腹腔镜胆总管探查取石与内镜ERCP/EST联合LC治疗胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石的临床对比研究

【目的】评价腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术(LCBDE)与内镜逆行胆管造影、括约肌切开取石术(ER CP/EST)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石的临床效果,探讨胆石症的微创外科治疗策略。【方法】回顾性分析152例胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石病人分别采用LC LCBDE术(68例)、内镜EST联合LC术(84例)治疗的临床资料, 进行胆总管内径、结石大小、手术时间、手术费用、并发症发生率、术后住院日等方面的统计学对比分析。【结果】两种术式的术后住院日差异无显著性(P>0. 05),手术时间、手术费用、并发症发生率等方面比较差异有显著性(P<0. 01 ), 且两者的胆总管内径、结石大小相比较有差别。【结论】胆总管直径小于1. 0cm,尤其胆总管下端结石嵌顿时宜采用内镜、腹腔镜联合手术治疗;胆总管直径大于1. 0cm或多发结石,尤其并存二级支肝管结石者(无胆管狭窄),腹腔镜下一期手术LC LCBDE是治疗胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石的最佳选择。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术后胆管一期缝合的临床应用分析

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开探查术后胆管一期缝合的可行性、疗效及适应证.方法 回顾2007年1月～2011年3月99例因胆囊胆总管结石病行腹腔镜胆管切开取石治疗的临床资料.结果 一期缝合组39例,T管引流组60例,一期缝合组较T管引流组手术时间及术后住院时间短、住院费用少和恢复正常生活快(P＜0.05).一期缝合组手术并发症1例(2.6％),T管引流组手术并发症2例(3.3％),与放置T管有关.两组随访结果差异无显著性.结论 LCBDE一期缝合具高效、创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少等优点,是当前微创治疗胆囊胆总管结石病的最合适的选择.     

不同手术方案在复杂胆总管结石患者中的效果研究*

目的探讨内窥镜括约肌切开术(EST)或内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)和腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床治疗效果。方法选取2013年6月-2015年6月该院收治的复杂胆总管结石患者80例为研究对象,根据患者采取的手术方案,将患者分为EST+LC组(38例)和LCBDE+LC+ERCP组(42例)。比较两组患者的一般临床资料、治疗效果、术后并发症发生率及肝功能相关指标情况。结果 LCBDE+LC+ERCP组结石最大直径、胆总管直径均大于EST+LC组,其结石数量明显多于EST+LC组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。与EST+LC组相比,ERCP+LC+LCBDE组单次手术成功率较高,手术时间短,但其手术费用亦较高,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);取石成功率、中转开腹率及住院时间在两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。ERCP+LC+LCBDE组术后并发症发生率为21.43%(9/42),EST+LC组术后并发症发生率为26.32%(10/38),两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者术后1 d的血清直接胆红素、丙氨酸转氨酶及天冬氨酸转氨酶均轻度升高,术后3 d两组患者各指标均恢复正常水平。结论 LCBDE+LC+ERCP以及EST+LC两种手术方案均是治疗复杂胆总管结石的有效方法,其中LCBDE+LC+ERCP手术成功率高,手术时间较短,对较大的结石更有优势。     

Common bile duct morphology is associated with recurrence of common bile duct stones in Billroth II anatomy patients

BACKGROUNDEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary choice for removing common bile duct (CBD) stones in Billroth II anatomy patients. The recurrence of CBD stones is still a challenging problem.AIMTo evaluate CBD morphology and other predictors affecting CBD stone recurrence.METHODSA retrospective case-control analysis was performed on 138 CBD stones patients with a history of Billroth II gastrectomy, who underwent therapeutic ERCP for stone extraction at our center from January 2011 to October 2020. CBD morphology and other predictors affecting CBD stone recurrence were examined by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis.RESULTSCBD morphology (P < 0.01) and CBD diameter ≥ 1.5 cm (odds ratio [OR] = 6.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.87-20.24, P < 0.01) were the two independent risk factors. In multivariate analysis, the recurrence rate of patients with S type was 16.79 times that of patients with straight type (OR = 16.79, 95%CI: 4.26-66.09, P < 0.01), the recurrence rate of patients with polyline type was 4.97 times that of patients with straight type (OR = 4.97, 95%CI: 1.42-17.38, P = 0.01), and the recurrence rate of S type patients was 3.38 times that of patients with polyline type (OR = 3.38, 95%CI: 1.07-10.72, P = 0.04).CONCLUSIONCBD morphology, especially S type and polyline type, is associated with increased recurrence of CBD stones in Billroth II anatomy patients.     

