著的统计学意义。结论〓胆囊结石同时合并胆总管结石的一期和二期双镜联合治疗方法具有相近的成功率,术后并发症发生率相若,远期复发无明显差异,但二期双镜联合治疗的手术结石清除率更高。     

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with T-tube choledochotomy for the management of choledocholithiasis

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the gold standard for the management of gallstone disease, the application of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis has been slower. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of LCBDE. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare LCBDE (n = 82) with conventional common bile duct exploration (CCBDE) (n = 75) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) (n = 80) in the management of choledocholithiasis. All our LCBDEs were performed through choledochotomy with T-tube placement. The mean operative time of the LCBDE group (124 +/- 48 minutes) was not significantly longer then the CCBDE group (118 +/- 35 minutes), while the postoperative hospitalization was shorter in both the LCBDE (8 +/- 5 days) and EST (9 +/- 4 days) groups than in the CCBDE (13 +/- 6 days) group. In the LCBDE group, 14 patients (17.1%) required postoperative choledochoscopy to clear residual stones through the T-tube tract. The only mortality occurred in the CCBDE group. The morbidity rate was 3.7% (3/82) in the LCBDE group, including bile leakage in 1 case and bile peritonitis in 2 cases; 6.7% (5/75) in the CCBDE group, including atlectasis in 2 cases, sepsis in 1, and wound infection in 2. There were 2 cases of postoperative pancreatitis (2.5%; 2/80) in the EST group. The difference in the average number of sessions needed for complete clearance of choledocholithiasis in each group was statistically significant (EST, 1.46 +/- 0.67; LCBDE, 1.23 +/- 0.42; and CCBDE, 1.09 +/- 0.28; P < 0.0001). Our results suggested that EST and LCBDE tended to require more therapeutic sessions then CCBDE, although these sessions were less invasive. The benefits of LCBDE include minimal invasiveness, concurrent treatment of gallbladder stone and CBD stones in a single session, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. However a longer learning curve is needed. Selection of the most suitable therapeutic option for individual patients by an experienced surgeon gives the most benefits to patients.     

Primary Closure Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined with Intraoperative Cholangiography and Choledochoscopy

Background  

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has become one of the main options for treating choledocholithiasis associated with cholelithiasis. Our objective was to assess the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) compared with laparoscopic choledochotomy plus T-tube drainage.     

Current management of concomitant cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones

The management policy of concomitant cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis is based on a one-or two-stage procedure. It basically includes either laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) with laparoscopic common bile duct(CBD) exploration(LCBDE) in the same operation or LC with preoperative, postoperative and even intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-endoscopic sphincterotomy(ERCP-ES) for stone clearance. The most frequently used worldwide option is preoperative ERCP-ES and sto...     

LCBDE与ERCP＋EST结合LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的对比研究

目的 比较分析LC＋LCBDE和LC＋ EST＋ ERCP这两类手术方法治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效.方法 回顾性分析我院自2010年5月至2012年7月行收治的112例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的患者资料,随机化分组后分别接受两类手术方法的治疗,对两种治疗方法的手术时间、结石清除率、并发症、住院时间、住院费用以及病人的耐受程度进行比较.结果 两组手术的结石清除率没有显著性差异,LCBDE组的住院费用要略低于ERCP/S组,但无明显差异.ERCP/S组术后并发症发生率要高于LCBDE组,有显著性差异（P＞0.05）.结论 LC ＋LCBDE和LC＋ EST＋ ERCP均是治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的有效微创疗法,在临床上应根据各自特点进行使用.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石微创治疗方式疗效对比研究

