Results of the routine use of a modified endoprosthesis to drain the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy

Background: One hundred eighty-one patients were submitted to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Methods: A transcystic approach was used in 147 patients, choledochotomy in 14, and both in 20. The indications to perform a choledochotomy included stones larger than 20 mm, stones proximal to the cystic duct entrance, and cases in which the transcystic duct approach proved impossible or unsuccessful. Results: The common bile duct was drained by a T-tube in four patients, by laparoscopic sphincterotomy in one, by laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy in one, and by a 10 Fr endoprosthesis in 28. The stent placement was technically feasible in all patients but one. The biliary drainage was adequate. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 days. Complication was limited to one umbilical infection and one self-limited biliary leak. Conclusions: The procedure proved to be technically simple, safe, and efficient, and resulted in a low morbidity rate and short hospital stay. Received: 29 March 1996/Accepted: 12 June 1996     

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     

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.     

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.     

腹腔镜与开腹胆总管切开取石+T 管引流术的疗效探讨

目的研究腹腔镜与开腹手术行胆总管切开取石术的临床效果。方法对同一时期124例胆总管结石病人手术资料进行回顾性分析,分为腹腔镜胆总管切开取石探查+T 管引流术组(laparoscopic choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage,LCHTD,n=78)和开腹胆总管切开取石+T 管引流术组(open choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage,OCHTD,n=46)。分析对比两组病人的术前、术中和术后临床资料。结果两组术前临床资料比较差异无统计学意义(P >0.05),具有可比性。LCHTD 和 OCHTD 两组在术中失血量[(35.2±17.1)ml 和(190.3±37.5)ml]、术后胃肠蠕动恢复时间[(34.8±6.3)h 和(61.5±17.6)h]、术后平均住院时间[(5.7±1.7)d 和(10.0±2.3)d]、术后镇痛率(8.97%和58.70%)和切口感染发生率(2.56%和28.26%)方面差异均具有统计学意义(P <0.05或 P <0.01)。两组平均手术时间差异无统计学意义(P >0.05);手术后 T 管造影均未发现残余结石和胆漏的发生。结论腹腔镜下行胆总管切开取石术+T 管引流术具有手术创伤小、恢复快、安全,临床效果好,能够取代部分 OCHTD。     

经胆囊管腹腔镜胆道探查术治疗胆总管结石的临床研究

目的:比较分析腹腔镜下经胆囊管和经胆总管切开T管引流两种方法胆道镜取石治疗胆囊结石继发胆总管结石的疗效,以评价经胆囊管腹腔镜胆道探查术治疗胆总管结石的临床价值。方法:2001年3月至2003年3月按胆道探查途径不同将28例胆石症患者分为胆囊管组(n=8)和胆总管切开组(n=20)。患者经B超和术中胆道造影或加内窥镜逆行胆管造影(ERC)确诊。观察两组病例的术后肛门排气时间、腹腔引流时间、术后住院日、住院费用及手术并发症的发生情况,术后对患者进行全程跟踪随访。结果:胆总管切开组肛门排气时间、腹腔引流时间、术后住院日、住院费用明显长于或高于胆囊管组(P>0.05)。胆囊管组发生手术并发症1例(12.5%);胆总管切开组5例(25.0%),其中胆道并发症4例(20.0%),需要再次微创处理2例(10.0%),需再次手术治疗的严重并发症2例(10.0%);手术并发症发生率胆总管切开组明显高于胆囊管组(P<0.05)。随访两组患者均无胆管狭窄、急性胆管炎及急性胰腺炎发生和结石复发。结论:经胆囊管途径的腹腔镜胆道探查术充分体现了微创外科技术的优点,适于胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者,其疗效优于胆总管切开T管引流途径的腹腔镜胆道探查术。     

