两种微创治疗方案治疗老年患者胆总管结石的临床对照研究

目的比较腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术（LC联合LCBDE）与内镜乳头切开取石联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术（EST联合LC）治疗老年患者（≥65岁）胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法2005年7月～2010年12月,胆总管直径≥8mm且既往未接受乳头括约肌切开、胆囊切除或胆道手术的110例老年胆总管结石患者,LC联合LCBDE组47例,先行LC,确认胆总管后行LCBDE,结石取净后胆道镜检查胆道系统以确认有无结石残留;EST联合LC组63例,十二指肠镜确认十二指肠乳头,常规ERCP进一步明确诊断后行EST,取石后鼻胆管引流2—5d后行LC。对两组结石清除率、术后并发症、中转开腹率及单次治疗成功率等指标进行对比,并进行随访。结果2组结石清除率、术后并发症、中转开腹率差异无显著性（P〉0．05）,而单次治疗成功率Lc联合LCBDE组显著高于EST联合LC组[87．2％（41／47）vs．68．3％（43／63）,z。=5．372,P=0．020]。所有病例随访1—3年,平均2．1年,未出现腹痛、发热及黄疸等症状,B超未见结石复发。结论LC联合LCBDE和EST联合LC都是治疗老年患者胆总管结石安全有效的方法,而在减少治疗次数方面,LC联合LCBDE更有优势。     

胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的外科微创治疗

目的探讨胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的外科微创治疗方式的选择,对比研究内镜下乳头括约肌切开术+腹腔镜胆囊切除(endoscopic sphincterotomy+laparoscopic cholecystectomy,EST+LC)和腹腔镜下胆总管探查(laparoscopic explorationof common bile duct/laparoscopic transcystic exploration of common bile duct,LCBDE/LTCBDE)。方法回顾分析2009年8月～2011年9月手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石56例的临床资料,EST+LC组26例,LCBDE/LTCBDE组30例,2组年龄、性别、体重指数、丙氨酸转氨酶、总胆红素、胆总管直径和ASA评分差异无显著性。对比2种微创治疗方式的住院时间、住院费用和治疗效果。结果 2组住院时间差异无显著性[(9.0±3.5)d vs.(10.1±3.4)d,t=-1.191,P=0.256]。EST+LC组住院费用高于LCBDE/LTCBDE组[(20 017.5±4748.8)元vs.(16 249.5±3366.1)元,t=3.459,P=0.001]。2组并发症和中转开腹的发生率差异无显著性[15.4%(4/26)vs.13.3%(4/30),χ2=0.000,P=1.000]。结论 EST+LC和LCBDE/LTCBDE是胆囊结石合并胆总管结石有效、安全的治疗方式,LCBDE/LTCBDE住院费用明显降低,两者之间并发症并无明显差异。     

急性结石性胆管炎的腹腔镜治疗

目的 总结应用腹腔镜行胆总管切开取石加T管引流术治疗急性结石性胆管炎的临床经验.方法 回顾性分析北京世纪坛医院普外科2007年3月至2011年7月间98例急性结石性胆管炎急诊行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术的临床资料.结果 93例患者急诊施行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石加T管引流术,2例经胆囊管胆总管探查术,3例行胆总管探查置塑料内引流管胆道一期缝合术.98例手术顺利,无中转开腹,平均手术时间96 min,平均住院时间12d.术后主要并发症:残石8例,胆漏4例,腹腔出血1例,经保守方法治愈.结论 对绝大多急性结石性胆管炎患者而言,急诊行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石加T管引流术是安全、有效、可行的.     

两种微创术式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的应用体会

目的探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查术(LC-LBDE)与内镜下奥迪氏括约肌切开取石术(EST)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果及术式选择。方法回顾分析我院2009年7月~2013年12月施行LC-LBDE 31例和EST+LC35例患者的临床资料,对手术时间、并发症、住院时间及住院费用等进行比较分析。结果两种治疗方式在手术疗效上无明显差异,并发症中LC-LBDE组发生率较高,住院费用相比,EST+LC组较高。结论对于胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的患者,上述两种手术方式均能达到有效的治疗目的,但是要根据不同的患者选择最合适的治疗方式。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术与内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术治疗胆总管结石比较

目的 评价腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)和内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术(EST)及其联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的临床疗效.方法 回顾分析2005年9月至2009年1月本院普外科83例胆总管结石合并胆囊疾病患者的临床资料,其中行LCBDE术48例、EST-LC术35例.结果 两种术式手术成功率、手术时间、结石大小、术后并发症发生率、残余结石、结石复发比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),结石数量、术后疼痛、住院费用、术后住院时间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 LCBDE和EST-LC两种微创手术成功率高、安全、并发症少、患者痛苦少、临床疗效可靠,是治疗胆总管结石合并胆囊疾病的理想手术.     