胆道支架和鼻胆管引流在腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合中的应用

目的 对比胆道支架和鼻胆管引流在腹腔镜胆总管探查术（LCBDE）后一期缝合中的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2016年8月－2021年1月在该院行内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）取石失败的74例患者的临床资料，分为支架引流组（n = 38）和鼻胆管引流组（n = 36）。支架引流组ERCP取石失败后放置胆道支架引流，鼻胆管引流组ERCP取石失败后放置鼻胆管引流，两组患者均行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石一期缝合术。比较两组患者手术时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症发生率、术后肠道功能恢复时间、术后胆总管结石复发率和住院时间。结果 两组患者胆管缝合方式、手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症总发生率和住院费用比较，差异均无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。鼻胆管引流组术后胆瘘发生率明显低于支架引流组，住院时间明显短于支架引流组，术后肠道功能恢复时间明显长于支架引流组，术后总补液量多于支架引流组，差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。结论 ERCP取石失败后放置鼻胆管引流，可降低LCBDE术后一期缝合的胆瘘发生率，缩短住院时间，但放置胆道支架引流患者肠道功能恢复更快，补液量更少。因此，在临床操作中，应根据患者具体情况，选择相应的个体化引流方式。     

Managing concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era: a systematic review

Background: There is still no consensus on the ideal management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. This article aims to review the management of concomitant gallbladder stones and CBD stones in the laparoscopic era. Method: A PubMed database search was performed to identify MEDLINE articles from 1986 to 2010 using the key terms “common bile duct stones,”“cholecystectomy,”“bile duct exploration,”“ERCP” (endoscopic retrograde cholangiography), and “endoscopic sphincterotomy.” Results: There were five randomized comparative trials (RCT) comparing sequential preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Two RCTs showed similar stone clearance rates and shorter hospital stays in the LCBDE group, while three RCTs showed similar stone clearance rates and hospital stays in sequential preoperative ERCP, LC and LCBDE groups. There were two RCTs comparing LCBDE to sequential LC and postoperative ERCP. One showed similar stone clearance rate and shorter hospital stay in LCBDE group, while the other showed similar stone clearance rate and hospital stay. There were three RCTs comparing sequential preoperative ERCP and LC against LC with intraoperative ERCP. All three studies showed similar stone clearance rates and shorter hospital stays in the intraoperative ERCP group. There was only one RCT comparing sequential preoperative ERCP and LC against sequential LC and postoperative ERCP. This showed a similar stone clearance rate and shorter hospital stay in the postoperative ERCP group. Conclusion: Different management approaches of concomitant gallbladder stones and CBD stones were equivalent in efficacy. However, one‐stage management had the advantage of providing a shorter hospital stay.     

内镜逆行胰胆管造影术取石失败后即行腹腔镜胆总管探查术的临床观察

目的对于胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石患者,探讨内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)治疗肝外胆管结石不成功时如何选择治疗方式及时机。方法 12例胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石拟分期行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)+ERCP患者,行常规ERCP治疗失败,立即静吸复合全麻下完成LC+胆管探查取石术(LCBDE)。结果12例患者均顺利完成LC+LCBDE,并取净结石。术后3例出现高淀粉血症,全组无胆漏、肠漏、胆管炎、胰腺炎和胆道出血等并发症发生。结论对于ERCP治疗不成功的患者,急诊行LCBDE是安全、可行的补救措施。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术联合胆总管探查取石术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果

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)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果。方法选择2017年3月至2020年3月收治的47例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者为研究对象,将其随机分为对照组(n=23)和观察组(n=24),对照组予以LC联合内窥镜括约肌切开术(EST)治疗,观察组予以LC联合LCBDE治疗,比较两组的治疗效果。结果观察组的手术时间、恢复排气时间、住院时间短于对照组,术中出血量少于对照组(P<0.05)。术后3 d,观察组的GAS、MTL水平明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。两组的结石清除率无显著差异(P>0.05)。术后3 d,观察组的E、Cor、NE水平均低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论LC联合LCBDE治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的结石清除率高,且对胃肠功能影响小,可减轻机体应激反应,安全性高。     

