腹腔镜胆道探查术后胆管一期缝合与T管引流的疗效比较

目的 比较分析腹腔镜胆道探查术后胆管一期缝合与T管引流两种方法治疗胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者的疗效。方法 依据6项病例筛选标准,将2000年1月至2003年2月55例因胆囊结石继发胆总管结石行腹腔镜胆管切开取石治疗的患者,随机分为胆管一期缝合组和T管引流组,比较观察两组的手术和住院时间、输液量、住院费用、术后恢复情况及手术并发症等。结果 胆管一期缝合组27例患者,T管引流组28例患者,一期缝合组较T管引流组术后住院时间更短,肛门排气和恢复正常工作更快,输液量和住院费用更少。一期缝合组手术并发症3例(11．1％),T管引流组手术并发症8例(28．6％),其中需再次外科手术治疗的严重并发症3例(10．7％),严重并发症均由放置T管造成。两组患者随访结果差异无显著性意义。结论 腹腔镜胆管切开取石术后胆管一期缝合避免了放置T管引起的一系列弊端,体现出微创外科技术的优越性,治疗适合的胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者是安全可行的。     

腹腔镜胆道探查术胆管一期缝合与T管引流的疗效比较

目的 比较腹腔镜胆道探查术胆管一期缝合与T 管引流两种方法治疗胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者的疗效.方法 根据腹腔镜胆管探查取石的胆总管内是否放置T管引流,将85例因胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者分为一期缝合组和T管引流组,比较两组的手术和住院时间、输液量、住院费用、术后恢复情况及手术并发症等.结果 一期缝合组较T管引流组的手术时间及术后住院时间更短、恢复正常工作更快、输液量和住院费用更少(P<0.05),两组手术并发症差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),均无再次手术.结论 腹腔镜胆管探查取石胆管一期缝合避免了放置T 管引起的一系列弊端,体现出微创技术的优越性,治疗适合的胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者是安全可行的.     

Cost-effective method for laparoscopic choledochotomy

BACKGROUND: Recent reports have noted that postoperative complications following open or laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct (CBD) exploration are mainly related to the T-tube presence, and that there has been no trend of decrease in the laparoscopic era. Laparoscopic endobiliary stent placement with primary closure of the CBD has been proposed as a safe and effective alternative to T-tube placement. METHODS: Between January 1999 and January 2003, 53 consecutive patients suffering from proven choledocholithiasis underwent laparoscopic common bile exploration (LCBDE) via choledochotomy. In the early period, a T-tube was placed at the end of the procedure (group A, n = 32) while, from June 2001 onwards, laparoscopic biliary stent placement and primary CBD closure were chosen as the drainage method (group B, n = 21). RESULTS: Six patients developed T-tube-related complications postoperatively. Univariate analysis revealed statistically significant lower morbidity rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay for the stent group. Although not statistically significant, a median saving of 780 UK pounds per patient was observed in the stent group. CONCLUSION: Biliary endoprosthesis placement following laparoscopic choledochotomy avoids the well-known complications of a T-tube, leading to a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The method is safe and effective and it should also be considered as cost-effective compared to T-tube placement. Further studies are required in order to document cost-effectiveness of the method.     

腹腔镜胆道探查胆总管一期缝合术治疗胆管结石的疗效分析

目的探讨腹腔镜下胆道探查术、胆总管一期缝合术的临床疗效与可行性。方法2014年2月至2017年2月收集贵州医科大学附属医院106例胆总管结石病人,男性44例、女性62例,年龄18~75岁,平均(46.5±15.7)岁。106例胆总管结石病人,伴或不伴胆囊结石与肝内胆管结石,其中腹腔镜下胆道探查胆总管一期缝合术67例,腹腔镜下胆道探查T管引流术39例,对两组病例手术适应证、手术时间、术后恢复情况、并发症等进行比较。结果胆总管一期缝合组的手术时间、术后住院天数、腹腔引流管放置时间分别为(72.8±21.0)min、(2.8±1.9)d和(5.5±2.3)d,优于T管引流术组的(95.5±26.5)min、(5.7±1.4)d和(8.1±2.6)d(均P0.05),术后肛门排气时间两组分别为(1.9±0.8)d和(2.1±0.5)d、差异无统计学意义;两组均无肝衰竭、腹腔感染、胆管残余结石、胆道出血及穿孔,胆漏发生率T管引流术组(3例)高于胆总管一期缝合组(0例)(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜胆道探查胆总管一期缝合术治疗胆管结石是安全、可行的,病人明显受益,值得临床推广应用。     

