LCBDE与EST治疗胆总管结石疗效分析

目的 对比分析腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术(LCBDE)和内镜下括约肌切开术(EST)治疗胆总管结石的疗效.方法 回顾性分析我院2007年1月至2010年6月行LCBDE治疗的64例胆总管结石患者临床资料,以同期行EST治疗的71例胆总管结石患者临床资料作为对照.结果 两组手术成功率均大于90%,均无手术相关死亡发生.与EST组相比,LCBDE组术后急性胰腺炎发生率0%时9.86%.结石残留率3.13%对15.49%,结石复发率1.56%对12.6%,均低于EST组,差别均具有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 LCBDE与EST相比在治疗胆总管结石上具有术后并发症发生率、结石残留率、结石复发率低的优势,是胆总管结石患者的首选微创疗法.     

内镜腹腔镜序贯治疗胆囊并胆总管结石

目的探讨内镜下乳头括约肌切开术（EST）联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）治疗胆囊并胆总管结石的效果及顺序的选择。方法回顾性分析468例胆囊并胆总管结石分别采用LC术前EST（306例）和LC术后EST（162例）治疗的临床资料,对结石清除率、并发症发生率、中转开腹率和住院天数、手术间隔天数指标进行比较。结果LC术前EST组结石清除率（97%）并发症发生率（6.2%）中转开腹率（5.3%）手术间隔天数（5天）住院时间（10天）,LC术后EST组结石清除率（97.5%）并发症清除率（14.2%）中转开腹率（4.9%）手术间隔天数（5天）住院天数（13天）,两组病例在结石清除率、手术间隔天数、中转开腹率和住院时间等方面无明显差异,在并发症的发生率有显著差异。结论EST联合LC是治疗胆囊并胆总管结石安全合理的方法,序惯顺序LC术前行EST,可有效减少手术并发症。LC术后EST,对于LC术后胆道残留结石EST又是其必要的补充。     

腹腔镜治疗胆总管结石116例诊治分析

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术治疗胆总管结石的临床效果及注意事项。方法对腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术治疗的116例胆总管结石患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,并与同期98例行传统开腹胆囊切除胆总管切开取石、T管引流术治疗胆总管结石患者的临床资料进行比较分析。结果两组患者手术均获成功,患者术后恢复良好。LCBDE组与OCHTD组在术中出血量、肠蠕动恢复时间、术后住院日数、术后切口感染、肠梗阻等方面比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组在手术时间、术后出血、术后胆瘘、腹腔脓肿、一次性结石清除率等方面比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论腹腔镜胆总管切开探查取石术是安全、有效治疗胆总管结石的微创手术方法,可逐渐取代大部分传统开腹胆总管探查术。     

老年人胆囊结石合并胆总管结石术式选择探讨（附60例报告）

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除（LC）联合胆总管切开取石术（LCBDE）与LC联合内镜下乳头括约肌切开取石术（EST）治疗老年人胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效。 方法 回顾性分析2012年1月到2013年5月中国医科大学附属盛京医院普通外科收治的60例老年胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床资料。LCBDE组31例,EST组29例。 结果 LCBDE组和EST组的住院时间、手术中转率及轻型并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义。LCBDE组重型并发症发生率（0 vs. 6.9%,P<0.05）和住院费用（30 063.9±9127.9）元vs.（43 858.3±10 142.6）元,P= 0.001）显著低于EST组。结论 在老年人胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人治疗中,LC联合LCBDE较联合EST同样安全有效,且有重型并发症发生率和住院费用低的优势,条件允许时,推荐首选LC联合LCBDE术式。     

一期腹腔镜胆囊切除联合腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的清石效果观察

目的 探讨一期腹腔镜胆囊切除(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清石效果.方法 2018年2月～2020年2月收治的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人110例,按照取石方式的不同分为对照组观察组,每组各55例.对照组采用LC联合乳头括约肌切开取石术(EST)或内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP...     