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for retained common bile duct stones

Retained common bile duct stones (CBDS) become a challenging problem when percutaneous and endoscopic methods fail. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a noninvasive and effective treatment modality, and can be used as an alternative treatment of retained CBDS. We report our experience with 20 patients who had retained CBDS, using a second-generation electromagnetic lithotriptor. Thirteen patients who had cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration, with stone extraction and T-tube drainage, were in the early postoperative period. Seven patients had undergone previous endoscopic sphincterotomy and nasobiliary drainage. Fourteen patients had only one ESWL session. Stone fragmentation rates were 100% and 57% in patients with T-tube and nasobiliary catheter, respectively. The overall stone fragmentation rate was 85% and complete stone clearance was achieved in all these patients (85%). Complications were mild and relatively infrequent (20%). There was no mortality. We conclude that ESWL for retained CBDS is a safe, effective and minimally-invasive treatment modality. ESWL should be considered as a significant alternative to surgery when endoscopic and percutaneous treatment modalities are not successful.     

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration to treat choledocholithiasis in situs inversus patients: A technical review

Situs inversus (SI) is a rare congenital condition characterized by a mirror-image transposition of the major visceral organs. Since the 1990s, more than one hundred SI patients have been reported to have successfully undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In these cases, the major problem is to overcome is the left-right condition for right-handed surgeons. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), an alternative to treat patients with bile duct stones, has shown equivalent efficacy and is less likely to cause pancreatitis than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Recent updated meta-analyses revealed that a shorter postoperative hospital stay, fewer procedural interventions, cost-effectiveness, a higher stone clearance rate, and fewer perioperative complications are additional advantages of LCBDE. However, the technique is technically demanding, even for skilled laparoscopic surgeons. Conducting LCBDE in patients with difficult situations, such as SI, is more complex than usual. We herein review published SI patients with choledocholithiasis treated by LCBDE, including our own experience, and this paper focuses on the technical aspects.     

急诊腹腔镜下胆总管探查

目的探讨腹腔镜联合胆道镜急诊处理胆总管结石的可行性。方法回顾分析46例腹腔镜联合胆道镜急诊处理胆总管结石的临床效果。结果46例急诊腹腔镜下胆总管探查均成功，结石取净率为100％。其中腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石35例，腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆道镜探查取石11例，两者术后平均住院时间分别为4d、2．5d，1例T管拔后并发胆漏经保守治疗后治愈。结论腹腔镜联合胆道镜能安全、有效急诊处理胆总管结石。     

胆囊并发胆总管结石患者的微创外科治疗研究

目的探究胆囊并发胆总管结石患者的微创外科治疗。方法选取2013年1月-2018年1月该院收治的92例胆囊并发胆总管结石患者为研究对象,采用随机数字表法将患者分为对照组(n=46)和观察组(n=46)。两组患者中存在胰腺炎的患者先行控制腹膜炎,对照组患者行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)联合胆总管探查取石术(LCBDE),观察组患者行十二指肠乳头括约肌切开取石术(EST),术后3 d行LC治疗。比较两组患者围术期情况、费用情况和并发症情况。结果两组患者均未出现中转开腹手术情况,观察组患者的手术时间、止痛药使用率、住院时间均低于对照组患者,耗材费用和住院总费用多于对照组患者,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者的术中出血量、术后排气时间和手术费用比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组患者各项并发症总发生率为6.51%低于对照组患者的19.53%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论胆囊并发胆总管结石患者控制腹膜炎后行EST+LC治疗较LC+LCBDE治疗能够缩短手术时间,减轻术后疼痛,降低并发症发生率,缩短住院时间,但所需费用较高。     

