The case for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

The modern surgeon's approach to choledocholithiasis depends his or her view of cholangiography. During the early 1990 there was a swing away from cholangiography, which had previously been common practice. This was because of perceptions of difficulty with the technique, the time it took, and perhaps an implied increase in costs because of the time factor. There was no evidence on which to base this decision. This led to a marked upswing in the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There were a large number of ERCPs with normal results performed prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This paper states the case for intraoperative cholangiography and common bile duct clearance at the time of cholecystectomy. It is hoped that this technique will be adopted so patients can undergo a single procedure to remove their gallstones and common bile duct stones if they exist and to decrease the incidence of normal preoperative ERCPs and the need for a second procedure postoperatively to clear stones if they are found. Received: August 15, 2002 / Accepted: August 23, 2002 Offprint requests to: G.A. Fielding     

二孔法腹腔镜胆总管切开探查治疗胆总管结石

目的探讨二孔法腹腔镜胆总管切开探查治疗胆总管结石的效果。方法对25例胆囊炎症状轻、胆总管周围无粘连显露佳的胆总管结石患者行二孔法腹腔镜胆总管切开探查治疗,并予一期缝合,观察患者的手术和随访情况。结果 2例患者术后出现胆漏,分别经腹腔引流3 d和4 d治愈。21例患者获得随访,术后1年内均无结石复发,无胆管狭窄及胆管炎发作。结论在合理掌握适应证的情况下,二孔法腹腔镜胆总管切开探查、胆总管一期缝合治疗胆总管结石可取得较好的疗效。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗胆总管结石合并胆囊结石

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查术( LC BDE)治疗胆总管结石合并胆囊结石的临床疗效和价值.方法 2006年7月至2010年6月期间对127例胆总管结石合并胆囊结石患者进行微创治疗.其中78例采用LCBDE+腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗,49例采用内镜十二指肠括约肌切开术(EST) +LC治疗.比较二组的手术治疗成功率、术后并发症发生率、残余结石率、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间和费用等指标,并随访二组远期并发症发生率.结果 LCBDE+ LC组:手术成功率94.87％,术后并发症发生率5.41％.EST+LC组:手术成功率95.92％,术后并发症发生率12.77％.两组手术成功率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),术后并发症发生率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).手术时间、住院费用的比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).出院后随访1～5年,平均(3.2±0.8)年,LCBDE+LC组结石复发率、胆管积气发生率、反流性胆管炎发生率显著低于EST+LC组(P＜0.05).结论 LCBDE+LC是治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的安全、有效、可行的微创术式,对于适宜的患者行胆总管一期缝合更能体现微创的优势.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术242例临床分析

目的为了探讨腹腔镜下胆总管探查术的临床应用效果。方法回顾性分析我院2007年6月~2016年6月242例腹腔镜下胆总管探查术的临床资料。术中行胆总管探查T管引流术170例,胆总管切开探查一期缝合42例,经胆囊管探查胆总管取石30例。结果本组242例患者中,手术时间70~260min,平均130min,术中失血30~460ml,平均150 ml。胆漏30例,28例经腹腔引流管引流4~7天治愈,2例形成腹腔局部积液经B超定位穿刺引流而治愈。肺部感染6例,胸腔积液4例,切口感染2例。20例术后行T管造影检查证实为胆管残余结石,经胆道镜1~4次取石后取净;2例患者胆道镜无法取出残余结石,经ERCP取出残余结石。术后第1d所有患者可下床活动,平均输液时间4~8d。结论腹腔镜下胆总管探查术是相对微创安全的手术,应根据患者具体情况采取个体化的术式。     

Stone clearance and risk factors for failure in laparoscopic transcystic exploration of the common bile duct

Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become a gold standard globally. At the time of surgery, 5 to 10% of patients have coexisting stones in the common bile duct (CBD). There are several alternatives in treating these patients. We have chosen to try to extract the CBD stones at the primary operation by laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration. Methods During the years 1994–2002 laparoscopic attempt of exploration of the CBD was made in 207 patients. Data was prospectively collected in a database, and was analyzed using unconditional logistic regression for risk factor analysis. Results In 155 of the 207 patients an attempt of transcystic CBD exploration was made and it was successful in 132 cases (85%). The median operating time was 184 minutes (range 89–384 minutes) and the median postoperative hospital stay was one day (range 1–31 days). The odds ratio for failure in stone clearance among patients with a bile duct diameter greater than 6 mm was 6.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87–54.61) compared to patients with a bile duct diameter of 6 mm or less. There was a significant threefold increase in risk among patients with stones of greater than 5 mm diameter compared to patients with stones 5 mm or less. Conclusions The laparoscopic transcystic exploration of the CBD had a high frequency of stone clearance and low morbidity in the present study. Moreover, large stones are a risk factor for failure in stone clearance.     