十二指肠乳头切开联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗老年性胆囊并胆总管结石

目的 观察内镜十二指肠乳头括约肌切开取石术后联合腹腔镜下胆囊切除术(EST＋LC)与腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查取石术(LC＋LCBDE)治疗老年性胆囊并胆总管结石患者的临床疗效,探讨老年性胆囊结石并胆总管结石患者的治疗策略。 方法 回顾性分析我院2013年1月至2016年6月收治的符合入选标准的158例胆总管结石并胆囊结石患者临床资料。观察组82例患者于腹膜炎控制后行EST术,术后3天行LC术;对照组76例患者于腹膜炎控制后行LC＋LCBDE术。比较两组患者术前血淀粉酶、手术时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间、总住院时间、总住院费用和术后并发症总发生率。 结果 观察组与对照组患者的手术总时间分别为(95.0±7.0)min、(125.0±18.0)min,对照组明显延长( P<0.05);总住院费用分别为(39 515.0±4 135.0)元、(28 287.0±2 254.0)元,观察组明显增多( P<0.05);术后并发症分别为5例(6.1%)、10例(13.2%),对照组明显增多( P<0.05)。两组患者术前血淀粉酶水平分别为(97.6±48.5)IU/L、(131.4±68.7)IU/L;术中出血量分别为(35.7±8.5)ml、(31.8±7.3)ml;术后肛门排气时间分别为(1.7±0.5)d、(1.9±0.4)d,总住院时间分别为(16.3±2.8)d、(15.2±3.7)d,差异均无统计学意义(均 P>0.05)。 结论 EST术后3天行LC术治疗老年性胆囊并胆总管结石患者是有效、安全的,具有创伤小、手术时间短、恢复快、并发症少等优点,是值得推广的临床治疗老年性患者胆囊并胆总管结石的手术方式。     

两种微创方式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床疗效比较

目的比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)+腹腔镜胆总管切开胆道镜探查取石术(LCBDE)和内镜逆行胰胆管造影/内镜下括约肌切开取石术(ERCP/EST)+LC两种微创术式在治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石中的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2008年1月至2011年7月期间广东省人民医院肝胆胰外科收治的127例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者,比较2组的胆总管直径、结石清除率、住院时间、住院费用及并发症发生率。结果 127例患者中,85例采用LC+LCBDE治疗,其中54例采用一期缝合胆总管,28例放置T管引流;42例患者采用ERCP/EST+LC治疗。LC+LCBDE和ERCP/EST+LC两种术式结石清除率〔100%(82/82)比97.37%(37/38),P=0.317〕及术后并发症发生率〔4.71%(4/85)比4.76%(2/42),P=1.000〕方面差异均无统计学意义;在住院时间〔中位数(四分位数)〕和住院费用〔中位数(四分位数)〕方面LC+LCBDE一期缝合胆总管组均明显少于ERCP/EST+LC组〔住院时间:11(5)d比17(9)d,P<0.001;住院费用:27 054(8 452)元比31 595(11 743)元,P=0.005〕。结论 LC+LCBDE和ERCP/EST+LC均是治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的有效方法,但是LC+LCBDE尤其是LC+LCBDE一期缝合在住院时间和住院费用方面较ERCP/EST+LC有较明显的优势;并且LC+LCBDE对于结石大小、数量没有限制,能够在保留乳头功能条件下,一次麻醉解决两个问题,因此我们认为对于合适病例可考虑LC+LCBDE为首选的治疗方法。     

微创时代胆总管结石的治疗选择

目的比较腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术（LCBDE）和内镜下十二指肠括约肌切开取石术（EST）治疗胆总管结石的临床效果及医疗费用。方法回顾性分析150例胆总管结石患者经腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术或经内镜十二指肠乳头切开取石术治疗的临床资料。结果本组患者全部治愈。120例患者接受了十二指肠括约肌切开取石术,25例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者接受了腹腔镜胆囊切除＋胆总管切开取石术,5例胆囊切除手术史的胆总管结石患者接受了腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术。结论腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术及内镜十二指肠乳头括约切开取石术优于传统手术,但胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者更适宜腹腔镜手术,有胆囊或胆道手术史的胆总管结石患者更适宜于经内镜途径手术。     

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...     

不同微创术式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床体会

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)+胆总管探查取石术(LCBDE)与LC前行内镜十二指肠乳头括约肌切开取石术(EST)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果.方法 前瞻性纳入2018-08—2020-03在商丘市立医院普外科行手术治疗的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者,根据治疗方案分为LC+LCBDE组和LC前行EST组(ES...     

