胆总管切开探查术后一期缝合的临床探讨

目的 探讨胆总管切开探查一期缝合不置T管引流的可行性、手术指征及临床价值.方法 按适应证选择胆总管结石或可疑结石104例,随机分为一期缝合组及T管引流组,一期缝合组探查术后不置T管引流,用5-0无损伤可吸收缝线作一期缝合.观察并比较两组患者术后用药情况、恢复情况、术后并发症、住院时间及费用情况,并进行随访.结果 一期缝合组术后抗生素使用时间、平均输液量、输液时间、肠功能恢复时间、下床活动时间、平均住院时间及住院费用均较T管引流组减少(P均<0.05);随访6个月～3年,无有胆管狭窄的临床征象,术后并发症发生率与T管引流组的差别无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 只要正确掌握手术适应证及缝合技巧,胆总管探查后一期缝合是安全可行的,有推广应用价值.     

Primary closure of choledochotomy after emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Introduction  The debate into whether or not to drain the common bile duct after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis continues. Reports are in favour of primary closure of choledochotomy in elective setting. The aim of this study is to evaluate our experience in the primary closure of choledochotomy in emergency setting by analysing indications, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and outcome. Methods  All patients undergoing LCBDE were prospectively entered into a database incorporating demographic and clinical data including mode of admission, indication for surgery, operation details and clinical outcome. All operations were performed by the same consultant (A. Baker). Results  All 81 patients had primary closure after LCBDE between October 2003 and April 2007. The male to female ratio was 1:3. Median age was 68 years (range 19–90 years). Nineteen (23%) patients had obstructive jaundice, 4 (5%) had cholangitis, 7 (8.6%) had acute pancreatitis, 9 (11.1%) had failed ERCP, and 42 (51.8%) had biliary colic or cholecystitis with positive intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC). Those patients were divided into two groups: elective LCBDE (ElLCBDE) (n = 33, 41%) and emergency LCBDE (EmLCBDE) (n = 48, 59%). There was no significant difference in the median operative time, median hospital stay and complication rate. Total laparoscopic clearance rate in this series was 95%. Conclusions  To our knowledge, this is the first publication in the literature in which primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in emergency setting was used. With no significant difference in operative time, hospital stay and complications, in experienced hands primary closure of CBD in emergency settings is safe and feasible.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合与T 管留置的疗效比较

目的：比较腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合与T管引流的手术疗效。方法：回顾性分析2011年1月—2012年8月施行的71例腹腔镜下胆总管探查取石术患者的临床资料,其中一期缝合39例（缝合组）,T管引流32例（引流组）,比较两组术中、术后情况。结果：两组手术时间、术后住院时间、开始流质时间差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）,但缝合组腹腔引流时间及总住院费用明显少于引流组（均P<0.05）。两组术后胆瘘、胆管炎、残余结石等并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。两组均无术后胆管狭窄和死亡病例。结论：腹腔镜胆管探查术后一期缝合在术后引流时间和治疗费用方面比与T管引流更具优势,在合适的适应证下应作为治疗的首选。     

经腹腔镜胆总管探查一期缝合术

目的探讨经腹腔镜电视胆道镜胆总管探查一期缝合的合理性。方法自2002年4月至2005年4月间行经腹腔镜电视纤维胆道镜胆总管探查一期缝合术65例(腹腔镜组),行开腹电视纤维胆道镜胆总管探查一期缝合术132例(开腹组),比较这两种手术方式的治疗效果。结果腹腔镜组平均手术后住院时间为4d,开腹组术后平均住院时间为8d,两组比较有显著性差异(P<0.01)。腹腔镜组2例(2/65)出现胆漏,开腹组3例(3/132)出现胆漏,两组比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论经腹腔镜胆电视胆道镜探查后对选择性病例行胆总管一期缝合是安全和有效的,值得推广应用。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查一期缝合与T管引流的疗效比较