Transcystic biliary decompression after direct laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct

Background: A purpose-designed transcystic common bile duct (CBD) decompression cannula is described for use as an alternative to T-tube insertion following laparoscopic direct CBD exploration. This permits safe primary closure of the choledochotomy. Methods: Following direct supraduodenal laparoscopic clearance of large common bile duct stones, the biliary decompression cannula is inserted percutaneously inside its peel-away sheet over a guide-wire into the CBD via the cystic duct. When in place, the cannula is secured to the cystic duct by two catgut extracorporeal Roeder knots and the choledochotomy is then closed. The terminal multiperforated S-shaped segment of the Cuschieri biliary decompression cannula prevents postoperative dislodgement. Results: Transcystic decompression of the extrahepatic biliary tract using the Cuschieri cannula has been used in 12 patients who underwent laparoscopic supraduodenal CBD exploration for large or occluding stones. There was no instance of postoperative dislodgement of the cannula and all patients had effective drainage of the common bile duct (average 300 ml bile per 24 h). The procedure was uncomplicated in all but one patient who developed self-limiting leakage from the CBD suture line in the early postoperative period. The median hospital stay after surgery was 4 days, with a range of 3 to 10 days. The cystic duct decompression cannula was capped and sealed under an occlusive dressing at the time of discharge. Removal of the cannula was carried out without any complications as a day case 11–16 days after surgery. Conclusions: Transcystic biliary decompression is safe and effective. The experience with is use indicates that compared to T-tube drainage, transcystic decompression may accelerate recovery and reduce the hospital stay in patients following laparoscopic direct exploration of the CBD. Its insertion is less technically demanding than placing a T-tube through the choledochotomy. Transcystic decompression with complete primary closure of the CBD realizes the full benefits of the single-stage management of common bile duct calculi and permits confirmation of complete stone clearance after surgery.     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: transcystic approach and choledochotomy

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration by the transcystic approach and choledochotomy. We selected the transcystic approach for patients whose CBD stones were less than five in number and smaller than 9 mm in diameter, and whose CBD was less than 15 mm in diameter on cholangiograms. Among 217 patients with CBD stones treated laparoscopically, the transcystic approach was performed successfully in 91 of 104 patients in whom it was attempted (87.5%). The other 126 patients underwent laparoscopic choledochotomy, followed by ductal closure with transcystic drainage in 59, T-tube drainage in 46, primary ductal closure in 19, and choledochoduodenostomy in 1. Choledochotomy was converted to open surgery in only 1 patient. The transcystic approach was associated with shorter hospital stay and less morbidity than choledochotomy. However, choledochotomy also had an acceptably low rate of complications. Bile leaks occurred more frequently in those with primary ductal closure than in those with transcystic drainage or T-tube drainage. Residual stones were found in 2 patients with the transcystic approach and in 10 with choledochotomy. The residual stones were removed through the T-tube tract by choledochoscopy in 7 of these 10 patients. From these results we conclude that laparoscopic management of CBD stones is feasible for almost all patients with CBD stones. It is considered to be safe and effective and has the advantage of being a single-stage procedure. Received: July 7, 2000 / Accepted: October 26, 2000     