腹腔镜胆总管探查和开腹胆总管探查术后胆道压力变化的对比研究

目的对比分析腹腔镜胆总管探查和开腹胆总管探查术后胆道压力的变化,为胆总管探查可行性提供参考依据。方法 68例胆结石患者随机分成腹腔镜胆总管探查术组和开腹胆总管探查术组,均于术中、术后24、48、72、96小时分别测量两组患者取石后胆道压力的变化情况,并进行统计学分析。结果①两组患者手术后24小时总胆管压力变化较手术中升高,与术中比较有统计学意义(P<0.05或<0.01);②术后48、72小时,OCBDE组胆总管压力变化与术中比较仍有统计学意义(P<0.05),而LCBDE组无统计学意义(P>0.05);③组间比较,OCBDE组术后24、48、72小时胆总管压力变化与LCBDE组比较也有统计学意义(P<0.05或<0.01)。结论腹腔镜胆总管探查较开腹总管探查胆道压力变化小,更适合于患者。     

腹腔镜与胆道镜联合在胆管结石手术治疗中的临床应用

目的探讨胆道镜在腹腔镜胆管结石手术中应用的价值。方法利用胆道镜灵活的转向、柔和的弯曲性,对腹腔镜下剖开胆总管的远端及肝内胆管进行探查、术中取石、狭窄胆管的治疗。结果本组72例胆管结石患者均术中应用胆道镜探查,单纯胆总管结石51例,术中取净47例;单纯肝内胆管结石12例,术中取净5例;肝内外共存结石9例。术中取净4例;伴有肝内胆管狭窄2例,Oddi括约肌狭窄1例。对2例肝内胆管狭窄及1例Oddi括约肌狭窄进行球囊导管扩张治疗。结论胆道镜在腹腔镜胆管结石手术中的应用,提高了术中结石取出率及取净率;同时可以对胆管及Oddi括约肌狭窄进行诊断和术中治疗,提高了腹腔镜胆管结石Ⅰ期治愈率,达到微创的目的。     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: transcystic approach and choledochotomy

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration by the transcystic approach and choledochotomy. We selected the transcystic approach for patients whose CBD stones were less than five in number and smaller than 9 mm in diameter, and whose CBD was less than 15 mm in diameter on cholangiograms. Among 217 patients with CBD stones treated laparoscopically, the transcystic approach was performed successfully in 91 of 104 patients in whom it was attempted (87.5%). The other 126 patients underwent laparoscopic choledochotomy, followed by ductal closure with transcystic drainage in 59, T-tube drainage in 46, primary ductal closure in 19, and choledochoduodenostomy in 1. Choledochotomy was converted to open surgery in only 1 patient. The transcystic approach was associated with shorter hospital stay and less morbidity than choledochotomy. However, choledochotomy also had an acceptably low rate of complications. Bile leaks occurred more frequently in those with primary ductal closure than in those with transcystic drainage or T-tube drainage. Residual stones were found in 2 patients with the transcystic approach and in 10 with choledochotomy. The residual stones were removed through the T-tube tract by choledochoscopy in 7 of these 10 patients. From these results we conclude that laparoscopic management of CBD stones is feasible for almost all patients with CBD stones. It is considered to be safe and effective and has the advantage of being a single-stage procedure. Received: July 7, 2000 / Accepted: October 26, 2000     

腹腔镜胆总管切开Ⅰ期缝合与开腹胆总管切开Ⅰ期缝合效果对比

目的探讨腹腔镜下胆总管切开Ⅰ期缝合术式的治疗效果,并与传统开腹下胆总管切开I期缝合术式的治疗效果对比。方法将100例患者随机分为甲组和乙组各50例,甲组病例在腹腔镜下行胆总管切开后Ⅰ期缝合,乙组病例行传统开腹手术下胆总管切开后Ⅰ期缝合,对比两组的手术时间、出血量、切口愈合情况及住院时间。结果甲组在出血量、住院时间、患者的创伤等方面均比乙组影响小,而术后并发症与乙组相似．两组术后效果比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论腹腔镜下胆总管切开Ⅰ期缝合是一种疗效好、安全的手术方式,比传统手术创伤更小,值得临床推广应用。