三镜联合治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的临床初步探讨

目的：探讨三镜联合治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的临床价值。方法：回顾性分析2001年1月到2006年4月胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石128例患者的临床资料，其中采用内镜下乳头括约肌切开术（EST）＋腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）31例，LC＋腹腔镜胆道探查术（LCBDE）19例，LC＋EST＋LCBDE78例，并对胆总管内径、结石大小、总手术时间、手术费用、并发症发生率、术后住院时间、手术成功率等进行对比并作统计学分析。结果：三镜联合治疗法与其他两种方法相比，具有更高的微创手术成功率，但并不增加手术并发症发生率和手术时间、住院费用和住院时间。结论：三镜联合运用是目前治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的较好选择。     

不同术式治疗胆囊合并胆总管结石的疗效对比

目的对比评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)联合腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术(LCBDE)及内镜逆行胰胆管造影、括约肌切开取石术(ERCP/EST)治疗胆囊合并胆总管结石患者的临床疗效。方法将70例胆囊合并胆总管结石患者作为研究对象,按照手术方案不同分成LCBDE+LC与ERCP/EST+LC两组,统计比较两组手术一般情况、住院情况以及术后并发症,对手术中结石数量、结石最大横径、胆总管内径进行对比,并判定全部患者术后肝功能。结果 LCBDE+LC组患者手术成功率略低于ERCP/EST+LC组,但组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);LCBDE+LC组患者出血量、结石残存率、中转开腹率、结石数量、结石最大横径、胆总管内径、总胆红素、丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)、天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)检测水平、肛门通气时间、住院天数与ERCP/EST+LC组对比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);LCBDE+LC组患者手术时长明显短于ERCP/EST+LC组(P0.05),LCBDE+LC组术后并发症率较低但和ERCP/EST+LC组相比,差异无统计学意义。住院费用低于ERCP/EST+LC组(P0.05)。结论 LCBDE+LC手术成功率与ERCP/EST+LC成功率较接近,而LCBDE+LC手术可能减少患者并发症,提高患者对手术耐受程度,并且住院耗费相对少,能够帮助患者减轻住院治疗负担,临床实际中应根据患者情况选择首选手术方式,充分发挥微创手术优势。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术联合胆总管探查术治疗胆总管结石的效果

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)联合胆总管探查术(LCBDE)在胆总管结石患者中的应用效果.方法 选择2018年8月至2020年3月林州市中医院收治的87例胆总管结石患者的临床资料,依据掷硬币法分为对照组(n=43)与观察组(n=44).对照组给予腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)联合内镜下乳头括约肌切开取石术(EST)治疗,...     

内镜下oddis括约肌切开取石术联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗胆囊胆总管结石

目的 探讨内镜下oddis括约肌切开取石术(EST)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗胆囊结石、胆总管结石的临床应用价值.方法 回顾性分析40例采用经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)+内镜下括约肌切开取石术(EST)+内镜下网篮取石(ESR)+球囊取石术联合LC方式治疗胆囊、胆总管结石患者的并发症及获得的经验.结果 手术成功率97.5%(39/40),胆总管结石残留率5.1%(2/39).乳头出血10%.EKCP术后胰腺炎5%(2/40).LC术后无相关并发症.手术总时间(60±4s)min,平均住院日(10±3)d.结论 ERCP+EST+ESK+球囊取石术联合LC是治疗胆囊、胆总管结石有效的微创手术方式.     

腹腔镜胆总管取石的入路选择

胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的治疗方式有很多种,包括传统的开腹胆囊切除及胆总管切开取石、内镜下Oddi括约肌切开取石术(EST)随后行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)、腹腔镜一期胆囊切除+胆总管探查取石(LC+LCBDE)。但是目前对于胆囊结石合并胆总管结石最     

LC+胆总管探查术中胆道镜取石术与LC+内镜取石术治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的疗效比较

目的比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)+胆总管探查术中胆道镜取石术(LCBDE)与LC+内镜取石术(EST)治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石的疗效。方法选取126例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的患者作为研究对象,将患者随机分为LC+LCBDE组和LC+EST组,每组63例,比较两组患者的术中术后情况、括约肌损伤程度以及并发症发生率。结果 LC+LCBDE组患者的手术时间[(127.36±31.28)min]、住院时间[(12.12±3.64)d]、括约肌损伤发生率(1.6%)、并发症发生率(4.9%)低于LC+EST组(P0.05)。结论 LC+LCBDE和LC+EST两种微创手术方案在治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石各有优缺点,LC+LCBDE总体优于LC+EST。     

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。     

内镜下括约肌切开取石术联合择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石

目的探讨内镜Oddi括约肌切开取石术（EST）与择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）联合治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果。方法回顾性分析2001年5月～2006年3月EST与LC联合治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石59例临床资料。首先经EST取出胆管结石，1个月后行腹腔镜胆囊切除术。结果EST成功57例（97％），失败2例，均因胆管末端狭窄，开腹行胆肠吻合术治愈；腹腔镜手术均成功，无明显出血、胆漏等严重并发症。结论EST＋择期LC联合治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石具有微创、恢复快、并发症少及无需T管引流等优点，是一种安全有效的治疗方法。     

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。     

LC和EST二镜联合治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石

在电视腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)和内镜下Oddi括约肌切开取石术(EST)已分别成功在临床上应用多年的基础上.Palma、秦明放等[1-2]报道了联合治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的经验.为更好开展LC, 作者2005月7月～2007年12月对40例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者先行EST 内镜下取石,再行LC术,取得了良好的疗效,现报告如下.     

