目的探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除（LC）术中胆管损伤的分型与处理。 方法回顾性分析我院2009年4月至2012年4月期间12例LC并发胆管损伤患者的首次手术过程及对胆管损伤的处理。 结果12例胆管损伤患者中手术中转开腹修补6例，术中未及时发现于术后3周内发现而再次手术6例。3例单纯胆管修补，6例行胆管修复T管支撑引流术，3例行胆管空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术。2例发生了不同程度的术后吻合口狭窄。全组无手术死亡病例。 结论熟悉胆囊三角（Calot三角）脉管变异及病理结构空间改变，熟练的手术操作，必要的中转开腹可减少胆管损伤的发生。损伤发生后及时合理的处理可获良好疗效，普外科医师在操作中应注意。
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol compared with tiotropium in Chinese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods PubMed (from 1980 to March, 2015), Wiley Online Library (from 1990 to March, 2015), Elsevier (from 1990 to March, 2015), CNKI(from 1990 to March, 2015), VIP(from 1990 to March, 2015) and WanFang Data(from 1990 to March, 2015) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol compared with tiotropium in treating Chinese patients with COPD from the establishment of the database to March 2015. The quality of included studies was assessed according to Cochrane Methods 5.1 for Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results Atotal of 9 studies involving 503 patients were included. Compared with the tiotropium therapy group, tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol in treating Chinese patients with COPD can more significantly improve FEV1 (MD=0.10, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.15, P<0.000 01), FEV1%pred (MD=4.27, 95%CI 2.44 to 6.09, P<0.000 01), FEV1/FVC (MD=3.48, 95%CI 3.21 to 3.74, P<0.000 01), mMRC (MD=-0.27, 95%CI -0.38 to -0.17, P<0.000 01), CAT (MD=-0.91, 95%CI -1.74 to -0.08, P=0.03), 6MWT (MD=27.64, 95%CI 11.76 to 37.53, P<0.000 01) and the frequency of repeated exacerbations (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P=0.01) while no significant difference was found between two groups in SGRQ (MD=-5.11, 95%CI -11.57 to 1.36, P=0.12). There was no significant differences in adverse reaction rates (OR=1.33, 95%CI 0.65 to 2.73, P=0.44) between the tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol group and the control group. Conclusions Tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol is effective in treating Chinese patients with COPD. It can effectively improve treatment efficiency and does not increase the incidence of adverse drug reactions. However, due to the limitation of both quantity and quality of included studies, this conclusion should be further confirmed by more high quality and large sample studies.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol combined with tiotropium versus budesonide/formoterol alone for Chinese patients with COPD. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2015), CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about budesonide/formoterol combined with tiotropium vs. budesonide/formoterol alone for Chinese COPD patients from inception to March 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 15 studies involving 1123 Chinese patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the budesonide/formoterol alone group, the budesonide/formoterol plus tiotropium group could significantly improve the levels of FEV1 (MD=0.19, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.25, P<0.00001), FVC (MD=0.35, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.57, P=0.001), FEV1% (MD=5.96, 95%CI 4.48 to 7.43, P<0.00001), FEV1% pred (MD=6.82, 95%CI 2.21 to 11.43, P=0.004), FEV1/FVC (MD=7.72, 95%CI 5.69 to 9.75, P<0.00001), mMRC (MD=-0.43, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.33, P<0.00001), CAT (MD=-1.45, 95%CI -2.26 to -0.64, P=0.0005), SGRQ (MD=-7.05, 95%CI -9.16 to -4.94, P<0.00001) and 6MWT (MD=32.52, 95%CI 16.68 to 48.37, P<0.00001). While there was no significant difference in adverse reaction rates between the two groups (OR=1.77, 95%CI 0.79 to 3.98, P=0.16). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that budesonide/formoterol plus tiotropium can improve lung function and clinical symptom in Chinese patients with COPD. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.