目的 比较腹腔镜胆总管探查（LCBDE）+一期缝合（PS）+腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）、腹腔镜胆总管探查+T管引流术（TD）+腹腔镜胆囊切除术和经内镜逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）+腹腔镜胆囊切除术三种微创手术方式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法 收集2012年7月至2017年7月于北京大学深圳医院因胆总管结石行手术治疗的229例患者的临床资料,对比分析三种微创治疗方式的术前、术中、术后及住院时间及费用情况的差异评价三种手术方式之间差异。结果 三组患者在年龄、性别、术前ALT、术前TBil、胆总管直径、胆总管结石个数和胆总管结石最大直径的差异不具有统计学意义（P>0.05）;三组间术后TBIL、术后镇痛、术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;ERCP+LC组较LCBDE+PS组和LCBDE+TD组手术时间短、术中出血量少、术后腹腔引流时间及术后抗生素使用时间短,但中转率高、术后禁食时间长、ALT恢复慢;LCBDE+PS组较ERCP+LC组和LCBDE+TD组术后住院时间短;三组间的住院费用ERCP+LC组>LCBDE+TD组>LCBDE+PS组。结论 ERCP+LC组具有手术时间短、术中出血少、术后腹腔引流时间和使用抗生素时间短的优点,也存在手术中转率较高、术后禁食时间长的缺点。LCBDE+PS组较LCBDE+TD组术后恢复快,生活质量影响小,且并发症发生率未见明显增多。     

两种微创术式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石临床疗效的比较

目的:比较内镜逆行胰胆管造影(endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography,ERCP)/内镜十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)+腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)与LC+腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床疗效及安全性。方法:回顾分析2013年1月至2014年8月收治的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的临床资料,87例行ERCP/EST+LC(A组),71例行LC+LCBDE(B组)。结果:两组首次手术成功率(94.25%vs.92.96%,P=0.452)、中转开腹率(5.75%vs.7.04%,P=0.452)及术后并发症发生率(3.45%vs.2.82%,P=0.168)差异均无统计学意义,但B组手术时间[(105.7±9.2)min vs.(132.4±15.1)min,P=0.012]、住院时间[(5.5±2.8)d vs.(6.9±3.4)d,P=0.008]、住院费用[(5 347.1±672.1)元vs.(7 923.5±657.2)元,P=0.002]均少于A组。短期随访发现两组结石清除率无明显差别(97.7%vs.100%,P=0.219)。结论:ERCP/EST+LC、LC+LCBDE治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石同样安全、有效,LC+LCBDE在手术时间、住院时间及住院费用方面更具优势。因此,对于适当的病例,LC+LCBDE可作为首选的治疗方法。     

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。     

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。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除胆道探查取石术与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开取石联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术的疗效比较

目的 比较腹腔镜胆囊切除（laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC）胆道探查取石（laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE）与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)取石联合LC两种方法治疗继发性胆总管结石的疗效。方法 回顾性分析2008年1月至2009年12月我院收治的采用LC+ LCBDE或EST+ LC治疗的继发性胆总管结石患者的临床资料,对比两种方法的手术成功率、手术时间、术后并发症、残石率、住院时间、住院费用等。统计学处理,计数资料用X2检验,计量资料采用独立样本t检验。结果 共收治继发性胆总管结石患者163例,有87例行LC+ LCBDE,76例行EST +LC。二者相比,LC+ LCBDE手术时间较EST+ LC平均缩短30 min、住院时间缩短3d、术后并发症少、费用低,二者手术成功率、残石率无显著差异。结论 治疗继发性胆总管结石,LC+ LCBDE安全、有效,并发症少,在病情允许情况下,可作为首选方法。     

腹腔镜胆总管取石和内镜乳头切开取石治疗胆总管结石的回顾性分析

目的:分析两种微创手术方式:腹腔镜胆囊切除(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)结合胆总管取石术(laparoscopic common bile duct extraction,LCBDE)和内镜下乳头括约肌切开(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)取石联合LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人的疗效和安全性。方法:回顾近4年余胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人的临床资料,其中LC+LCBDE组40例,EST+LC组40例。比较两组手术成功率、结石清除率以及术后并发症发生率等指标。结果:LC+LCBDE组与EST+LC组手术成功率(97.5%比95.0%)、结石清除率(90.0%比92.5%)、术后近期并发症发生率(7.5%比5.0%)比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组都无围手术期死亡。LC+LCBDE组住院费用与住院时间低于EST+LC组(P<0.001)。LC+LCBDE组未发生远期并发症、无结石复发、EST+LC组2例结石复发和4例发生远期并发症(3例胆道感染、1例复发性胰腺炎)(15.0%)。结论:本研究显示,LC+LCBDE与EST+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效及安全性相似。LC+LCBDE治疗既保留了Oddi括约肌的功能,避免EST相关的潜在风险;同时缩短住院时间,降低住院费用。