Advantages of laparoscopic stented choledochorrhaphy over T-tube placement

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications after laparoscopic choledochotomy are mainly related to the T tube. Both laparoscopic endobiliary stent placement with primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) and primary closure of the CBD without drainage have been proposed as safe and effective alternatives to T tube placement. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on 53 consecutive patients suffering from proven choledocholithiasis who underwent laparoscopic CBD exploration through a choledochotomy between January 1999 and January 2003. In the early period a T tube was placed at the end of the procedure (n = 32). Biliary stent placement and primary CBD closure was performed from June 2001 (n = 21). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in epidemiological characteristics, preoperative factors or intraoperative findings between the groups. Seven patients developed complications, six in the T tube group and one in the stent group. Univariate analysis revealed a significantly lower morbidity rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay in the stent group. CONCLUSION: Placement of a biliary endoprosthesis after laparoscopic choledochotomy achieves biliary decompression, and avoids the complications of a T tube, leading to a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The method is a safe and effective alternative method of CBD drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy.     

Laparoscopic C-tube drainage via cystic duct following common bile duct exploration

Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration has come into practice with the development of laparoscopic techniques and instrumentation. However, the use of a T-tube for biliary drainage lessens the advantages of laparoscopic surgery, i.e., short hospital stay and good cosmesis. We have performed CBD exploration by laparoscopic chledochotomy followed by transcystic biliary drainage using a 6 French vinyl tube (C-tube) instead of a T-tube and primary closure of the choledochotomy. The C-tube could be removed within 7 days postoperatively because the cystic duct was ligated with an elastic thread. Twelve patients with CBD stones were successfully treated by this new technique and there was no morbidity attributable to the procedure.     

胆总管结石腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合与T管引流的临床比较

目的:比较胆总管结石腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)后一期缝合与T管引流的临床疗效。方法:回顾分析2012年1月—2014年12月接受LCBDE的142例胆总管结石患者临床资料,其中一期缝合75例,放置T管引流67例,比较两种方式的相关临床指标并分析术后并发症的危险因素。结果:两种手术方式患者间,术前指标除性别有所差异外(P=0.028),其余均无统计学差异(均P0.05);手术时间、术后并发症发生率、手术死亡率、结石复发率均无统计学差异(均P0.05),一期缝合患者术后住院时间明显低于放置T管患者(P0.05)。两种手术方式的主要并发症均为胆瘘,其中一期缝合者发生7例(9.3%),T管引流者发生8例(11.9%);比较胆瘘患者与无胆瘘患者间相关因素,未发现术后胆瘘相关风险因素(均P0.05)。结论:LCBDE后一期缝合治疗胆总管结石安全有效,其效果与放置T管引流相似且术后住院时间明显缩短。胆瘘的相关风险因素还有赖于大样本的数据资料及前瞻性随机对照研究确定。     

Comparison of laparoscopic choledochotomy closure techniques

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (CBDE) has traditionally been accompanied by T-tube drainage. However, other methods of choledochotomy closures have been reported. This study compared three laparoscopic methods of choledochotomy closure in a prospective, randomized fashion to determine which method should be the preferred technique. METHODS: In this porcine model, 24 animals initially underwent laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) clipping to simulate an obstruction. Two days later, the animals underwent laparoscopic clip removal and simulated CBDE through a 1.5-cm choledochotomy. The animals were then randomized to one of three groups: primary choledochotomy closure (group I), antegrade CBD stenting with primary closure (group II), or T-tube placement (group III). To assess for CBD stenoses and leaks, the animals were killed 2 months postoperatively, at which time a cholangiogram was performed and the bile duct harvested. The ratio of proximal CBD to choledochotomy site was assessed radiographically and histologically. RESULTS: The operative time was significantly longer in group III (200 +/- 13 min, p < 0.05) than in group I (141 +/- 17 min) and group II (154 +/- 16 min). The ratio of the proximal CBD diameter to the choledochotomy site diameter by cholangiogram was 2.1:1.0 in group I, to 1.2:1.0 in group II, and 1.1:1.0 in group III (p < 0.01). The ratio of the proximal CBD intraluminal area to the choledochotomy site intraluminal area was 2.1:1.0 in group I compared to 1.1:1.0 in groups II and III (p < 0.01). None of the animals developed jaundice or sepsis. CONCLUSION: Significant stenoses were present at the choledochotomy site in the primary closure group, and T-tube placement resulted in prolonged operative times. We conclude that laparoscopic antegrade CBD stenting with primary closure of the choledochotomy site is the preferred technique after choledochotomy in an animal model. Further assessment in a clinical trial is warranted.     

