经内我间胆管引流术在肝门部恶性胆管梗阻中的应用及其评价

肝门部恶性肿瘤手术切除率极低，临床处理十分棘手。作者采用内镜胆管引流术治疗此类肿瘤２８８例次，其中行内镜鼻胆管引流１６２例次、塑料内置管引流８０例次、放置可膨式金属胆道支架４６例、４例患者接受同期双内置管引流。引流总有效率为６７．０％，其中效果满意者４３．１％。     

胆管恶性梗阻内镜引流术的疗效观察

目的 比较塑料内置管及金属内支架在胆管恶性梗阻引流中的疗铲。方法 全组患者１０５例,行鼻胆管或塑料内置管引流８７例次,放置金属内置管３１例次。结果 鼻胆管或塑料内置管引流组,引流有效率８２．８％,３０天死亡率１０．３％,平均通畅时间２．４月,平均生存期２．５月;金属内支架组,引流有效率９０．３％,３０天死亡率６．５％,平均通畅时间６．８月,平均生存期７．２月。结论对于胆管恶性梗阻,内镜引流术是一种     

肝内胆管结石的手术治疗

为了解肝内胆管结石的手术治疗效果。方法：对手术治疗的１２０例肝内胆管结石及合并肝内胆管狭窄的病例进行随访研究。手术方法为：（１）肝门部大口径胆吻合术４４例，（２）胆管切开取石引流术３５例；（３）胆肠内引流术３７例；（４）肝脏部分切除术４例。结果：随访发现，肝门部大口径胆肠吻合术和肝脏部分切除术疗效好，优良率分别为８４％和７５％，而胆管切开取石引流术和胆肠内引流术疗效不理想。结论 肝门部大口径胆肠吻     

阻塞性黄疸术前经内镜胆管引流的临床应用（85例报告）

本文分析了我科近一年来术前经内镜胆管引流８５例阻塞性黄疸患者的临床资料，其中肝门部胆管癌５１例，肝胆管结石３４例，平均年龄５１．７岁。总的减黄有效率为８１．２％，其中鼻胆管引流（ＥＮＢＤ）５３例，塑料内支撑管引流（ＥＲＢＤ）３１例，金属支架引流（ＥＭＢＥ）１例；其疗效满意率分别为８４．９％、８０．６％、１００％；术中见胆管及其周围有中度及以上炎症、水肿的发生率分别为３２．１％、７１％、１００％。结     

肝胆管结石合并肝胆管癌的诊断与治疗(附45例报告)

对１２年来收治的肝胆管结石合并肝胆管癌４５例进行分析，发现其伴发率为９．７％，术前确诊率为６．７％。高分化腺癌占７１．１％。肿瘤位于肝门部４０％，左肝外叶３３．３％。切除肿瘤１８例（４０％），平均生存３２．４个月，姑息性内引流１１例，平均生存１１．４个月；行胆道外引流１１例，平均生存５．３个月。     

肝胆管结石合并肝胆管癌

对４５例肝胆管结石合并肝胆管癌的临床资料进行了回顾性分析，本组结石伴发肝胆管癌的发生率为９．７％。术前确诊率仅为６．７％。４５例中高分化腺癌占７１．１％，肿瘤位于左、右肝管者占４０％。左肝外叶占３３．３％。切除肿瘤１８例，切除率为４０％，平均生存３２．４月；姑息性内引流１１例，平均生存１１．４月；胆道外引流１１例，平均生存５．３月。结果表明：结石刺激，继发感染是肝胆管癌发病的重要因素；肝胆管癌切除预后良好，姑息性内引流术的预后明显优于外引流术。     

1559例肝内胆管结石的外科治疗

作者对安徽医科大学附属医院１９８１年１２月至１９９７年１０月期间经手术及胆道镜处理的１５５９例肝内胆管结石病例进行了总结，其中左肝管结石３３２例（占３３．９％），右肝管结石１１１例（１１．３％），左右肝管均有结石５４５例（占５４．７％）。３２４例（３２．３％）合并有胆管狭窄，其中左肝管狭窄１５６例（４８．２％），右肝管狭窄１０７例（３３．０％），肝门胆管狭窄６１例（１８．８％）。手术方式主要有：①肝叶或肝段切除；②高位胆管狭窄切除；③胆肠内引流术；④Ｔ管及Ｕ管外引流以及术后经Ｔ管或Ｕ管瘘道纤维胆道镜取石。作者认为手术术式的选择主要取决于肝内胆管结石类型及其病理分期。该组资料还表明纤维胆道镜在处理肝内胆管结石病例中起到了重要作用。     

