腹腔镜胆囊切除术中联合括约肌切开取石的研究

目的　探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术 (LC)中联合应用胰胆镜括约肌切开 (IOES)治疗胆石症的价值。　方法　回顾性分析联合手术治疗腹腔镜胆囊切除术前诊断和术中常规胆道造影确诊的2 7例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的临床效果。　结果　IOES成功率为 96 3% (2 6 /2 7) ;取净结石率 10 0 % (2 6 /2 6 ) ;IOES后 2例发生轻度急性胰腺炎 ;术后平均住院时间 (3± 1)d。　结论　LC联合IOES能一次性有效微创治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石疾病     

Intraoperative ultrasonography for common bile duct exploration during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The "Endomedix Laparoscan" and the "Leopard" and "Panther" intraoperative ultrasounds were successfully used for the detection of unsuspected common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Out of 60 patients six had common bile duct (CBD) stones and in one patient sludge has been seen. In patients with CBD stones, four small calculi have been observed in one patient, despite negative intraoperative cholangiography (IC). In an other patient a stone in the retropancreatic part of the CBD was detected. Based on preoperative findings CBD stone was unsuspected. We found that intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) is useful for in investigating the CBD to detect unsuspected common bile duct stones. It can be used for the examination of other organs (liver, pancreas, hepatoduodenal ligament) as well. The method is easy to perform, fairly simple and informative so it can replace IC during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术后胆总管残余结石的危险因素分析

目的 探讨导致腹腔镜胆囊切除术术后胆管残余结石的相关危险因素,为预防术后胆管残余结石提供科学依据.方法 分析2002年1月-2013年6月于北京市垂杨柳医院行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的654例胆囊结石患者,按术后是否存在胆总管结石残留,分为残余结石组(27例)及非残余结石组(627例).分别观察两组的黄疸胰腺炎病史、胆总管内径(B超)≥8 mm、急性胆囊炎、急诊手术、胆囊切除顺序、胆囊三角粘连、泥沙样结石、结石颈部嵌顿、充满型结石、胆囊管增粗、胆囊管保留≥1 cm、结石最小直径≤5 mm、胆囊结石数量≥5个、脓性胆汁等相关指标.采用统计软件IBM SPSS 20.0进行统计学分析.结果 经Logistic回归分析,按照影响度高低排序,本研究发现以下因素为LC术后残余结石的独立危险因素:胆总管内径(B超)≥8 mm、胆囊切除顺序(逆切)、黄疸胰腺炎病史、胆囊管保留长度≥1 cm、泥沙样结石.结论 有黄疸胰腺炎病史、胆总管内径(B超)≥8 mm、胆囊切除顺序(逆切)、泥沙样结石、胆囊管保留长度≥1 cm,是LC术后胆管残余结石的独立危险因素,在行LC术前及术中应特别注意上述因素并采取相应的措施,有助于避免术后胆管残余结石的发生.     

Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and effective

Management strategy for common bile duct (CBD) stones is controversial with several treatment options if stones in the CBD are recognized intraoperatively. The aim of this study was to report our experience with same-session combined endoscopic-laparoscopic treatment of gallbladder and CBD stones. We retrospectively evaluated 31 patients with cholecystolithiasis and CBD stones undergoing same-session combined endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy and endoscopic stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Same-session ERCP and sphincterotomy were performed in all patients, and stone extraction was successfully performed in 29 patients (93%) with 2 failures (7%) due to impacted stones. In 8 patients (26%), the laparoscopic procedure was converted to open cholecystectomy because of dense adhesions or unclear anatomy. Two patients (7%) developed mild pancreatitis postoperatively and no other morbidity or mortality. In conclusion, same-session ERCP with stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to be a safe and effective treatment strategy for CBD stones.     

ERCP与腹腔镜胆总管探查治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的比较

目的比较ERCP与腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的优、缺点。 方法回顾分析2010年4月至2015年4月5年间诊治的197例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者。 结果ERCP组(99例)中有6例患者手术失败,32例合并胰腺炎,1例出现十二指肠壁穿孔。3例患者术后出现胆总管结石复发。LCBDE组(98例)中无手术失败,8例放置T管,无胆总管结石复发,无严重并发症。LCBDE组术后平均住院时间和平均住院费用均低于ERCP组[(5±2) d vs (3±1)d, (2.23±0.85)万元 vs (1.73±0.43)万元]。 结论ERCP＋EST和LCBDE对于胆囊结石合并胆总管结石都是行之有效的处理方法,对于大多数患者应首选LCBDE,对于特殊患者可选择ERCP＋EST＋LC方案。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查治疗胆囊切除术后复发或残留胆总管结石的临床疗效