Technical aspects in the laparoscopic management of complicated common bile duct stones

The management of common bile duct (CBD) stones traditionally required open laparotomy and bile duct exploration. With the advent of endoscopic and laparoscopic technology in the latter half of last century, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the mainstream treatment for CBD stones and gallstones in most medical centers around the world. However, in certain situations, ERCP cannot be feasible because of difficult cannulation and extraction. ERCP can also be associated with potential serious complications, in particular for complicated stones requiring repeated sessions and additional maneuvers. Since our first laparoscopic exploration of the CBD (LECBD) in 1995, we now adopt the routine practice of the laparoscopic approach in dealing with endoscopically irretrievable CBD stones. The aim of this article is to describe the technical details of this approach and to review the results from our series.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术与内窥镜下括约肌切开术治疗胆总管结石的临床应用比较

目的 比较腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)和内镜下括约肌切开术(EST)治疗不同胆总管结石的疗效及并发症,探讨其适应证的差异,指导临床合理应用.方法 202例胆总管结石患者,按手术方式分为腹腔镜胆总管探查术组(LCBDE组,45例)和内镜下括约肌切开术组(EST组,157例);评价两组操作成功率、一期手术治愈率、残余结石和(或)病变率、并发症率、平均住院时间和费用.结果 LCBDE组和EST组操作成功率分别为97.8％(44/45)和98.7％(155/157)(P> 0.05).一期手术治愈率分别为84.4％(38/45)和45.2％(71/157) (P<0.01).LCBDE组术后残余病变主要为残石,残石率为15.6％(7/45); EST组主要为术后遗留未处理的胆囊病变和肝内外胆管结石,残留率为54.8％(86/157)(P<0.01).LCBDE组并发术后胆漏4例、残余感染1例,并发癌率为11.1％;EST组并发术后胆漏3例、出血4例、高淀粉酶血症32例(其中急性胰腺炎14例)、急性胆管炎15例,并发症率34.4％ (P< 0.05).平均住院时间为(10.0±2.8)和(9.4±4.1)d (P>0.05);住院费用为(17504±4128)和(16453±3541)元(P>0.05).结论 LCBDE和EST均有操作成功率高、住院时间短等优点;但LCBDE并发症率、残余病变率均低于EST; LCBDE主要适于胆囊合并胆总管结石的患者,尤其是Oddi括约肌功能完好者;EST主要适于单纯胆总管结石或胆管炎患者,特别是年老体弱、Oddi括约肌无功能或既往有胆道手术史且不愿再次手术者.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查一期缝合术后胆瘘及胆总管狭窄的危险因素分析

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查（LCBDE）及一期缝合术后发生胆瘘及胆总管狭窄的临床危险因素。方法 收集自2017年1月至2019年6月湖州市中心医院收治的92例行LCBDE胆总管一期缝合术患者的临床资料，行回顾性对列研究及多因素回归分析。结果 全组患者术后胆瘘及胆总管狭窄发生率分别为11.9%（11/92）和18.5%（17/92）。合并糖尿病、胆总管直径＜1 cm、由胆总管一期缝合手术操作例数＜30例的主刀医师行手术治疗的患者术后胆瘘及胆总管狭窄的发生率明显升高（P＜0.05）。多因素回归分析发现，上述三个因素是LCBDE胆总管一期缝合术后胆瘘发生的独立危险因素[合并糖尿病：OR（95%CI）4.782（1.176～19.439），P=0.029；胆总管直径＜1 cm：OR（95%CI）5.743（1.535～21.481），P=0.009；胆总管一期缝合手术操作例数＜30例：OR（95%CI）4.693（1.251～17.612），P=0.022]，同时上述三个因素也是术后胆总管狭窄发生的独立危险因素[合并糖尿病：OR（95%CI）3.455（1.147～10.406），P=0.028；胆总管直径＜1 cm：OR（95%CI）4.667（1.500～14.518），P=0.008；胆总管一期缝合手术操作例数＜30：OR（95%CI）3.094（1.049～9.121），P=0.041]。结论 合并糖尿病、胆总管直径＜1 cm、主刀医师经验不足（操作例数＜30例）是LCBDE胆总管一期缝合术后发生胆瘘及胆总管狭窄的独立危险因素。对存在糖尿病或胆总管直径＜1 cm的患者应避免行胆总管一期缝合术；在学习曲线内的主刀医师应采取合理的胆总管一期缝合方式以避免术后胆瘘及胆总管狭窄的发生。     