肝门部胆管肿瘤局部切除"U"形管支撑肝肠套接吻合术

目的 探讨肿瘤局部切除“U”形管支撑肝肠套接吻合术治疗肝门部胆管肿瘤的临床价值。方法 回顾分析1995年10月至2000年11月间应用肿瘤局部切除“U”形管支撑肝肠套接吻合术治疗7例进展期肝门部胆管肿瘤的临床资料。结果 病理结果示5例Klatskin’s病切缘均无癌残留，2例胆囊癌肝门浸润者切缘有癌残留。随访资料示中位生存期11个月，1例存活已超过23个月。结论 肝门部胆管肿瘤局部切除“U”形管支撑肝肠套接吻合术可部分替代肝门部肿瘤单纯外引流术，提高疗效。     

肝胆管结石合并肝胆管癌的诊断与治疗

对１２年来收治的肝胆管结石合并肝胆管癌４５例进行分析，发现其伴发率为９．７％，术前确诊率为６．７％，高分化腺癌占７１．１％。肿瘤位于肝门部４０％，左肝外叶３３．３％。切除肿瘤１８例，平均生存３２．４个月，姑息性内引流１１例，平均生存１１．４个月；行胆道外引流１１例，平均生存５．３个月。     

创伤性肝门部胆管损伤的诊断与治疗

目的 探讨创伤性肝门部胆管损伤的诊断与治疗。方法 回顾性总结肝门部胆管损伤8例，近期裂口全部使用修补 支撑管引流术，7例合并2个以上脏器损伤，术中同时作了处理，远期并发胆管狭窄行胆肠内引流术。结果 8例胆管损伤中，5例是在手术探查时发现，其中损伤裂口＜周径50％者3例，行修补术，1例死亡，2例良好；＞周径50％者2例，修补术后1例死亡，1例并发胆管狭窄，行二次手术。另3例是因术后胆漏而发现，胆管狭窄后行胆肠内引流术，均恢复良好。结论 创伤性胆管损伤极易漏诊，术中细致探查、彻底清除局部积血和坏死组织是避免得诊的关键。治疗上应因伤而异，一般可采用修补 支撑管引流术；损伤范围＞胆管周径50％、炎症较重者应行胆肠内引流术。并发胆管狭窄后可采用手术或内镜及介入治疗。     

Newly designed large cell Niti-S stent for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a pilot study

Background

Whether uni- or bilateral drainage should be performed for malignant hilar biliary obstruction remains a matter of debate. Moreover, endoscopic placement of bilateral metallic stents has been considered difficult and complicated. Although the Y-stent with a central wide-open mesh facilitates bilateral stent placement, it has limitations. This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of the Niti-S large cell D-type biliary stent (LCD) with a uniform large cell for both uni- and bilateral drainage of malignant hilar biliary obstruction.

Methods

From April 2008 to March 2009, a total of 12 consecutive patients with unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction of Bismuth type 2 or greater underwent placement of LCD. Before LCD placement, all the patients underwent endoscopic unilateral biliary drainage using a plastic stent or a nasobiliary drainage tube. If jaundice improved after the procedure, the plastic stent or nasobiliary drainage tube was replaced with the unilateral LCD. If jaundice did not resolve or contralateral cholangitis occurred, bilateral LCD placement was performed.

Results

Seven patients had unilateral and five patients had bilateral LCD placement. Technical success was achieved for all 12 patients. An early complication occurred for one patient (8%), and stent occlusion occurred for six patients (50%) because of tumor ingrowth (n?=?4) or sludge (n?=?2). These patients were managed by insertion of plastic stents (n?=?4) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (n?=?2). The median stent patency period was 202?days.

Conclusions

The newly designed endoscopic metallic stent may be feasible and effective for malignant hilar biliary obstruction, and endoscopic reintervention is relatively simple.     