目的:探讨腹腔镜下胆总管探查(LCBDE)治疗胆囊切除术后复发或残留胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2012年4月—2015年6月52例行LCBDE治疗的胆囊切除术后复发或残留胆总管结石患者临床资料。结果:52例患者中成功完成LCBDE 48例(92.3%),其余4例均因腹腔粘连致密而中转开腹手术。48例患者术中放置T管15例,行胆总管一期缝合33例;手术时间(102.6±19.5)min,术中出血量(38.6±12.7)m L,术后住院时间(4.2±2.5)d;术后发生轻微胆汁漏2例,拔T管后胆汁性腹膜炎1例,均经保守治疗痊愈;术后胆总管残留结石1例,于术后6周经T管窦道胆道镜下网篮取石治愈。结论:LCBDE治疗胆囊切除术后复发或残留胆总管结石成功率高,且微创、恢复快,推荐临床应用。     

The use of ERCP in the management of common bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Summary The purpose of this study was to evaluate the indications and results of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for gallstone disease since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In our personal series of 410 consecutive cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, we found 17 common bile duct (CBD) stones; seven were identified by preop ERCP, nine at laparoscopy by intraoperative cholangiography, and one postop by ERCP. We have performed preop ERCP in 21 patients (5.1%); CBD stones were found in seven. Our indications for preop ERCP were elevated liver function tests, dilatation of the common duct by ultrasound, or a history of jaundice/pancreatitis, and all stones were successfully removed by endoscopic sphincterotomy. At laparoscopic cholecystectomy nine patients were found to have stones; one was treated with laparoscopic methods, four with open CBD exploration, and four by postop endoscopic sphincterotomy. Post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy, five patients underwent ERCP for pain or increased liver function tests suggestive of common duct stones. One of the five was found to have stones and these were successfully removed by endoscopic sphincterotomy. ERCP is very useful as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients with suspected CBD stones. Elevated liver function tests and dilated CBD by ultrasound are the most accurate predictors of stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy is a more effective route, at present, for stone removal than a laparoscopic approach.     

Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to remove common bile duct stones during routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not prolong hospitalization: a 2-year experience

Background: There is still some controversy regarding the optimal timing and best method for the removal of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (IO-ERCP) is an alternative method that should be considered for this procedure. The aim of our study was to investigate the clinical outcome of a single-step procedure (IO-ERCP) to remove CBDS, thereby combining two existing high-volume clinical modalities—i.e., laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and ERCP. Methods: Between January 2000 and December 2001, 674 patients, 192 male and 482 female, underwent cholecystectomy at our hospital. Therewere 612 LC (90.8%), 37 converted procedures (5.5%), and 25 open operations (3.7%). In 592 of the patients, (87.8%) intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) was performed. In 34 (5.7%) of those who had and IOC, an IO-ERCP was performed. While the surgeon waited for the endoscopist, care was taken to introduce a thin guidewire through the lOC catheter and pass it through the sphincter of Oddi, out into the duodenum. This complementary procedure greatly facilitated the subsequent cannulation of the bile ducts. Results: The cannulation frequency of the CBD was 100%. Common bile duct stones were successfully extracted in 93.5%. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), followed by the insertion of a plastic endoprosthesis, was performed in two patients with remaining stones. The CBD of these two patients was cleared by postoperative ERCP. None of the patients developed postoperative pancreatitis. The operating time was prolonged as compared with the time for LC (192 vs 110 mins; p < 0.05). The length of hospitalization for IO-ERCP patients did not differ from that for patients undergoing cholecystectomy alone (2.6 vs 2.1. days; NS). Conclusions: The study suggests that elective IO-ERCP is a safe and efficient method for removing CBDS that has a low risk of inducing postoperative pancreatitis and does not prolong postoperative hospitalization. This technique enables perioperative extraction of CBDS without open or laparoscopic surgical exploration of the CBD and can be used safely in a routine clinical setting.     

腹腔镜下胆道探查与内镜Oddi括约肌切开取石的研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆道探查取石,T管引流术和腹腔镜胆囊切除一期联合内镜Oddi括约肌切开取石治疗胆总管结石合并胆囊结石的临床应用价值。方法:统计分析研究组(77例腹腔镜胆道探查取石即LCH- TD及43例腹腔镜胆囊切除一期联合内镜Oddi括约肌切开取石即LC- EST)与对照组(60例常规开腹胆总管探查即OCHTD)胆总管结石合并胆囊结石患者的临床资料。结果:研究组胆总管结石合并胆囊结石120例中111例行微创手术取得成功,占92. 5%,与对照开腹探查组相比,术后恢复较好,住院时间短,取得了较满意的效果(P<0 .05);研究组中运用LCH -TD的患者较LC EST的患者手术操作时间、术后腹痛、恶心及住院天数差异有显著性(P<0. 05)。两者在胆总管内径及结石大小方面差异亦有显著性(P<0. 05)。结论:LCH -TD与LC -EST两种术式微创,安全且临床疗效可靠,能代替大部分开腹胆总管探查术;腹腔镜胆总管探查取石法总体上优于腹腔镜胆囊切除一期联合内镜Oddi括约肌切开取石法。胆总管直径>1 0cm者行LCH- TD是一种安全可行的方法。若胆总管内径<1cm,且胆总管结石<1 0cm,建议行LC- EST。     