内镜治疗胆总管结石合并胆总管十二指肠乳头旁瘘的疗效及安全性分析

目的 探讨内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）经瘘口或原始乳头治疗胆总管结石合并胆总管十二指肠乳头旁瘘（PCDF）的临床疗效及安全性。方法 回顾性分析2008年1月－2019年12月该院收治的259例胆总管结石合并PCDF患者的临床资料,根据不同取石方式,分为乳头组（n = 141）和瘘口组（n = 118）,比较两组患者一次性取石成功率、总取石成功率、机械碎石率、操作时间、术中扩张或切开使用率和术后并发症发生率。结果 共9 390例患者行ERCP下胆总管结石取石。其中,259例（2.8%）胆总管结石合并PCDF。经瘘口胆管造影成功率为100.0%,145例因各种原因经十二指肠乳头胆总管插管造影,成功率为97.2%（141/145）。两组患者一次性取石成功率［77.1%（91/118）和79.4%（112/141）,P = 0.652］、取石总成功率［86.4%（102/118）和87.9%（124/141）,P = 0.718］、机械碎石率［9.3%（11/118）和8.5%（12/141）,P = 0.819］和操作时间［（19.83±12.24）和（18.52±11.90）min,P = 0.500］比较,差异均无统计学意义。瘘口组术中使用切开或扩张的比例明显低于乳头组［44.9%（53/118）和88.7%（125/141）,P < 0.05］,瘘口组术后急性胰腺炎［0.0%（0/118）和9.2%（13/141）］和并发症总发生率［5.1%（6/118）和22.0%（31/141）］低于乳头组,差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。结论 胆总管结石合并PCDF,经瘘口行ERCP取石,可达到经原始乳头取石的同等疗效,且可降低术后急性胰腺炎发生率,操作更简单。对于胆总管结石合并PCDF患者,行ERCP应优先考虑经瘘口取石。     

内镜下特殊困难性乳头切开治疗胆总管结石分析

目的深入探讨特殊困难性乳头切开治疗胆总管结石技术,减少并发症,提高治疗成功率。方法对近2年来该院应用乳头切开治疗的856例胆总管结石病例进行回顾性分析。结果特殊困难的214例乳头切开治疗胆总管结石成功203例,成功率95%。并发症发生率11%(25/214),死亡发生率1%(2/214)。结论内镜乳头切开是治疗胆总管结石的首选方法,然而无论改善设备条件还是技术水平不断提高,在乳头切开的过程中仍然会遇到部分患者存在不同程度的困难。需降低操作难度,提高安全性,降低费用,该技术才能广泛开展。     

腹腔镜手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜微创手术在治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石疾病中的价值。方法 回顾性分析了1996年1月～2004年9月在该院确诊为胆囊结石胆总管结石的病人采用腹腔镜手术的治疗情况，并对多种治疗的选择方案、结果作了分析比较。结果 68例患者中大多数在腹腔镜下一期作了胆囊切除、胆总管切开胆道镜下取石T管引流，未发现有明显并发症。少数胆总管无扩张的病例由内镜下作EST后联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术二期完成治疗，极少数上述方案治疗失败的患者由开腹完成治疗。腹腔镜手术一期治疗与内镜、腹腔镜联合二期治疗和开腹手术相比较，病人住院时间短，恢复快，并发症少，手术成功率高，具有明显的优点，而手术时间并无延长。结论 腹腔镜下手术一期取除结石是治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的主要、较好的选择方案。     

Impact of timing of bile duct interventions on resource use and clinical outcome of cholecystectomy patients in Japan

Aims Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is increasingly used for acute cholecystitis, in conjunction with staged bile duct interventions (BDIs). However, few studies have evaluated the impact of BDI timing on costs and clinical outcomes during hospitalization. This study assessed the effects of several types of BDI and their timing on resource utilization and complications. Methods A total of 13 738 cholecystectomy patients were treated for benign gallbladder diseases in 66 academic and 376 community hospitals in Japan in 2006. Variables analysed included: BDIs including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous gallbladder or common bile duct drainage (external drainage), endoscopic sphincterotomy, clearance of choledocholithiasis (internal drainage); and length of stay (LOS), total charges (TCs), procedure‐related complications, and hospital function. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the impact of LC or BDIs on LOS, TCs and complications. Results A total of 11 690 (85.1%) patients underwent LC. Inflammation was diagnosed in 70.7% of open cholecystectomy (OC) and 42.1% of LC patients. Complications were 7.7% in OC and 5.4% in LC patients. LC was associated with reduced LOS and TCs. BDIs were performed in more OC than LC patients. Preoperative was more costly than postoperative ERCP. Postoperative external drainage was significantly associated with LOS, TCs and complications. Advantages of pre‐ or postoperative internal drainage were not proven. Conclusions External drainage should be completed preoperatively. Postoperative ERCP may be preferable for bile duct scrutiny alone. Further evaluation of the timing of cholecystectomy will determine precisely the superiority of pre‐ or postoperative BDIs in terms of quality of care for complicated patients.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合的疗效观察