内镜置入胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌

目的 探讨通过内镜置入自膨式胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2004年7月至2009年7月成都军区总医院收治的73例肝门部胆管癌患者行内镜胆道金属支架置入术的操作成功率、减黄有效率、支架通畅时间和生存时间以及术后并发症.结果 支架置入成功70例,3例失败.其中单金属支架置入62例,双侧金属支架置入3例,金属支架+塑料支架置人5例.减黄有效率为87%(61/70),中位支架通畅时间为190 d,中位生存时间为246 d.术后发生胆管炎7例,胰腺炎3例,出血2例.结论 内镜置入自膨式胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌创伤小、减黄效果好,可作为无法手术切除的肝门部胆管癌患者解除胆道恶性梗阻的首选治疗方法.     

内镜置入胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌

目的 探讨通过内镜置入自膨式胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2004年7月至2009年7月成都军区总医院收治的73例肝门部胆管癌患者行内镜胆道金属支架置入术的操作成功率、减黄有效率、支架通畅时间和生存时间以及术后并发症.结果 支架置入成功70例,3例失败.其中单金属支架置入62例,双侧金属支架置入3例,金属支架+塑料支架置人5例.减黄有效率为87%(61/70),中位支架通畅时间为190 d,中位生存时间为246 d.术后发生胆管炎7例,胰腺炎3例,出血2例.结论 内镜置入自膨式胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌创伤小、减黄效果好,可作为无法手术切除的肝门部胆管癌患者解除胆道恶性梗阻的首选治疗方法.     

内镜置入胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌

目的 探讨通过内镜置入自膨式胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2004年7月至2009年7月成都军区总医院收治的73例肝门部胆管癌患者行内镜胆道金属支架置入术的操作成功率、减黄有效率、支架通畅时间和生存时间以及术后并发症.结果 支架置入成功70例,3例失败.其中单金属支架置入62例,双侧金属支架置入3例,金属支架+塑料支架置人5例.减黄有效率为87%(61/70),中位支架通畅时间为190 d,中位生存时间为246 d.术后发生胆管炎7例,胰腺炎3例,出血2例.结论 内镜置入自膨式胆道金属支架治疗肝门部胆管癌创伤小、减黄效果好,可作为无法手术切除的肝门部胆管癌患者解除胆道恶性梗阻的首选治疗方法.     

1 215例次恶性胆管梗阻内镜治疗的体会

目的探讨采用治疗性内窥镜逆行胰胆管插管技术(ERCP技术),姑息性解除恶性肿瘤所致胆管梗阻的可行性。方法采用ERCP治疗929例1215例次胆管恶性梗阻,包括胆管癌567例次、肝癌255例次、胆囊癌83例次、胰腺癌172例次、乳头壶腹癌97例次、其它转移性肿瘤41例次;导致胆管低位梗阻263例次、中段梗阻43例次、高位梗阻909例次;血清胆红素（284.3±174.5）μmol/L。共行胆道内置管引流599例次、鼻胆管引流385例次,放置可膨式金属胆道支架167例次,联合引流39例次,乳头括约肌切开19例次,乳头开窗造口术6例次。结果操作成功率94.3%,消除黄疸总有效率81.8%,治疗后患者平均生存14个月,1、2、3年的预计存活率分别为75.9%、44.0%和25.2%。全组发生与操作有关并发症23例（2.6%）,死亡3例（0.2%）。结论内镜介入治疗技术是安全有效解除胆道恶性梗阻的方法,对中晚期胆道肿瘤患者基本可替代姑息性胆道手术。     

胆管狭窄内镜治疗的现状与评价

For the characteristics including minimal invasion,low incidence of complication and better postoperative prognosis,endoscopic therapy is widely accepted to be the first line therapy for most biliary s...     