鼻胆管引流联合腹腔镜治疗胆总管巨大结石

目的：探讨内镜下鼻胆管引流术联合腹腔镜胆总管切开取石并Ⅰ期缝合治疗胆总管巨大结石的效果。方法回顾性分析我院2012年2月－2014年8月采用内镜下鼻胆管引流术联合腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石并Ⅰ期缝合术治疗胆总管巨大结石的患者资料。其中治疗组采用内镜下鼻胆管引流术联合腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石术,并对胆总管行Ⅰ期缝合,对照组采用常规腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石＋T 管引流术。分析记录及分析两组患者手术成功率、黄疸恢复正常时间、肠功能恢复时间、住院时间、带管出院率以及胆漏、胆道逆行感染、腹膜炎、腹壁窦道形成等并发症的发生率,评估鼻胆管引流术联合腹腔镜胆总管切开取石并Ⅰ期缝合治疗胆总管巨大结石的有效性及安全性。结果治疗组与对照组手术成功率均为100％,两组胆道逆行感染发生率无明显差异,治疗组的黄疸恢复正常时间、肠功能恢复时间、住院时间、带管出院率明显优于对照组（P ＜0．05）,而胆漏、腹膜炎、腹壁窦道形成等并发症治疗组也明显少于对照组（P ＜0．05）。术后所有患者均顺利恢复出院,所有患者随访6～12个月,平均9个月,未发现胆道狭窄、残留结石等远期并发症。结论内镜下鼻胆管引流术联合腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石术治疗胆总管巨大结石,并对胆总管行Ⅰ期缝合术,既明显地缩短了黄疸恢复正常时间、肠功能恢复时间、住院时间,也显著降低了并发症的发生,且未增加胆道逆行感染发生率,取得了显著疗效,值得临床广泛推广应用。     

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.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗胆总管结石合并胆囊结石

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查术( LC BDE)治疗胆总管结石合并胆囊结石的临床疗效和价值.方法 2006年7月至2010年6月期间对127例胆总管结石合并胆囊结石患者进行微创治疗.其中78例采用LCBDE+腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗,49例采用内镜十二指肠括约肌切开术(EST) +LC治疗.比较二组的手术治疗成功率、术后并发症发生率、残余结石率、胃肠功能恢复时间、住院时间和费用等指标,并随访二组远期并发症发生率.结果 LCBDE+ LC组:手术成功率94.87％,术后并发症发生率5.41％.EST+LC组:手术成功率95.92％,术后并发症发生率12.77％.两组手术成功率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),术后并发症发生率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).手术时间、住院费用的比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).出院后随访1～5年,平均(3.2±0.8)年,LCBDE+LC组结石复发率、胆管积气发生率、反流性胆管炎发生率显著低于EST+LC组(P＜0.05).结论 LCBDE+LC是治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的安全、有效、可行的微创术式,对于适宜的患者行胆总管一期缝合更能体现微创的优势.     

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.     

Technical aspects in the laparoscopic management of complicated common bile duct stones

The management of common bile duct (CBD) stones traditionally required open laparotomy and bile duct exploration. With the advent of endoscopic and laparoscopic technology in the latter half of last century, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the mainstream treatment for CBD stones and gallstones in most medical centers around the world. However, in certain situations, ERCP cannot be feasible because of difficult cannulation and extraction. ERCP can also be associated with potential serious complications, in particular for complicated stones requiring repeated sessions and additional maneuvers. Since our first laparoscopic exploration of the CBD (LECBD) in 1995, we now adopt the routine practice of the laparoscopic approach in dealing with endoscopically irretrievable CBD stones. The aim of this article is to describe the technical details of this approach and to review the results from our series.     

The case for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

The modern surgeon's approach to choledocholithiasis depends his or her view of cholangiography. During the early 1990 there was a swing away from cholangiography, which had previously been common practice. This was because of perceptions of difficulty with the technique, the time it took, and perhaps an implied increase in costs because of the time factor. There was no evidence on which to base this decision. This led to a marked upswing in the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There were a large number of ERCPs with normal results performed prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This paper states the case for intraoperative cholangiography and common bile duct clearance at the time of cholecystectomy. It is hoped that this technique will be adopted so patients can undergo a single procedure to remove their gallstones and common bile duct stones if they exist and to decrease the incidence of normal preoperative ERCPs and the need for a second procedure postoperatively to clear stones if they are found. Received: August 15, 2002 / Accepted: August 23, 2002 Offprint requests to: G.A. Fielding     

Immunogenic alteration in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Background

The immunologic benefits of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis are poorly understood. The aim of the present study was to investigate immunologic changes during LCBDE using primary suture or T-tube drainage.