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查术（LCBDE）后一期缝合治疗合并急性胆管炎的胆总管结石患者的安全性和可行性。方法 回顾性分析2015年1月－2020年8月合肥市第二人民医院108例在LCBDE后行一期缝合患者的临床资料。根据术前患者有无急性胆管炎分为有胆管炎组和无胆管炎组,对两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后拔管时间、术后住院时间和术后并发症等资料进行比较分析。结果 两组患者均成功完成手术,无中转开腹病例,与无胆管炎组相比,有胆管炎组术中出血量较多,差异有统计学意义（P = 0.010）,两组患者手术时间、术后拔管时间、术后住院时间比较,差异均无统计学意义（P > 0.05）;两组患者术后并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论 在遵循相关手术适应证的前提下,LCBDE后一期缝合治疗合并急性胆管炎的胆总管结石是安全可行的。     

再次腹腔镜手术处理胆管残石和胆管再生结石

目前，对腹腔镜胆囊切除术（ＬＣ）后胆管残石及腹腔镜胆道探查术（ＬＣＤＥ）后胆管再生结石的处理，多采用经内镜乳头切开（ＥＳ）或者开腹胆道探查（ＯＣＤＥ）。我院从１９９７年６月到１９９９年２月，对５例ＬＣ术后胆管残石和２例ＬＣＤＥ术后胆管再生石，选用再次ＬＣＤＥ处理。两次手术间隔１天到５年。术中一次取净结石。２例术后安置Ｔ管，５例胆管一期缝合。Ｔ管于术后６周拔除，并经Ｔ管窦道行胆道镜检查。胆管一期缝合者，术后３月行静脉胆道造影（ＩＶＣ），均未发现残石和狭窄。结论：腹腔镜手术的微创优越性，使再次腹腔镜手术处理胆管残石和再生石成为可能。     

微爆破碎石在腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗胆总管远端结石嵌顿中的应用效果

目的探讨微爆破碎石在腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)治疗胆总管远端结石嵌顿中的应用效果。方法回顾性分析LCBDE中应用体内微电极碎石仪iMES-I-C治疗胆总管远端结石嵌顿的28例患者临床资料。结果28例患者均碎石成功,术中取净结石27例,1例残留小结石,术后7周胆道镜取石成功。碎石过程中未见胆道损伤及出血等并发症。结论LCBDE中采用微爆破碎石治疗胆总管远端结石嵌顿操作简单安全、效果可靠。     

Effect of cholecystectomy on common bile duct diameters: a longitudinal prospective ultrasonographic study

The medium-term effect of cholecystectomy on common bile duct diameters (CBD) was investigated prospectively in 64 patients with gallstone disease examined by ultrasonography immediately before and 27 months to 39 months after the operation. In 32 patients with chronic cholecystitis and patent cystic ducts, CBD diameters increased slightly (median 4.6 mm pre- and 5.3 mm postoperatively; p less than 0.05). A group of 19 patients with acute cholecystitis or cystic duct occlusion showed a significant decrease (median 7.7 mm pre- and 5.5 mm postoperatively; p less than 0.05). In 13 patients with common bile duct stones, the CBD diameters also decreased significantly after surgical intervention (median 7.5 mm pre- and 5.0 mm postoperatively; p less than 0.05). The widest CBD diameter after cholecystectomy observed in this study was 10 mm. We conclude that either increases or decreases of the CBD diameters may occur after cholecystectomy in patients with calculous gallbladder disease, and that the postoperative evolution is governed by the exact nature of the underlying biliary disease at the time of the index operation.