术中胆道造影在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中发现胆道损伤的作用

目的：评估术中胆道造影（IOC）在早期发现腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）术中胆道损伤的作用。方法：回顾分析31例LC术后胆道损伤的部位，机理，诊断时间，治疗方法及结果，并对是否行IOC进行评估。结果：胆道错认引起胆道损伤共19例，其中12例IOC显示胆道错认，致胆道部分切开损伤，腹腔镜下行I期修复或开腹修复，T管引流，但无并发症。19例中3例IOC误读及4例未行IOC患者中发生迷走胆管损伤2例，胆总管完全离断1例，胆总管完全离断合并胆道缺损2例，本组有2例损伤发生于IOC后，结论：行IOC并正确阅读可及时发现腹腔镜胆囊切除术中胆道错认所致的胆道损伤，从而防止随之可能发生的严重并发症。     

Biochemical predictors for absence of common bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND: To provide optimal selection of patients for preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or intraoperative cholangiography, we evaluated simple, noninvasive biochemical parameters as screening tests to predict the absence of common bile duct stones prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A total of 1002 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Five biochemical parameters were measured preoperatively: gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase. Conventional diagnostic tests, including ultrasound imaging, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, common bile duct diameter, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and serum amylase were performed. Along with the five biochemical tests above, these diagnostic tests were scrutinized and compared as potential predictors for common bile duct stones. RESULTS: Eighty-eight (8.8%) patients with gallstone disease who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy had concurrent common bile duct stones. Among all diagnostic tests, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography had the highest sensitivity (96.0%), specificity (99.1%), probability ratio (107.3), accuracy (98.0%), and positive predictive value (98.8%) in detecting common bile duct stones. At least one abnormal elevation among the five biochemical parameters had the highest sensitivity (87.5%). Total bilirubin had the highest specificity (87.5%), highest probability ratio (3.9), highest accuracy (84.1%), and highest positive predictive value (27.4%). All five biochemical predictors had high negative predictive values; gamma glutamyl transferase was highest (97.9%), while the lowest was total bilirubin (94.7%). Multivariate analysis showed only gamma glutamyl transferase, alkaline phosphatase, and total bilirubin to be independent predictors; gamma glutamyl transferase appeared to be the most powerful predictor (odds ratio 3.20). CONCLUSION: Biochemical tests, especially gamma glutamyl transferase with 97.9% negative predictive value, are ideal noninvasive predictors for the absence of common bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We suggest that unnecessary, costly, or risky procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be omitted prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients without abnormal elevation of these biochemical values.     

腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆总管探查术与胆总管探查并一期缝合术治疗胆总管结石的对比研究

目的:比较腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆总管探查术(LTCBDE)与经胆总管探查(LCBDE)+胆道一期缝合术治疗胆总管结石的效果。方法:回顾性分析2013年1月—2015年12月期间应用微创手术治疗的104例胆总管结石的患者临床资料,其中50例行LTCBDE(LTCBDE组)与54例行LCBDE+胆道一期缝合术(LCBDE+一期缝合组),比较两组的相关临床指标。结果:与LCBDE+一期缝合组比较,LTCBDE组手术时间(91.7 min vs.110.9 min)、术中出血量(15.5 mL vs.17.4 mL)、术后引流量(28.4 mL vs.44.6 mL)、带管时间(7.8 d vs.9.7 d)、住院时间(8.8d vs.10.6d)均明显减少(均P0.05);LTCBDE组术后胆汁漏的发生率明显低于LCBDE+一期缝合组(2.0%vs.13.0%,P=0.036),其他并发症的发生率两组无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:LTCBDE治疗胆总管结石安全可靠的,且较LCBDE+胆道一期缝合术更符合微创的目的,在两种术式的适应证均满足的情况下,可优先考虑。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中经胆囊管胆道造影的临床意义

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术中行经胆囊管胆道造影对隐匿性胆总管结石及医源性胆管损伤诊断的临床意义.方法 回顾性分析341例腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者的临床资料,其中137例术中行经胆囊管胆道造影,207例未行造影.结果 137例行术中胆道造影者,术中发现胆总管结石11例（8.03％）,胆管损伤1例（0.72％）;术后随访3～6个月发现胆总管残余结石4例（2.92％）,未发现胆管损伤.204例未行术中胆道造影者,术中发现胆总管结石5例（2.45％）,术中未发现胆管损伤;术后随访3～6个月发现胆总管残余结石18例（8.82％）,胆管损伤2例（0.98％）.结论 腹腔镜胆囊切除术中经胆囊管胆道造影操作安全、快速、无创,可提高胆总管结石诊断的敏感度,及时发现胆管损伤,降低胆总管残余结石发生率,避免不必要的胆道探查.     