Methods

Patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing laparoscopic primary suture of the common bile duct after LCBDE (primary suture group) or laparoscopic LCBDE with choledochotomy plus T-tube drainage (T-tube group) at a single center between June 2008 and June 2011 were included in the present study. Blood samples were collected 24 h preoperatively, and 24 and 72 h postoperatively to assess interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) as inflammation markers. Immunosuppression was evaluated using C-reactive protein and leukocyte subpopulations.

Results

Patients were 60 ± 17 y old in the primary suture group (56 men and 76 women) and 54 ± 20 y old in the T-tube group (50 men and 58 women). In the primary suture group, three patients (2.3%) required open surgery and six (4.5%) developed postoperative bile leakage. In the T-tube group, two patients (1.9%) required open surgery and four (3.7%) had bile leakage. Operation time and hospital stay were shorter in the primary suture group (P < 0.05). Postoperative TNF-α and lymphocyte counts were lower, and C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels were higher in the T-tube group compared with the primary suture group (P < 0.05). No recurrences or bile duct strictures were noted during follow-up (median of 12 mo).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic primary suture techniques appear to reduce immunologic suppression by minimizing surgical trauma in patients with choledocholithiasis.     

腹腔镜胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石两种术式的疗效比较

目的对比腹腔镜胆囊切除+经胆囊管胆道探查术(LC+LTCBDE)与腹腔镜胆囊切除术+胆总管切开探查+T管引流术(LC+LCHTD)两组微创手术方式治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法 130例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者,其中70例行LC+LTCBDE,60例行LC+LCHTD。比较两组患者手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、术后恢复正常生活时间和并发症情况(胆漏、出血、胆管狭窄,胆管残余结石等)。结果 LC+LTCBDE组的手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、术后恢复正常生活时间均低于LC+LCHTD组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组术后并发症比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 LC+LTCBDE可作为胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的首选治疗,难以经胆囊管胆道探查时,LC+LCHTD仍为明智选择。     

腔镜胆总管切开取石与内镜乳头括约肌切开取石术的远期疗效比较

目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)治疗胆总管结石的优越性.方法 回顾分析2001年6月至2006年6月间,在贵港市人民医院及广西壮族自治区人民医院微创中心行微创手术治疗的胆总管结石的临床资料.按手术方式不同分两组,即LCBDE组和EST(内镜乳头括约肌切开取石术,endoscopic sphincterotomy)组,比较两组的远期疗效.结果 该组225例,其中LCBDE 106例,EST 119例.术后随访1～6年,平均(3.2±0.8)年.LCBDE组结石复发率为3.77%(4/106),反流性胆管炎的发生率为2.83%(3/106),无乳头狭窄;EST组结石复发率为11.76%(14/119),乳头狭窄的发生率为7.56%(9/119),反流性胆管炎的发生率为12.61%(15/119).全组病例无胆管癌发生.术后结石复发率、乳头狭窄和反流性胆管炎的发生率在两组间的差别均有统计学意义.结论 在治疗胆总管结石方面,LCBDE的远期疗效优于EST.     

Common bile duct stones: management strategies in the laparoscopic era

We reviewed our experience with the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones in 70 patients by sequential endoscopic-laparoscopic management and single-stage laparoscopic treatment during the past 7 years. The advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of the two procedures are discussed to elucidate therapeutic strategies for patients harboring gallbladder stones and associated choledocholithiasis. In 44 patients, sequential endoscopic-laparoscopic management was indicatedd, and was successful in 37 of them but, in seven patients endoscopic stone extraction could not be accomplished. Single-stage laparoscopic treatment was attempted in 26 patients. In practice, laparoscopic transcystic common duct exploration or choledochotomy may not always be feasible if the cystic duct or CBD are not dilated; there is a high risk of intraoperative CBD injury in such circumstances. Laparoscopic management was considered to be especially useful for the treatment of numerous, large or difficult stones, because stone removal could be succesfully performed without any injury to the papilla of Vater. This last issue is of particular importance in patients with dilated CBD, because insufficient opening of the ampulla of Vater made by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may lead to stasis and reflux-related complications such as cholangitis and recurrent stones. We conclude that the most rational management of CBD stones should be decided according to the size of the CBD, which depends on the size, number, and location of stones. Patients with dilated CBD are indicated to under-go laparoscopic single-stage treatment and combined endoscopic-laparoscopic treatment may be best for patients with non-dilated CBD. (Received Oct. 15, 1997; accepted Oct. 21, 1997)