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开探查术（laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE）后胆管一期缝合的可行性及适应证。方法回顾性分析我院2002年6月至2008年5月成功施行LCBDE79例的临床资料,比较胆管一期缝合26例（缝合组）与T管引流53例（引流组）的临床疗效。结果手术时问和总并发症发生率两组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,缝合组的住院费用、术后住院时间和恢复工作时间明显少于引流组（P〈0．05或P〈0．01）。缝合组胆漏2例,无结石残留;引流组胆漏3例,结石残留1例。引流组拔T管引起胆漏并胆汁性腹膜炎2例。随访期间两组均无胆管狭窄和结石复发。结论LCBDE一期缝合与T管引流相比,住院费用少,术后住院时间短,恢复快,安全可行,但必须严格掌握适应证。     

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.     

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

Purpose  

The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and harms of primary closure versus T-tube drainage after common bile duct (CBD) exploration for choledocholithiasis.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查定期自行脱落J型胆道支架引流术150例报告

目的 总结定期自行脱落胆道支架在腹腔镜胆总管探查术中的应用效果、适应证及操作方法。方法 应用吸收线和聚氨酯导管制成定期自行脱落J型胆道支架。在胆总管切开清除结石后,将导丝经胆道镜操作孔置入十二指肠,将支架套住导丝,用推送器将支架的猪尾端送入十二指肠,另一端留在胆管内。胆总管切口一期缝合关闭。结果 应用该法治疗胆总管结石150例,平均手术时间（126±36）min,术后住院时间（6.5±3.6）d,149例自行排出支架,排出时间为：快释放支架（13.6±2.6）d,慢释放支架（28.0±4.6）d。另1例于术后第28天经内镜取出。术后第1天出现短暂胰淀粉酶增高32例（21.3%）,均无胰腺炎临床表现及影像学改变;发生胆漏3例（2.0%）,2例经保守治疗痊愈,1例经ENBD治愈。发现残余结石1例（0.67%）,于术后30 d经内镜取石后痊愈。术后随访6～66个月（平均36个月）,无胆管狭窄及结石复发。结论 腹腔镜胆总管探查定期自行脱落胆道支架引流术安全有效,是更具微创和成本效益的胆道引流方法。     

胆总管探查后一期缝合的临床实践与研究

目的　探讨胆总管探查后一期缝合的合理性和可行性。　方法　对 1990年 1月～ 2 0 0 1年 6月间肝外胆管结石择期手术的病例、胆总管探查后一期缝合 2 15例与放置T管引流的 171例进行比较。　结果　一期缝合组和T管引流组术后分别有 9例和 5例腹腔引流液含胆汁 ,均未作特殊处理。一期缝合组术后平均输液 4 9d、平均输液量 9 1L、平均住院时间 10 0d ;与T管引流组的术后平均输液时间 7 3d、平均输液量 12 8L、平均住院时间 17 6d相比 ,差异有显著意义 (P <0 0 1)。同时T管引流组有 5例分别在术后 16、17、19、2 1、2 2d拔管后发生胆汁性腹膜炎 ,3例再手术。　结论　在经过严格选择的胆总管结石择期胆总管探查病例中 ,经术中胆道镜或胆道造影排除残石后 ,一期缝合可作为一种安全有效的术式。     

腹腔镜下胆总管探查取石术后胆总管一期缝合的疗效分析

目的:探讨腹腔镜下胆总管探查取石术后一期缝合的安全性及有效性。方法:回顾性分析2013年6月—2016年9月南方医科大学附属佛山医院接受腹腔镜下胆总管探查取石患者临床资料,其中62例术中行一期缝合(研究组),38例行T管引流(对照组)。比较两组的相关临床指标。结果:两组患者性别、BMI和胆总管直径无统计学差异(均P0.05);与对照组比较,研究组平均手术时间明显延长(113.92 min vs.95.92 min,P=0.032),但结石残留率明显降低(0 vs.6.0%,P=0.002),而术后住院时间无统计学差异(4.00 d vs.5.11 d,P=0.088);两组总并发症发生率无统计学差异(8.1%vs.5.3%,P=0.701),观察组发生1例A级胆瘘与2例B级胆瘘,均经保守治疗治愈,两组均无中转开腹与死亡病例;均获至少12个月的随访,两组均无结石复发及有症状的胆道狭窄发生。结论:对选择性病例实施一期缝合具有良好的短期与长期的临床效果。与T管引流术比较,一期缝合可改善患者生活质量,避免T管的使用的相关并发症。     