腹腔镜下经胆囊管取石及胆囊管内置管(C管)在胆道外科中的应用

目的:对比研究腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石术与腹腔镜下经胆囊管取石术,胆囊管置管(C管)在胆道外科中的应用。方法:回顾调查1995年10月至2004年12月术前经影像学证实为胆总管结石的89例患者。结果:腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石T管引流35例,术后残留结石2例,胆漏4例,放置T管(24±5.6)d。经胆囊管取石C管引流39例,术后残留结石2例,无胆漏,C管放置(8±4.5)d,与T管引流组差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论:腹腔镜下经胆囊管取石是值得推荐的方法。经胆囊管路径,不仅可用胆总管取石后的引流,且可在胆道外科诸方面发挥作用。     

One hundred laparoscopic choledochotomies with primary closure of the common bile duct

BACKGROUND: Several technical approaches for laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) exist. Laparoscopic choledochotomy is required in some situations and whenever a transcystic approach fails. Biliary drainage after choledochotomy has a 5% morbidity rate and avoidance of biliary drains might therefore further improve the results of LCBDE. The authors report a prospective multicentric evaluation of laparoscopic choledochotomy with completion choledochoscopy and primary duct closure without any biliary drainage. METHODS: Between October 1991 and December 1997, 100 patients from four surgical centers underwent this approach for CBD stones. Choledocholithiasis had been demonstrated preoperatively in 35 patients (35%), suspected in 52 and was incidentally found during routine intraoperative cholangiography in 13 patients. External ultrasound was the only preoperative imaging investigation in 87 patients. LCBDE was attempted irrespective of age, ASA score, or the circumstances leading to the preoperative diagnosis or suspicion of CBD stones (acute cholecystitis in 33% of patients, cholangitis in 10%, or mild acute pancreatitis in 6% of all patients). RESULTS: The technique was equally feasible in all participating centers (University hospital, general hospital, or private practices). Vacuity of the CBD was achieved in all patients without mortality. Eleven patients had complications and 3 patients required a laparoscopic reintervention. Median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days (range: 1-26). No patient required additional CBD procedures during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In case of LCBDE, choledochotomy with primary closure without external drainage of the CBD is a safe and efficient alternative, even in patients with acute cholecystitis, cholangitis, or pancreatitis, provided that choledochoscopy visualizes a patent CBD. This technique is applicable in all types of medical institutions if required laparoscopic skills and equipment are available.     

腹腔镜胆道探查术胆总管Ⅰ期缝合与T管引流的疗效比较

目的探讨腹腔镜胆道探查术胆总管一期缝合与T管引流两种方法治疗胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法选择我院2010年4月至2013年3月行手术治疗胆总管结石患者60例,其中行胆总管一期缝合30例作为缝合组,T管引流30例作为引流组。观察并比较两组临床疗效结果。结果缝合组在术后排气恢复时间、术后住院天数、术后输液量方面均优于对照组(P0.05),两组手术并发症差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜胆道探查术胆总管一期缝合治疗胆总管结石避免了放置T管引起的一系列弊端,是目前治疗胆总管结石的理想微创术式之一,临床上值得推广应用。     

Trend towards primary closure following laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was the assessment of patient outcome, peri-operative complications, length of stay and duration of operation after laparoscopic primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) compared with choledochotomy with T-tube drainage and trans-cystic exploration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data on 71 explorations of the common bile duct between July 2001 and March 2006.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients had exploration of the CBD. Within this group, 12 were referred after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The methods of exploration included trans-cystic (9 cases), choledochotomy with Ttube (12), and choledochotomy with primary closure (50). CBD stones were found in 66 patients. In the remaining cases, we found a stricture in 1, debris in 2, and dilatation of the CBD without a stone in 2. There were 5 conversions to open technique and 3 patients required postoperative ERCP (1 with permanent stenting). Peri-operative complications included T-tube (3), primary closure group (9), and trans-cystic (0). There was no statistical significant difference (Chi-square test, P = 0.296) between the groups. There was a trend towards a shorter length of stay in the primary closure group as compared with the trans-cystic and T-tube groups of 4.16, 4.44, and 6.33 days, respectively. However, it did not reach statistical significance (one-way analysis of variance with Boneferroni correction, mean difference between groups 1.89, 0.28, 2,17, statistical significance at P < 0.05). The shortest operating time was in the primary closure group (95.92 min) which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). We did not use a biliary drain in the last 48 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary laparoscopic closure of the CBD is safe and results in a reduction in operating time. Choledochoscopy ensures clearance of the CBD and eliminates the need for T-tube.     

