Laparoscopic choledochotomy with primary closure

Background: Thirty-three patients were candidates for laparoscopic choledochotomy. The indications for this operation are described. Methods: The procedure was completed 32 times (97%). We had 29 successful common bile duct (CBD) clearances, three negative explorations, and one failed clearance which needed to be converted to laparotomy. All the completed procedures ended with primary closure of the main duct. Median duration of surgery was 180 min (range 100–300), including three associated laparoscopic procedures. Results: There were three postoperative complications (9.4%), none major. Average postoperative hospital stay was 7.1 days (range 4–14). In May–June 1995 we controlled 31 out of the 32 consecutive patients (one patient was lost to follow-up) who had a successful laparoscopic choledochotomy from October 1991 to December 1994. Median follow-up was 22 months (range 5–44). Besides clinical control, 23 patients also had ultrasound (US) controls and 24 had blood tests. Eleven had intravenous cholangiotomography. Two patients died 11 and 22 months after the operation for unrelated causes and without biliary symptoms. Two patients had umbilical hernias. One had a small residual asymptomatic stone, which was removed endoscopically. None had signs of postoperative CBD stricture. At US, CBD was ≤7 mm in 15 patients, 8–10 mm in four patients, and 10–12 mm in three patients. The last group had preoperative CBD dilation, too. We could compare preoperative and postoperative CBD diameters in 22 patients: 11 had no change; in nine it decreased; and two had a slight increase (8–10 mm). Conclusions: We conclude that laparoscopic choledochotomy with primary closure is a very good operation: It has a high success rate and low morbidity. Mortality is nil so far. Medium-term results are very positive: We had no CBD stricture and only one case of asymptomatic residual stone, which could have been avoided. Our results suggest that intraductal biliary drainage is useless, and its specific complications are well known. Received: 20 October 1995/Accepted: 28 February 1996     

腹腔镜胆总管探查胆道一期缝合与“T”管引流的临床疗效分析

目的：探讨肝外胆管结石患者经腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石行一期缝合与“T”管引流2种术式的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2011年2月-2013年2月新疆医科大学第一附属医院肝脏腹腔镜外科50例肝外胆管结石患者行腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术的临床资料,分为两组：一期缝合组（primary suture ,PS）21例,“T”管引流组（T-tube drainage,TD）29例,比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、住院费用、术后肛门排气时间、术后下床活动时间、术后补液量、术后带管时间、术后住院时间及术后并发症（胆漏、胆管狭窄、消化不良、腹腔感染、胆管炎、残余结石）发生情况。结果两组患者手术均成功,治愈后出院,无死亡病例。PS 组术后出现2例胆漏、1例胆总管残余结石及2例术后消化不良,TD 组术后出现3例胆漏、1例胆总管残余结石及3例术后消化不良,两组均无胆总管狭窄、胆管炎及腹腔感染者。PS 组术后带管时间、术后肛门排气时间、住院费用、术后住院时间、术后下床活动时间、术后补液量少于 TD 组,两组差异有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）;两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生情况差异无统计学意义（P ＞0．05）。结论在严格掌握手术适应证的条件下,熟练的腹腔镜操作技术的支持下和腹腔镜胆总管探查取石一期缝合术较“T”管引流术效果更好,具有明显优势。     

Metallic Clip Migration to T-tube Sinus Tract after Laparoscopic Choledochotomy

Migration and translocation of metallic clips in the abdominal cavity after laparoscopic bile duct surgery have been reported to occur in the common bile duct (CBD), hepatic duct, duodenum, and even the ovarium, which could cause severe complications. Here we present three cases of metallic clip migration to the T-tube sinus tract after laparo-scopic choledochotomy. Metallic clips were discharged from the sinus tract of the T-tube into the drainage bag in two cases. In another case, clips were found to translocate into the sinus tract during choledochoscopic examination for residual stones in CBD.     

腹腔镜胆总管切开术:T管引流还是一期缝合

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开术T管引流与一期缝合的适应证、手术特点及胆道并发症的防治。方法回顾性对比分析1997年11月～2005年11月该院116例腹腔镜胆总管切开术：T管引流组（54例）与一期缝合组（62例）的临床资料。结果对比两组胆总管内径、手术时间、术后胆漏及胆管狭窄，差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05），一期缝合组术后胃肠功能恢复时间、补液时间及住院时间显著缩短（P〈0.01）。无手术死亡病例。结论腹腔镜胆总管切开术选择T管引流还是一期缝合，取决于其适应证。一期缝合的适应证较为严格，主要为术中取石干净及胆总管通畅，其手术效果明显优于T管引流；T管引流为术后胆道造影及胆道镜处理残留结石提供了有效途径。只有严格按照手术适应证并熟练掌握手术要点，才能有效防止胆道并发症的发生。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查一期缝合后血清肝功能变化的临床研究

目的通过临床试验,比较分析腹腔镜胆总管探查取石一期缝合胆总管和T管引流后肝功能的变化,为腹腔镜胆总管探查胆管一期缝合术的可行性提供理论及试验依据。方法采用前瞻性随机对照研究的方法,分析比较2003年8月~2004年1月30例腹腔镜胆总管探查取石病人术后肝功能的变化,其中一期缝合15例,T管引流15例。结果血清肝功能测定一期缝合组各时间点血清ALT、AST、TBIL、DBIL、ALP含量均有所下降,某些时间点有显著性差异(P<0·01),而T管引流组各时间点血清ALT、AST、TBIL、DBIL无显著性差异(均P>0·05)。两组间比较一期缝合组ALT、AST、TBILDBIL在某些时间点较T管引流组显著性下降(P<0·05),但血清ALP含量,两组之间各时间点均无显著性差异(均P>0·05)。结论腹腔镜胆总管探查取石后一期缝合与T管引流比较,有利于损害之肝功能迅速恢复且减黄效果与T管引流术相同或相近。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查取石74例临床疗效分析