Role of endoscopic endoprostheses in proximal malignant biliary obstruction

The management of hilar strictures is dependent upon their resectability and may therefore require a multidisciplinary approach. However, resectability rates for such tumors are reported to be in the region of 15%–20%, and, therefore, palliative therapy will be the mainstay of treatment for most patients. With the presenting symptoms being those of obstructive jaundice and the consequences of cholestasis, a significant improvement in morbidity can be obtained by achieving biliary drainage. A number of options are available, including the placement of Teflon or expandable metallic endoprostheses by either the endoscopic or percutaneous route. Some considerable debate exists as to which route of stent placement is best, and in many circumstances the decision will depend on the availability of local services. Some have suggested that success rates with percutaneous stenting are superior to those for endoscopic placement, but the latter technique may be associated with fewer complications. In competent hands, endoscopic placement does achieve a high rate of success and it should be remembered that a combined approach may further improve success rates. The debate over the use of plastic versus metallic stents is centered around the higher rates of stent occlusion/migration for plastic stents seen in some studies, although a stent change is usually possible. An additional advantage of metallic stents is that they may provide drainage of the side branches of the biliary tree through the mesh. However, possible drawbacks may be a greater difficulty in placement of a second stent where a first provides inadequate drainage, and cost issues often have to be taken into consideration. Considerable debate exists over the optimum number of stents required to achieve adequate drainage and minimize the risks of cholangitis. There is good evidence that if overfilling of the biliary tree with contrast is avoided with only the segments to be drained visualized, a single stent may be all that is required, while others argue that placement of more than one stent may improve survival. In the following review we discuss these issues, and conclude by considering success rates and complications following endoprosthesis insertion; we also discuss the prognosis of patients treated in this way. Received: September 5, 2000 / Accepted: October 26, 2000     

Preoperative biliary drainage for biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas

We posed six clinical questions (CQ) on preoperative biliary drainage and organized all pertinent evidence regarding these questions. CQ 1. Is preoperative biliary drainage necessary for patients with jaundice? The indications for preoperative drainage for jaundiced patients are changing greatly. Many reports state that, excluding conditions such as cholangitis and liver dysfunction, biliary drainage is not necessary before pancreatoduodenectomy or less invasive surgery. However, the morbidity and mortality of extended hepatectomy for biliary cancer is still high, and the most common cause of death is hepatic failure; therefore, preoperative biliary drainage is desirable in patients who are to undergo extended hepatectomy. CQ 2. What procedures are appropriate for preoperative biliary drainage? There are three methods of biliary drainage: percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD), and surgical drainage. ERBD is an internal drainage method, and PTBD and ENBD are external methods. However, there are no reports of comparisons of preoperative biliary drainage methods using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, at this point, a method should be used that can be safely performed with the equipment and techniques available at each facility. CQ 3. Which is better, unilateral or bilateral biliary drainage, in malignant hilar obstruction? Unilateral biliary drainage of the future remnant hepatic lobe is usually enough even when intrahepatic bile ducts are separated into multiple units due to hilar malignancy. Bilateral biliary drainage should be considered in the following cases: those in which the operative procedure is difficult to determine before biliary drainage; those in which cholangitis has developed after unilateral drainage; and those in which the decrease in serum bilirubin after unilateral drainage is very slow. CQ 4. What is the best treatment for post-drainage fever? The most likely cause of high fever in patients with biliary drainage is cholangitis due to problems with the existing drainage catheter or segmental cholangitis if an undrained segment is left. In the latter case, urgent drainage is required. CQ 5. Is bile culture necessary in patients with biliary drainage who are to undergo surgery? Monitoring of bile cultures is necessary for patients with biliary drainage to determine the appropriate use of antibiotics during the perioperative period. CQ 6. Is bile replacement useful for patients with external biliary drainage? Maintenance of the enterohepatic bile circulation is vitally important. Thus, preoperative bile replacement in patients with external biliary drainage is very likely to be effective when highly invasive surgery (e.g., extended hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma) is planned.     

Endoscopic biliary drainage in malignant bile duct obstruction

During a four-year period endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD)--preoperative in 25 and permanent in 45 patients--was successfully established without sphincterotomy in 70 out of 89 referred patients (79%) with malignant bile duct obstruction. 51 of the patients had internal stents and 19 external naso-biliary tubes. There was no procedure-related mortality or severe complications such as perforation or bleeding. One patient, however, got a moderate pancreatitis after stent drainage (1%). In the early drainage period (before operation or discharge) the cholangitis rate was 10%, and during the late period (after discharge) it rose to 27% of the patients. 68 of all 70 patients (94%) had a reduction in S-bilirubin concomitant with clinical improvement and 27 of the 45 patients (59%) with permanent drainage became unjaundiced. Recurrent or increasing jaundice occurred, however, in half the number of these patients (23/45) after an average of 89 days; twelve of them had a temporary regression of jaundice after exchange of stents in spite of advanced disease. The use of multiple stents did not reduce the risk of recurrent jaundice or of cholangitis. It is concluded that EBD inserted without sphincterotomy is a safe and efficient non-surgical alternative in the treatment of malignant bile duct obstruction.