Is a T-tube Necessary after Common Bile Duct Exploration?

BACKGROUND: T-tube drainage used to be standard practice after surgical choledocholithotomy, but there is now a tendency in some centers to close the common bile duct (CBD) primarily. This study was designed to review the complications associated with T-tube drainage after CBD exploration and to determine whether primary closure of the bile duct reduces postoperative morbidity. METHODS: A retrospective audit was performed on patients undergoing CBD exploration between July 1997 and March 2007, who were identified from the theatre database of one teaching hospital. Intraoperative findings and postoperative complications were recorded from the clinical notes. RESULTS: During the study period, 158 patients (97 women; median age 65 (range, 25-90) years) underwent CBD exploration. A T-tube was inserted in 91 patients (group I) and the CBD was closed primarily in 67 (group II). One or more biliary complications occurred in 26 patients (16.5%): 20 (22.0%) in group I and 6 (8.9%) in group II (p = 0.03). In group I, 15 had a biliary leak (3 needed reoperation), 2 had accidental slippage of the tube, 2 an entrapped T-tube, and 1 a retained stone. In group II, six patients had biliary leakage, two of whom were re-explored. Six patients in group I also had peritubal infection, necessitating the use of antibiotics. There were three deaths: two in group I (1 T-tube-related) and 1 in group II (p = 1, not significant). CONCLUSION: There is a lower biliary complication rate associated with primary closure of the CBD than after T-tube drainage.     

Primary Closure of the Common Duct over Endonasobiliary Drainage Tubes

The T-tube remains the standard method of intraductal drainage after open choledochotomy for choledocholithiasis. We studied the use of an endonasobiliary drainage (ENBD) tube as an alternative to the T-tube for postoperative intraductal drainage. A series of 20 patients with documented choledocholithiasis in whom endoscopic methods of stone retrieval failed to clear the common bile duct (CBD) were selected for the study. All patients had ENBD tubes placed preoperatively at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography and then were subjected to open choledocholithotomy with primary closure of the choledochotomy over the ENBD. The age of the patients in the study group ranged from 18 to 75 years. Three patients (15%) had acute cholangitis at the time of surgery. Stones were confirmed at surgery in 85% of the patients, and the size of the CBD was found to range from 1.0 to 2.3 cm. All 20 patients underwent closure of the common duct over an ENBD tube without any difficulty. None of the patients experienced biliary complications such as bile leaks, biliary peritonitis, biliary fistula, pancreatitis, or cholangitis. No patient had any residual stone as documented by postoperative cholangiograms. Abdominal drains remained in place for 2 to 4 days, and the ENBD tubes were removed between days 6 and 8. The length of the postoperative hospital stay varied from 7 to 15 days, with 65% of the patients going home before postoperative day 8.     

自制胆道内引流管在腹腔镜胆总管手术中的应用

目的:探讨自制胆道内引流管在腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)并一期缝合术中的应用价值。方法:选择2013年1月—2014年6月收治的63例胆总管结石患者,其中25例应用自制胆道内引流管行LCBDE一期缝合并内引流术(自制内引流管组),38例行LCBDE并常规T形管引流术(常规T形管引流组),比较两组的相关临床指标。结果:与常规T形管引流组比较,自制内引流管组手术时间与术中出血量差异无统计学意义(均P0.05);自制内引流管组术后离床时间、术后住院时间、住院费用均明显减少(均P0.05),但胃肠功能恢复时间无统计学差异(P0.05)。内引流管术后随粪便排出的时间为(11.2±2.6)d,1例(4.0%)未能顺利排管,后于胃镜下取出。结论:LCBDE一期缝合自制引流管内引流在胆总管结石治疗上有传统术式不具备的优势。     

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus T-tube

Background

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is now one of the main methods for treating choledocholithiasis accompanied with cholelithiasis. The objective of our study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic primary closure for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones compared with T-tube drainage.