择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术前可疑胆总管结石诊断分析

目的探讨择期腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)术前可疑胆总管结石的诊断,并对术中胆道造影及术前MRCP诊断可疑胆总管结石进行评价。方法对2005年5月—2010年5月择期行LC的1758例患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。其中1519例患者临床未疑胆总管结石(A组);余239例患者疑存胆总管结石,根据其不同临床病理特征分为4组(B,C,D,E组)。比较各组术后胆总管结石的发生率。并分析胆总管结石发生的独立危险因素。在可疑胆总管结石的4组中,比较术前MRCP与术中胆道造影确诊胆总管结石准确率。结果 4组可疑患者胆总管结石发生率均明显大于A组(均P<0.01),但4组可疑患者间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。多因素非条件Logistic回归分析结果显示:胆总管直径≥8mm、既往有胆源性胰腺炎、既往有胆总管结石是发生胆总管结石的独立危险因素(P<0.05)。在4组可疑患者中,术前MRCP与术中胆道造影确诊胆总管结石准确率无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论肝功能异常、B超示胆总管有扩张、既往有胆源性胰腺炎或既往B超示胆总管有结石情况下,胆总管结石发生率显著性增加;胆总管直径≥8mm、既往有胆源性胰腺炎、既往有胆总管结石是发生胆总管结石...     

A stratified intraoperative surgical strategy is mandatory during laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones

Background: Open exploration and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) remain the preferred treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS). The recent spread of laparoscopy has worsened the dilemna of choosing between surgical and endoscopic treatment of CBDS. The aim of this study was to critically evaluate the results of our preliminary experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (CBDE) for CBDS. Methods: Ninety-two consecutive patients were prospectively submitted to laparoscopic CBDE. Surgical strategy included an initial transcystic approach or laparoscopic choledochotomy. Failure of stone clearance was managed by conversion to open CBDE or by postoperative ES. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy and papillary balloon dilatation were selectively used. Stone clearance was assessed by choledochoscopy and control cholangiography. Results: The overall laparoscopic stone clearance in this series was 84% (transcystic route 63% and choledochotomy 93%). Conversion to laparotomy was mandatory in 12% of the patients because of incomplete stone clearance and in 5% because of intraoperative complications. Postoperative ES was required in 4% of the patients, giving an overall surgical success rate of 96%. When indicated (small and limited number of stones located below the cysticocholedochal junction, with a dilated and patent cystic duct) the transcystic route had the lower success rate, the higher complication rate, and the shorter operative time and postoperative hospital stay. When indicated (accessible and dilated common bile duct over 7 mm), laparoscopic choledochotomy had the higher success rate, the lower complication rate, the longer operative time, and the longer postoperative hospital stay, which is related to associated external biliary drainage. The hospital mortality included two high-risk patients (2%) and the complications rate was 15%. Conclusions: Laparoscopic CBDE is safe in selected patients. A stratified intraoperative surgical strategy is mandatory in deciding between a transcystic route and choledochotomy with specific indications for each approach. When feasible, laparoscopic choledochotomy is more efficient and safe than the transcystic route, but it is associated with a longer postoperative hospital stay, which is due to external biliary drainage. Received: 7 May 1996/Accepted: 19 November 1996     

不同方式腹腔镜胆道探查术治疗肝外胆管结石的临床研究

目的 分析比较三种不同方式腹腔镜胆道探查术治疗肝外胆管结石的疗效及其临床应用价值.方法 回顾性分析了2010年1月至2012年12月由同一术者实施的120例腹腔镜胆道探查术患者的临床资料.结果 行腹腔镜胆囊切除+经胆囊管胆道探查(A组)15例,腹腔镜胆囊切除+胆总管切开探查+胆管一期缝合(B组)85例,腹腔镜胆囊切除+胆总管切开探查+T管引流(C组)20例,全组均顺利完成手术.与C组比较,A组及B组所需手术时间、住院费用、术后住院时间、腹腔引流时间、恢复正常生活时间较少,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);A组与B组比较除腹腔引流时间较短外(P＜0.05),其余指标差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).三组术后并发症及远期结果无明显区别.结论 三种不同方式的微创手术都有各自的适应证.对适宜患者,腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆道探查术治疗肝外胆管结石患者的疗效优于腹腔镜下胆总管切开探查术,而腹腔镜下胆总管切开探查+一期缝合的疗效则优于腹腔镜下胆总管切开探查+T管引流.