腹腔镜胆囊切除术难易度相关因素分析及其评分标准的初探

目的建立腹腔镜(LC)难易程度的评分标准。方法对5年间实施LC的845例患者术前、术中临床资料进行单因素分析,筛选引起手术困难的危险因素后进行Logistic多元回归分析,并对诸因素进行赋值,建立LC难易程度的评分标准。结果胆囊壁增厚(≥4mm),胆总管直径(CBD≥8mm),胆囊体积(≥103cm3或<6.3cm3),胆囊本身炎症状况,胆囊三角致密粘连等因素是导致手术困难乃至中转开腹(OC)的危险因素。根据上述因素建立LC难易程度评分标准。结论 LC难易度评分标准的建立有利于临床选择LC或中转OC。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术转开腹可能性评分系统建立和运用

目的　根据术前临床资料建立预测腹腔镜胆囊切除术转开腹可能性的评分系统。方法　对邵逸夫医院 1994年 4月 4日至 2 0 0 1年 6月 30日的 7134例LC的术前临床资料进行单因素分析 ,筛选出中转开腹的危险因素 ,再进行logistic多元回归分析。男性、高龄 (≥ 6 5岁 )、上腹部手术史、糖尿病、总胆红素升高 (≥ 1 2mg/dl)、胆囊壁增厚 (≥ 4cm )、胆总管直径增宽 (≥ 8cm)、急性胆囊炎是转开腹的危险因素并被分别赋值 ,建立预测转开腹可能性的评分系统。计算 7134例LC的综合得分 ,比较不同得分组转开腹率。用ROC曲线评价该评分系统的效能。 2 0 0 1年 7月 1日至 2 0 0 1年 12月 31日 938例LC运用该评分系统 ,比较各得分组转开腹率的差异。结果　 7134例LC中各组得分越高 ,转开腹率越高 ,且多数相邻两组的转开腹率有显著性差异 (P <0 0 1)。ROC曲线以下面积为0 81,标准误为 0 0 1。 938例LC中的各组也是得分越高 ,转开腹率越高 ,且多数相邻两组的转开腹率有显著性差异 (P <0 0 5 )。结论　根据危险因素预测LC转开腹可能性 ,以指导临床工作。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除中转开腹手术的危险因素分析

目的：分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹手术的危险因素。方法：回顾分析我院5年间2 850例LC临床资料,采用单因素分析至Logistic多元回归分析推算出LC中转开腹的危险因素。结果：LC中转开腹手术115例,中转率为4.03%。LC中转开腹的危险因素有近半年胆囊炎急性发作≥2次,胆囊炎病史>2年,伴有右上腹体征（右上腹压痛、肝区叩痛、Murphy′s征阳性）,胆囊壁厚度≥3 mm和胆囊积液。结论：中转开腹的危险因素有近期胆囊炎发作频数、胆囊炎病史、右上腹体征、胆囊壁厚度和胆囊积液。术前仔细询问病史和完善检查,选择适合的LC患者和提高术者手术技术是降低LC中转开腹率的有效措施。对于存在危险因素的患者应适时的选择开腹手术。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹危险因素的分析

目的分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中转开腹的危险因素,为在保证安全前提下,降低中转开腹率提供参考。方法回顾分析328例LC患者的临床资料,采用Logistic回归分析方法,分析LC中转开腹的危险因素。结果 328例LC患者中转开腹26例,占7.93%,主要原因是Calot三角解剖不清(12/26,46.12%),腹腔粘连(9/26,34.62%)。墨菲氏征阳性、胆囊壁厚≥3mm、近6个月发作频数≥2次和黄疸为中转开腹的危险因素。结论对存在危险因素的患者,应术前做好中转开腹和适时选择开腹手术的准备。     

急性胆囊炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹相关风险因素的分析

目的:探讨致急性胆囊炎患者腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中转开腹的影响因素。方法:回顾分析2011年1月—2015年6温州医科大学附属浙江省台州市中心医院及台州医院1 161例急性胆囊炎行LC患者的临床资料,选择中转开腹的56例患者为研究组,随机选取78例顺利完成LC术患者为对照组,分析中转开腹的相关风险因素。结果:单因素分析表明,纤维蛋白原、白蛋白、糖尿病、胆囊壁厚度、是否胆囊坏疽、术中出血量均与LC中转开腹有关(均P0.05)。Logistic回归分析结果表明,低白蛋白(OR=1.258)、术中出血量(OR=0.988)是LC中转开腹独立危险因素(均P0.05)。结论:低白蛋白、纤维蛋白原、糖尿病、胆囊坏疽及胆囊壁增厚及术中出血量是LC中转开腹的危险因素。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹手术的临床分析

腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）已成为治疗胆囊良性疾病的首选方式。但国内对影响LC中转开腹手术的研究不多．本文对我院1995～2004年2120例LC中转开腹手术26例的术前临床资料进行分析，找出影响LC中转开腹手术的因素，现分析总结如下。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹200例危险因素分析

目的 分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）中转开腹的危险因素。方法 回顾性分析我院2006年3月至2014年5月9761例行LC的临床资料,其中中转开腹共200例,分析中转开腹的危险因素。结果 高龄（≥60岁）、有腹部手术史、急性炎症是LC中转开腹的危险因素。结论 对存在中转开腹危险因素的患者,术者应结合自身的腹腔镜技术慎重选择腹腔镜手术,这是降低LC中转开腹率、提高LC手术安全性的重要措施。     

不同手术时机腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性结石性胆囊炎的疗效及中转开腹影响因素研究

目的探讨不同手术时机腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗急性结石性胆囊炎的疗效及中转开腹的影响因素。方法回顾性分析120例急性结石性胆囊炎患者的临床资料,根据LC手术时机的不同,将症状出现48小时内者、症状出现48小时后手术者分别纳入早期组(n=67)、晚期组(n=53),比较不同组别患者围手术期相关指标,并对中转开腹的影响因素进行统计学分析。结果早期组患者手术时间及术中出血量均明显少于晚期组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);2组中转开腹率及并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。单因素分析显示,年龄≥65岁、体温≥38.5℃、WBC计数≥15×109/L、腹肌紧张、有上腹部手术史、结石嵌顿、胆囊壁厚度≥5mm是LC术中转开腹的影响因素(P0.05);经Logistic多元逐步回归分析,年龄、白细胞计数、胆囊壁厚度均为影响LC术中转开腹影响的独立危险因素(P0.05)。结论急性结石性胆囊炎早期进行LC术(发病48h内)具有手术时间短、术中出血量少的优势,年龄、白细胞计数、胆囊壁厚度均为影响LC术中转开腹的独立危险因素。     

36例腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹原因分析

分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中转开腹的原因。回顾性分析2011年10月—2015年1月1128例急症LC术和中转开腹36例患者临床资料,对中转开腹的因素进行单因素和Logistic多因素回归分析。结果显示,年龄、胆囊炎发作时间、上腹部手术史、合并糖尿病、BMI、胆囊壁厚度、手术出血量、手术时间、急性发病次数、并发症、术前白细胞计数、总胆红素水平、谷丙转氨酶水平均为LC术中转开腹的危险因素,Logistic回归分析年龄、胆囊壁厚度、合并糖尿病、胆囊炎发作时间为中转开腹的独立危险因素。结果表明,导致腹腔镜胆囊切除术中转开腹的危险因素包括年龄、胆囊壁厚度、胆囊炎发作时间、合并糖尿病等。     

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～     

腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术在复杂胆囊手术中的应用

目的　探讨胆囊大部分切除在复杂腹腔镜胆囊切除术中应用的可行性及安全性。　方法　对 1999～ 2 0 0 1年施行的 2 6例腹腔镜胆囊大部分切除术的方法、手术疗效及并发症进行了回顾分析。手术指征为化脓性胆囊炎、Mirris综合征Ⅰ型、Calot三角“冰冻样”改变、萎缩性胆囊炎、胆囊床与肝脏瘢痕样致密粘连等。　结果　手术时间为 (5 1± 16 5 )分钟 ,开始下床活动时间 (11± 4 3)小时 ,开始进食时间 (2 2± 8 5 )小时 ,住院时间 (4 5± 1 5 )天 ,术后胆漏 2例 ,均经保守治疗治愈。随访 6月～ 2 5月 ,未见与手术有关的并发症。　结论　在困难胆囊手术中 ,腹腔镜胆囊部分切除术可简化手术 ,降低手术风险 ,可收到胆囊造瘘与标准胆囊切除相结合的疗效。     

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.