Methods

Patients who underwent CBD stones were studied prospectively from 2002–2012 in a single center. A total of 194 patients were randomly assigned to group A (LCBDE with primary closure) with 101 cases and group B (LCBDE with T-tube drainage) with 93 cases. Intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy were performed in all patients. Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, postoperative stay, complications, and hospital expenses were recorded and analyzed.

Results

There was no mortality in the two groups. Four patients (3.96%) of group A were converted to open surgery, and three patients (3.23%) in group B. The mean operating time was much shorter in group A than in group B (102.6 ± 15.2 min versus 128.6 ± 20.4 min, P < 0.05). The length of postoperative hospital stay was longer in group B (4.9 ± 3.2 d) than in group A (3.2 ± 2.1 d). The hospital expenses were significantly lower in group A. Three patients experienced postoperative complications, which were related to the usage of the T-tube in group B. The incidences of overall postoperative complications were insignificantly lower in group A.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic primary closure of CBD is safe and effective for the management of CBD stones, and can be performed routinely as an alternative to T-tube drainage.     

Laparoscopic primary choledochorrhaphy over endonasobiliary drainage tubes

Background The T-tube is widely used in laparoscopic choledochotomy to decompress the biliary tree. However, there are high morbidity rates related to the T-tube. This study reviewed the results of laparoscopic primary choledochorrhaphy over endonasobiliary drainage (ENBD) tubes to find an effective alternative to the T-tube for the performance of laparoscopic choledochotomy. Methods From March 2003 to September 2005, 23 patients (9 men and 14 women) with choledocholithiasis underwent laparoscopic choledochotomy over ENBD tubes. The mean age of these patients was 47 years (range, 32–73 years). At admission, six patients had cholangitis. All the patients had ENBD tubes placed preoperatively after the failure of endoscopic sphincterotomy. Results There was no conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time was 90 min (range, 70–150 min). There were no biliary complications such as bile leaks, biliary peritonitis, or pancreatitis. No residual stones were found by postoperative cholangiograms. The ENBD tubes were removed between postoperative days 7 and 9. The hospital stay ranged from 8 to 14 days, with 16 patients (70%) discharged on postoperative day 8. The complications were limited to one umbilical infection and one case of pneumonia. The median follow-up period was 24 months (range, 8–36 months), and none of the patients were readmitted with biliary symptoms. Conclusion Laparoscopic choledochotomy over ENBD tubes proved to be technically feasible and safe. The ENBD tube decompresses the biliary tree and allows for cholangiography after surgery. Its removal does not need to wait for tract maturation, which allows an earlier removal of the tube and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. Laparoscopic choledochotomy over ENBD tubes is an effective alternative to the T-tube in laparoscopic choledochotomy.     

腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术T管处理的探讨

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后T管的处理方法。方法1997年7月-2004年10月，我院行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石（laparoscopic common bile duct exploration，LCBDE）、置T管治疗肝外或肝外合并肝内胆管结石420例。明确有胆总管结石后，胆总管切开取石，胆总管一期缝合或置T管。结果胆总管切开取石一期缝合27例（6．4％），置T管393例（93．6％）。术中取尽结石236例（56．2％），术后胆道镜取石184例（43．8％）。209例术后3-4周行经T管胆道造影，无残余结石，拔除T型管。420例随访3个月-6年。平均47．5月，3例复发。结论腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后T管拔管时间，T管造影无残留结石拔管时间应3—4周，T管造影有残留结石，应于术后6周胆道镜取石后拔管，均闭管2周。