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.     

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。     

Outcomes of laparoscopic bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis with small common bile duct

BACKGROUNDLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LCBDE) is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm. However, for patients with small CBD (CBD diameter ≤ 8 mm), endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the preferred treatment at present, but it also has some drawbacks associated with a series of complications, such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, cholangitis, and duodenal perforation. To date, few studies have been reported that support the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.AIMTo investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.METHODSA total of 257 patients without acute cholangitis who underwent LC + LCBDE for cholecystolithiasis from January 2013 to December 2018 in one institution were reviewed. The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. According to whether the diameter of CBD was larger than 8 mm, 257 patients were divided into large CBD group (n = 146) and small CBD group (n = 111). Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for clinical differences. The demographics, intraoperative data, short-term outcomes, and long-term follow-up outcomes for the patients were recorded and compared.RESULTSIn total, 257 patients who underwent successful LC + LCBDE were enrolled in the study, 146 had large CBD and 111 had small CBD. The median follow-up period was 39 (14-86) mo. For small CBD patients, the median CBD diameter was 0.6 cm (0.2-2.0 cm), the mean operating time was 107.2 ± 28.3 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBD stones (CBDS), CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (6/111), 3.60% (4/111), 1.80% (2/111), and 0% (0/111), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.4 ± 3.6 d. For large CBD patients, the median common bile duct diameter was 1.0 cm (0.3-3.0 cm), the mean operating time was 115.7 ± 32.0 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBDS, CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (9/146), 1.37% (2/146), 6.85% (10/146), and 0% (0/146), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.7 ± 2.7 d. After propensity score matching, 184 patients remained, and all preoperative covariates except diameter of CBD stones were balanced. Postoperative bile leak occurred in 11 patients overall (5.98%), and no difference was found between the small CBD group (4.35%, 4/92) and the large CBD group (7.61%, 7/92). The incidence of CBDS recurrence did not differ significantly between the small CBD group (2.17%, 2/92) and the large CBD group (6.52%, 6/92).CONCLUSIONLC + LCBDE is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis patients with small CBD and did not increase the postoperative bile leak rate compared with chole-docholithiasis patients with large CBD.     

腹腔镜同步和内镜-腹腔镜序贯手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效观察

目的对比分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术联合腹腔镜胆总管探查(LC-LCBDE同步)和内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开取石联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST-LC序贯)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效,旨在为该疾病的临床治疗选择合理的方式。方法回顾性分析采用LC-LCBDE同步治疗及40例采用EST-LC序贯治疗的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病例资料(共80例)。结果两组均无死亡病例,LC-LCBDE组37例完成手术,3例中转开腹,EST-LC组36例完成序贯治疗手术,4例因内镜下插管失败改行LC-LCBDE。两组手术成功率,手术时间,一次性结石清除率,总并发症相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),住院时间和住院费用方面比较,LC-LCBDE组优于EST-LC组,差异有统计学意义[(10.20±1.23)d比(13.50±2.41)d,t=3.006,P=0.004;(1.93±0.21)万元比(2.67±0.34)万元,t=3.132,P=0.003]。结论在胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的微创治疗中,LC-LCBDE同步治疗在住院时间及住院费用方面优于EST-LC序贯治疗,在技术条件允许下应列为首选。在胆总管相对较细(0.8 cm),结石位置较低直径较小,可以选择EST-LC序贯治疗。     

LC+LCBDE和ERCP/EST+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石疗效的Meta分析

目的系统评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)联合胆总管探查取石与内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)/内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开取石术(EST)联合LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的有效性及安全性。方法在Pub Med、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆、中国知网、万方等数据库中检索2010年1月至2018年12月发表的比较LC+LCBDE和ERCP/EST+LC疗效的临床随机对照试验(RCT),按照纳入排除标准进行文献筛选和质量评估后确定纳入文献,阅读文献全文提取相关研究资料,采用Rev Man5. 3软件进行数据分析。结果最终纳入10篇文献,包括1 502例病例,其中LC+LCBDE组756例,ERCP/EST+LC组746例。Meta分析结果示:LC+LCBDE组和ERCP/EST+LC组总并发症率无统计学差异(P> 0. 05),在并发症类型上,LC+LCBDE组术后胰腺炎、胆管炎、出血发生较多,LC+LCBDE组胆漏发生较多。两种术式在结石清除率、中转开腹率、手术时间、住院时间等方面均无统计学差异(P均> 0. 05)。结论 LC+LCBDE与ERCP/EST+LC两种微创术式具有相似的有效性及安全性,两者有各自发生较多的相关并发症,在手术时间及住院时间上均未呈现明显差异,LC+LCBDE组在住院费用上稍具优越性。以上结论尚需进行更多前瞻性RCT进行验证及更新。     

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。     

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.     

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。     

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。