腹腔镜胆总管切开取石在老年胆道结石患者中的应用

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石治疗老年胆道结石患者的有效性,安全性。方法从2007年4月至2011年12月本院共行86例腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术。将这些患者按年龄分为两组,并进行回顾性分析。老年组(≥70岁)40例,年轻组(<70岁)46例。对比两组临床特点,手术时间,住院时间,中转开放手术率,术后累计并发症发生率,残石率和死亡率。结果老年组表现出较高的麻醉评分(P=0.003)及基础疾病患病率(P<0.01),而平均手术时间,术后住院时间,中转开放手术率,残石率,并发症的发生率、死亡率,两组无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜胆总管切开取石不仅对年轻胆总管结石患者安全有效,对老年患者也是一种安全有效的治疗方式。     

Role of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in the management of choledocholithiasis

Surgical fraternity has not yet arrived at any consensus for adequate treatment of choledocholithiasis. Sequential treatment in the form of pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) is considered as optimal treatment till date. With refinements in technique and expertise in field of minimal access surgery, many centres in the world have started offering one stage management of choledocholithiasis by LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE). Various modalities have been tried for entering into concurrent common bile duct(CBD) [transcystic(TC) vs transcholedochal(TD)], for confirming stone clearance(intraoperative cholangiogram vs choledochoscopy), and for closure of choledochotomy(T-tube vs biliary stent vs primary closure) during LCBDE. Both TC and TD approaches are safe and effective. TD stone extraction is involved with an increased risk of bile leaks and requires more expertise in intra-corporeal suturing and choledochoscopy. Choice depends on number of stones, size of stone, diameter of cystic duct and CBD. This review article was undertaken to evaluate the role of LCBDE for the management of choledocholithiasis.     

Comparison of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration are safe and efficient methods that have recently been used for the treatment of bile duct stones. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and surgical outcomes of the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP+LC).

Methods

One hundred twenty patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups: LCBDE with LC in a single intervention and LC after ERCP.

Results

The success rate of the LCBDE+LC group (96.5%) was found to be higher than for the ERCP+LC group (94.4%). Complication rates of the LCBDE+LC and ERCP+LC group were 7% and 11.1%, respectively. Complications requiring ERCP in the postoperative period after LCBDE+LC have been noted in 3.5% of cases.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic CBD exploration provides an alternative therapeutic approach that has less morbidity, is cost-effective, and allows earlier recovery with a reduced period of short-term disability.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查手术适应证探讨

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查术（LCBDE）的手术适应证及其临床疗效。方法 总结分析吉林大学第一医院普外科2005年11月至2008年3月成功开展腹腔镜胆囊切除联合纤维胆道镜胆总管探查术83例病人的临床资料。 结果 成功完成LCBDE 81例,其中二次胆道手术3例,手术成功率97.6％;中转开腹2例,中转率2.4％。平均手术时间90min,平均肠蠕动恢复时间2.6d,平均术后住院8d。胆总管一期缝合1例术后胆汁瘘,术后1周自愈;术后胆道残余结石2例,经T管窦道行胆道镜治愈。无腹腔出血、胃肠道损伤等并发症,全部治愈,带T管出院。术后4周回院常规T管造影拔管。 结论 胆囊结石及胆囊炎合并胆管结石是腹腔镜胆管探查取石术的最佳手术适应证。     

腹腔镜联合开腹胆道探查器械行胆总管探查取石术的临床研究

目的：探讨腹腔镜联合开腹胆道探查器械行胆总管探查取石术的可行性与临床应用价值。方法：2009年1月至2013年1月收治90例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者,随机分为两组（n=45）,观察组采用腹腔镜联合开腹胆道探查器械行胆总管探查取石术,对照组行传统开腹手术。结果：两组患者取石成功率相当,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;观察组手术时间、住院时间、肛门排气时间、患者满意度、并发症发生率均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：腹腔镜联合开腹胆道探查器械行胆总管探查取石术具有患者创伤小、并发症少、住院时间短、患者满意度高等优点,应用范围广,具有较好的临床应用价值。     

腹腔镜内窥镜治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石两种术式的临床分析

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开、腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)两种术式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 回顾总结LC联合治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石256例,采用LC+LCBDE术132例、EsT+LC术124例治疗的临床资料,对两组病例的手术成功率、并发症发生率、手术总时间、住院费用、住院日进行对比统计分析.结果 两种术式的手术成功率、并发症发生率、平均住院日无显著性差异(P>0.05),手术总时间、手术费用比较有显著性差异(P<0.01).结论 两种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆总管直径<1.0 cm、胆总管中下端结石或老年胆石症病人宜采用EST+LC术式;胆总管直径>1.0 cm的多发性较大结石、尤其是中青年病人应首选LC+LCBDE术式.     