肝外胆管结石的微创治疗

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)+胆总管探查术(common bile ductexploration,CBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)联合LC治疗胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石的临床效果及术式选择。方法:2001年4月～2007年12月我院采用微创外科技术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者66例,其中LC+CBDE组48例,EST组18例,比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后肠功能恢复时间、术后住院天数、住院总费用、并发症发生率、结石消除率等指标。结果:LC+CBDE组与EST组手术时间、术中出血量、术后肠功能恢复时间、结石消除率等指标差异无显著性(P>0.05),LC+CBDE组住院总天数、住院总费用、并发症发生率明显少于EST组(P<0.01)。结论:两种术式各有其适应证和优缺点,胆总管直径<1.0cm时以行EST取石术为宜,2～5d后再行LC。既往有胆道手术史者亦EST取石为宜。胆总管直径>1.0cm,尤其是并存二级胆管结石者(无胆管狭窄)则宜行LC+CBDE。     

三镜联合治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石临床疗效及预后分析

目的:比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)联合胆总管探查术(腹腔镜、胆管镜和十二指肠镜三镜联合治疗)与内镜十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)联合LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石老年病人(≥65岁)的临床疗效.方法:回顾性...     

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.     

胆囊结石并胆总管结石三种手术治疗的对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术、胆总管探查取石术(LC+LCBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开联用腹腔镜胆囊切除术(EST+LC)、剖腹胆囊切除术、胆总管探查引流术(OC+ECBD)3种治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石289例分别采用OC+ECBD(O组)、LC+LCBDE(L组)和EST+LC(E组)治疗,其中O组132例、L组36例、E组121例,比较3组的手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、并发症发生率、住院天数等.结果 3种术式的结石残留率、胆漏发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);O组手术总时间、术中出血量、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间均明显长于L、E组(P<0.01).结论 3种术式各有其适应证和优缺点.胆囊结石合并胆总管结石、单纯胆总管结石,无明显胆管感染或急性胰腺炎者适合选择LC+LCBDE.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术与内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术治疗胆总管结石的临床对照研究

目的:比较腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)与内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术(EST)治疗胆总管结石的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析2012年11月—2014年3月收治的210例胆总管结石患者资料,按手术方式分为LCBDE组(116例)和EST组(94例),对比两组相关临床指标。结果:两组手术成功率差异无统计学意义(99.1%vs.95.74%,P=0.175),但LCBDE组一期治愈率高于EST组(97.4%vs.90.4%,P=0.038);两组残余结石率、平均住院时间与住院费用均无统计学差异(均P0.05),但EST组一期治疗后9例残余结石患者行第2次EST治疗,6例残余结石患者行第3次EST治疗;首次EST失败的患者,其住院时间与花费明显增加;LCBDE组围手术期总并发症以及远期并发症发生率均明显低于EST组(均P0.05),差异主要来源于EST相关并发症。结论:LCBDE治疗胆总管结石一期治愈率高于EST,且并发症率低于EST组,能保留十二指肠乳头括约肌的生理功能,可同时实施腹腔镜胆囊切除术处理胆囊病变。因此,在多数情况下,应首先考虑LCBDE。     

Comparison of emergent versus elective laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for patients with or without nonsevere acute cholangitis complicated with common bile duct stones

Background

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has already been established for the treatment of patients with common bile duct stones (CBDS) in elective situations. However, the effect of emergent LCBDE on those patients with nonsevere acute cholangitis has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of emergent LCBDE on patients with nonsevere acute cholangitis complicated with CBDS.

Methods

Seventy-two patients with CBDS admitted from January 2009 to December 2012 were included for this retrospective study. LCBDE of transductal approach for CBDS was performed to all patients. Thirty-seven patients underwent emergent LCBDE for nonsevere acute cholangitis and 35 patients underwent elective LCBDE. Duration of the procedure, complications, retained stone of bile duct, hospital stay, and total charges were compared between the two groups. In addition, the characteristics of patients underwent emergent LCBDE were also compared before and after surgery.

Results

There was no significant difference with regard to the diameter of common bile duct and number of CBDS from imaging and/or operative findings between the two groups. There was no conversion to open common bile duct exploration, no major bile duct injuries, and no mortality in both the group of patients. There was no significant difference in patients with or without acute or chronic cholecystitis, duration of surgery, overall hospital stay (16.41 ± 1.03 versus 14.54 ± 0.94, P > 0.05), and total charges (18,603 ± 1774.64 versus 14,951 ± 1257.09 Yuan in renminbi, P > 0.05) between the two groups. Four cases with retained stones were found in patients with emergent LCBDE and two in elective LCBDE patients. There were four cases of biliary leak in patients with emergent LCBDE and three cases in elective LCBDE group, respectively. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups. The biliary leak was cured postoperatively after drainage. Control of septic symptoms was achieved in all patients after emergent LCBDE.

Conclusions

Our data indicated that emergent LCBDE is as safe and effective as elective LCBDE for the treatment of patients with nonsevere acute cholangitis complicated with CBDS.     