目的 探讨腹腔镜探查术治疗胆总管结石的疗效及其微创意义.方法 回顾性分析2006-10～2011-10腹腔镜胆总管切开探查治疗胆总管结石74例的临床资料.结果 74例中手术成功71例,3例中转开腹.手术时间80-170 min,平均(110±60)min;术中出血量20-110 ml;住院时间5-12 d,平均(7±5)d.结论 腹腔镜胆总管切开探查治疗胆总管结石是一种创伤小、恢复快、安全可靠的微创手术.     

胆总管切开取石术后黄疸不退或加深原因分析及对策

目的探讨胆总管切开取石术后黄疸不退或加深的原因及对策。方法对52例胆总管切开取石术后黄疽不退或加深病例的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果胆管结石残留和肝脏基础病变是引起术后黄疽不退或加深的主要原因，分别为18例（34.62％）和16例（30.77％）。其次为术后肝内胆汁淤积症（6例，11.54％）。胆管残留结石经T管胆道冲洗结合PTCD和术后胆道镜取石治疗：肝脏基础病变者保肝利胆治疗为主；术后肝内胆汁淤积症予糖皮质激素及保肝利胆治疗。除1例死亡外．其余病例均黄疸消退或明显好转出院。结论胆总管切开取石术后黄疸不退或加深除了考虑胆管结石残留、腹腔感染和胆管损伤等因素外．还要进一步追问病史和检查以了解有无肝脏基础病变．此外要考虑术后肝内胆汁淤积症。建议应用术中胆道镜减少残石率；T管胆道冲洗和术后胆道镜治疗胆管残留结石；肝脏有基础病变者术前及术后早期保肝治疗。减少术中出血和手术时间，维持术中血压稳定可减少术后肝内胆汁淤积症的发生。     

Comparative quality of life study between endoscopic sphincterotomy and surgical choledochotomy

AIM: To determine quality of life improvement in choledocholithiasis patients who underwent endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) versus open choledochotomy (OCT).METHODS: Eligible choledocholithiasis patients (n = 216) hospitalized in the Changhai Hospital between May 2010 and January 2011 were enrolled into a prospective study using cluster sampling. Patients underwent EST (n = 135) or OCT (n = 81) depending on the patient’s wishes. Patients were followed-up with a field survey and by correspondence. Patients were also given the self-administered Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) to measure patient quality of life before surgery, and at two and six weeks after the procedures.RESULTS: With respect to baseline patient characteristics, the EST and OCT groups were comparable. After the procedure, gallstones were completely eliminated in all patients. Among 216 eligible patients, 191 patients (88.4%) completed all three surveys, including 118 patients who underwent EST (118/135; 87.4%) and 73 patients who underwent OCT (73/81; 90.1%). EST was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay than OCT (8.8 ± 6.5 vs 13.9 ± 6.7 d; P < 0.001). The GIQLI score was similar between the EST and OCT groups before cholelithotomy (103.0 ± 15.4 vs 99.7 ± 10.2), but increased significantly in the EST group at two weeks (113.4 ± 12.0 vs 107.2 ± 11.2; P < 0.001) and six weeks (120.7 ± 10.6 vs 116.9 ± 7.5; P < 0.05) after the procedures.CONCLUSION: EST, compared with OCT, is associated with better postoperative quality of life in patients treated for choledocholithiasis.     

Laparoscopic choledochotomy for bile duct stones

In the era of laparoscopic surgery, treatment strategies for common bile duct stones remain controversial. Laparoscopic choledochotomy is usually indicated only when transcystic duct exploration is not feasible. However, laparoscopic choledochotomy provides complete access to the ductal system and has a higher clearance rate than the transcystic approach. In addition, primary closure of the choledochotomy with a running suture and absorbable clips facilitates the procedure. Therefore, to avoid postoperative biliary stenosis, all patients with bile duct stones can be indicated for choledochotomy, except for those with nondilated common bile duct. Placement of a C‐tube also provides access for the clearance of possible retained stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy as a backup procedure. C‐tube placement, in contrast to T‐tube insertion, is advantageous in terms of a relatively short hospital stay. In conclusion, laparoscopic choledochotomy with C‐tube drainage is recommended as the treatment of choice for patients with common bile duct stones.     

Laparoscopic T-tube choledochotomy for biliary lithiasis

T-tube choledochotomy has been an established practice in common bile duct exploration for many years. Although bile leaks, biliary peritonitis, and long-term postoperative strictures have been reported and are directly associated with the placement or removal of the T-tube, the severity of these complications may often be underestimated by surgeons. We present the case of a 31-year-old male patient who developed biliary peritonitis and septic shock after removal of a T-tube and illustrate one of the catastrophic events that may follow such procedures. Literature shows that these complications may occur more frequently and have higher morbidity and mortality than other less invasive procedures. This article reviews the advances in laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques, which provide alternative therapeutic approaches to choledocholithiasis and allow the surgeon to avoid having to perform a choledochotomy with T-tube drainage.