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Surgical Endoscopy -     

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is gaining favor in the treatment of patients with gallstones and CBD stones. Our aim is to report our results with this procedure, focusing on the technical aspects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with proven CBD stones undergo laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration, preferably, or a choledochotomy if the former is not feasible. According to CBD stone load and diameter, a biliary drainage tube is positioned for postoperative biliary decompression. RESULTS: Among 284 patients who underwent laparoscopic CBD exploration, 4 (1.4%) were converted to open surgery. Transcystic CBD exploration was feasible in 163 cases (58.2%), but a choledochotomy was required in 117 (41.8%). Biliary drains were positioned in 204 patients (72.8%). Minor complications included hyperamylasemia (11; 3.9%) and minor subhepatic bile collection (7; 2.5%). Major complications were bile leakage (5; 1.8%), hemoperitoneum from cystic artery bleeding (2; 0.7%), subhepatic abscess (2; 0.7%), acute pancreatitis (1; 0.3%), and jejunal perforation (1; 0.3%). Retained CBD stones in 15 patients (5.3%) were removed through the biliary drainage sinus tract (8) or after endoscopy and sphincterotomy (6). In one patient, a small stone passed spontaneously (overall success rate 94.6%). Death from a cardiovascular complication was observed in one elderly high-risk patient (0.3%). Recurrent ductal stones in 5 patients (1.8%) were treated with ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy. One patient with re-recurrent ductal stones underwent hepaticojejunostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic CBD exploration during LC in unselected patients solves two problems during the same anesthesia with high success rates (94.6%), low minor (6.4%) and major (3.8%) morbidity rates, and a low mortality rate (0.3%). Standardization of the technique is mandatory to achieve high success rates.     

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

In recent years, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration has become the procedure of choice in the management of choledocholithiasis in several laparoscopic centers. The increasing interest for this laparoscopic approach is due to the development of instrumentation and technique, allowing the procedure to be performed safely, and it is also the result of the revised role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which has been questioned because of its cost, risk of complications and effectiveness. Many surgeons, however, are still not familiar with this technique. In this article we discuss the technique and results of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Both the laparoscopic transcystic approach and choledochotomy are discussed, together with the results given in the literature. When one considers the costs, morbidity, mortality and the time required before the patient can return to work, it would appear that laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration is more favorable than open surgery or laparoscopic cholecystectomy with preoperative or postoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy. However, the technique requires advanced laparoscopic skills, including suturing, knot tying, the use of a choledochoscope, guidewire, dilators and balloon stone extractor. Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration appears to be the most cost-effective method to treat common bile duct stones, it should be emphasized that this procedure is very challenging, and it should be performed by well-trained laparoscopic surgeons with experience in biliary surgery.     

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with high clearance rates, low morbidity, and mortality rates. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LCBDE is well accepted by patients because treatment is obtained during the same anesthesia. If one stage therapy for gallstones and common bile duct stones provides success rates equivalent to those of the sequential approach, with lower costs, this should be considered the standard of care. METHODS: From September 1991 to March 2007, 5201 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed at S?o José Avaí Hospital. LCBDE was carried out in 481 patients (9.25%). RESULTS: Of 481 LCBDE, 225 (46.78%) were managed using a transcystic approach and 183 (38.05%) with choledochotomy (114 with transcystic choledochotomy and 69 with longitudinal opening of the common bile duct). Successful laparoscopic stone clearance was achieved in 468 (97.3%). An elective postsurgical endoscopic sphincterotomy were done on the 13 (2.70%) patients not cleared laparoscopically. Seven patients had unexpected retained stones. CONCLUSIONS: LCBDE during laparoscopic cholecystectomy solves 2 problems during the same anesthesia with high success rates and may be employed successfully.