腹腔镜胆总管取石和内镜乳头切开取石治疗胆总管结石的回顾性分析

目的:分析两种微创手术方式:腹腔镜胆囊切除(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)结合胆总管取石术(laparoscopic common bile duct extraction,LCBDE)和内镜下乳头括约肌切开(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)取石联合LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人的疗效和安全性。方法:回顾近4年余胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人的临床资料,其中LC+LCBDE组40例,EST+LC组40例。比较两组手术成功率、结石清除率以及术后并发症发生率等指标。结果:LC+LCBDE组与EST+LC组手术成功率(97.5%比95.0%)、结石清除率(90.0%比92.5%)、术后近期并发症发生率(7.5%比5.0%)比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组都无围手术期死亡。LC+LCBDE组住院费用与住院时间低于EST+LC组(P<0.001)。LC+LCBDE组未发生远期并发症、无结石复发、EST+LC组2例结石复发和4例发生远期并发症(3例胆道感染、1例复发性胰腺炎)(15.0%)。结论:本研究显示,LC+LCBDE与EST+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效及安全性相似。LC+LCBDE治疗既保留了Oddi括约肌的功能,避免EST相关的潜在风险;同时缩短住院时间,降低住院费用。     

腹腔镜时代胆总管结石的治疗选择

目的 比较腹腔镜胆囊切除＋胆总管切开探查取石术（LC＋LCBDE）和腹腔镜胆囊切除＋术中内镜下括约肌切开取石术（LC＋EST）的临床效果和住院费用。方法 对48例胆总管结石患者全部行LC，其中A组26例行LCBDE，B组22例行EST。统计手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后并发症和总住院费用。结果 48例患者均未中转开腹，1例接受LCBDE的患者术后胆道残留结石，2例接受EST的患者术后出现一过性高淀粉酶血症，1例术后出现一过性黄疸加重，无其他并发症。两组的手术时间、术中出血量和术后住院时间等无显著性差异；A组住院费用平均为（11640±1171）元，B组患者住院费用平均（16455±2015）元，A组显著低于B组。结论 同EST（B组）相比，LCBDE（A组）是处理胆总管结石更为理想的手术方式。     

微创化治疗急性化脓性胆管炎17例临床分析

目的总结提高ERCP、PTCD治疗对急性化脓性胆管炎的紧急救治水平;方法回顾性分析我科收治的17例微创治疗急性化脓性胆管炎患者临床资料,所有患者均接受抗感染、补液等一般治疗;结果单纯行内镜下逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)治疗的患者为14例,其中十二指肠乳头切开取石和(或)鼻胆管引流(ENBD)9例,行胆管支架置入术者5例;在行胆管支架引流的患者中,1例为肝门部肿瘤,外院行胆管支架植入术后7月余,此次引流后,其症状明显缓解,体温逐步恢复正常;经皮肝穿刺胆管引流(PTCD)的患者3例,2例治愈,1例缓解;所有患者均未出现严重并发症。结论 ERCP等微创治疗方式对急性化脓性胆管炎具创口小,较少影响患者生活质量,效果佳的优势。     

腹腔镜胆总管切开取石T管引流术

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石T管引流术治疗胆总管结石的可行性。方法60例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石行腹腔镜胆囊切除术（laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC）、胆总管切开取石T管引流术。结果60例手术均获成功,无中转开腹手术。手术时间90～180min,平均110min;术中出血量10～50ml,平均20ml。2例术后胆漏,保守治愈;6例胆道残余结石术后胆道镜取净。53例（随访率88．3％）随访2～33个月,平均13．2月,均无腹痛,发热,黄疸发作。结论LC、胆总管探查术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石技术可行。     

胆囊结石合并胆总管结石两种微创治疗方法的效果比较

目的 比较腹腔镜胆囊切除联合腹腔镜胆总管探查胆道支架引流术(LC+LCBDE+支架)和内镜下括约肌切开取石术(EST)联合LC(即EST+LC)两种微创手术方式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 回顾性分析宁夏回族自治区人民医院肝胆外科97例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人的临床资料,其中52例行LC+LCBDE+支...     

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of intraoperatively demonstrated choledocholithiasis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and complications of postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in confirming and treating choledocholithiasis found at intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone ERCP following a cholecystectomy between 2008 and 2011 with an indication of intraoperative cholangiography findings consistent with choledocholithiasis were identified from a prospectively collected database of a single endoscopist. Deep biliary access rate, confirmation of choledocholithiasis, clearance rate of bile duct stones, delay between cholecystectomy and postoperative ERCP, and the complication rates following the procedure were analysed.

RESULTS

The median age of the 41 patients (16 male, 25 female) was 42 years (range: 18–82 years). Sixteen surgeons performed the operations with a median delay of 6 days (range: 1–103 days) between cholecystectomy and postoperative ERCP. Common bile duct access was achieved in 100% of the patients, with ERCP taking a median time of 16 minutes (range: 6–40 minutes). Initial ERCP confirmed the presence of a stone in 30 patients (73%) and successful stone removal occurred in 28 of these 30 patients (93%) during the first ERCP and in the remaining 2 on a subsequent ERCP. Following ERCP, two patients (4.9%) experienced extended hospital stays for four and eight days owing to complications, including one patient (2.4%) with mild acute pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that postoperative ERCP is highly effective in both confirming and treating choledocholithiasis. However, there is a significant risk of short-term complications that must be taken into consideration when deciding management.