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。     

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Background: Herein I describe my >12-year experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Methods: From 21 September 1989 through 31 December 2001, 3,580 patients presented with symptomatic biliary tract disease. Laparoscopic cholecystecomy (LC) was attempted in 3,544 of them (99.1%) and completed in 3,527 (99.5%). Laparoscopic cholangiograms (IOC) were performed in 3,417 patients (96.4%); in 344 cases (9.7%), the IOC was abnormal. Forty-nine patients (1.4%) underwent preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and 33 patients (0.9%) underwent postoperative ERCP. LCBDE was attempted in 326 cases and completed in 321 (98.5%). It was successful in clearing the duct in 317 of the 344 patients with abnormal cholangiograms (92.2%). Results: The mean operating time for all patients undergoing LC with or without cholangiograms or LCBDE or other additional surgery was 56.9 min. Mean length of stay was 22.1 h. The mean operating time for LC only patients (n = 2530)—that is, those not undergoing LCBDE or any other additional procedure—was 47.6 min; their mean postoperative length of stay was 17.2 h. Ductal exploration was performed via the cystic duct in 269 patients, (82.5%) and through a choledochotomy in 57 patients (17.5%). T-tubes were used in patients in whom there was concern for possible retained debris or stones, distal spasm, pancreatitis, or general poor tissue quality secondary to malnutrition or infection. In cases where choledochotomy was used, a T-tube was placed in 38 patients (67%), and primary closure without a T-tube was done in 19 (33%). There were no complications in the group of patients who underwent choledochotomy and primary ductal closure without T-tube placement or in the group in whom T-tubes were placed. Conclusions: Common bile duct (CBD) stones still occur in 10% of patients. These stones are identified by IOC. IOC can be performed in >96.4% of cases of LC. LCBDE was successful in clearing these stones in 97.2% of patients in whom it was attempted and in 92.2% of all patients with normal IOCs. Most LCBDEs in this series were performed via the cystic duct because of the stone characteristics and ductal anatomy. Selective laparoscopic placement of T-tubes in patients requiring choledochotomy (67%) appears to be a safe and effective alternative to routine T-tube drainage of the ductal system. ERCP, which was required for 5.8% of patients with abnormal cholangiograms, and open CBDE, which was used in 2.0%, still play an important role in the management of common bile duct pathology. The role of ERCP, with or without sphincterotomy, has returned to its status in the prelaparoscopic era. LCBDE may be employed successfully in the vast majority of patients harboring CBD stones.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查即时缝合术的临床应用--附403例报告

目的 总结运用腹腔镜胆总管探查即时缝合术的治疗经验。方法 从1992年6月-2003年5月,运用腹腔镜胆总管探查即时缝合的手术方式(胆道镜取石术、扩张术、细导管引流术、支架术)对403例病人进行治疗。结果 381例手术获成功(94.5％),4例残石经内镜取石治愈,4例残石内镜未取净,11例胆漏经腹腔引流管或内镜鼻胆管引流治愈,2例胆囊管细导管脱落,1例胰头癌术后15d死亡。其他并发症均经非手术综合疗法治愈。结论 选择合适病例,腹腔镜胆总管探查即时缝合术是安全可行的。     

静注利多卡因对行腹腔镜胆总管探查术患者镇痛和肠蠕动的影响

目的观察静脉输注利多卡因对行腹腔镜胆管探查术患者术后镇痛和肠功能的影响。方法择期腹腔镜胆总管探查术患者80例,年龄23～55岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机均分为治疗组和对照组。治疗组诱导期静注利多卡因1.5mg/kg,术中以2mg·kg-1·h-1持续输注,术后24h内改为1.2mg·kg-1·h-1持续静脉输注。对照组给予等剂量的生理盐水。记录两组患者术中七氟醚总量,术后抽取静脉血检测利多卡因浓度并记录术后2h(T1)、4h(T2)、8h(T3)、12h(T4)、24h(T5)、术后第2天(T6)和第3天(T7)两组VAS评分以及术后首次排气、排便时间,住院天数和恶心呕吐发生率。结果与对照组比较,T1～T5时治疗组VAS评分均明显下降(P<0.05);治疗组术中七氟醚总量降低,术后首次排气时间、排便时间以及住院天数均缩短(P<0.05)。结论小剂量利多卡因静注可促进腹腔镜胆管探查术患者肠蠕动恢复,缩短患者住院时间,有利于术后康复。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合胆总管375例临床分析

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCDE)术后一期缝合胆总管的可行性和手术指征及手术方法。方法选择性地对375例有LCDE指征的患者行LCDE,术后一期缝合胆总管,回顾性分析其治疗效果。结果375例均获痊愈。平均手术时间为(89.35±24.47)min、术后发热时间(1.77±0.82)d、术后输液总量(6.62±1.70)L、术后住院时间(6.54±0.47)d。有16例发生胆漏(4.27%)。随访3个月~6年未见结石残留及胆管狭窄。结论只要严格掌握适应证,LCDE术后一期缝合胆总管是安全可行的。