目的 探讨腹腔镜技术在闭合性腹外伤病例中诊断、治疗的价值。方法 对1999年8月至2004年12月期间26例闭合性腹外伤患者应用腹腔镜进行探查及治疗。结果 26例中肝破裂3例，脾破裂6例，腹膜后血肿2例，肠系膜破裂3例，小肠破裂穿孔8例，结肠破裂穿孔1例，膀胱破裂1例，肠管挫伤2例。14例经腹腔镜顺利完成探查及治疗，另12例中转开腹手术。全部病例未发生术后并发症。结论 腹腔镜技术在闭合性腹外伤患者的探查及治疗过程中是一种有临床应用价值的有效方法。
Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of ERCP/S+LC and LC+LCBDE in cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Methods A fully recursive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMbase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in any language. By using a defined search strategy, both the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials on comparing ERCP/ S+LC with LC+LCBDE in cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis were identified. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently. The quality of the included trials was evaluated. Meta-analyses were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0.2 software. Results Fourteen controlled clinical trials (1 544 patients) were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) There were no significant difference in the stone clearance rate between the two groups (RR=0.96, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.01, P=0.14); b) There were no significant difference in the residual stone rate between the two groups (OR=1.05, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.72, P=0.83); c) There were no significant difference in the complications morbidity between the two groups (OR=1.12, 95%CI 0.85 to 1.55, P=0.48); d) There were no significant difference in the mortality during follow-up visit between the two groups (RD= 0.00, 95%CI –0.03 to 0.03, P=0.84); e) The length of hospital stay in the LC+LCBDE group was shorter than that of the ERCP/S+LC group with significant difference (WMD= 1.78, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.62, Plt;0.000 1); and f) The LC+LCBDE group was superior to the ERCP/S+LC group in the aspects of procedure time and total hospital charges. Conclusion Although there aren’t differences in the effectiveness and safety between the ERCP/S+LC group and the LC+LCBDE group, the latter is superior to the former in procedure time, length of hospital stay and total hospital charges. For the influencing factors of lower quality and astable statistical outcomes of the included studies, this conclusion has to be verified with more strictly designed large scale RCTs.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the changes of the flow parameters before and after the anastomotic port exploration and dredging during coronary artery bypass grafting by using the transit time flow measurement (TTFM).MethodsA total of 167 patients who underwent continuous coronary artery bypass grafting and anastomotic port exploration and dredging surgery in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from 2018 to 2019 were enrolled in this study. There were 136 male and 31 female patients aged 41-82 (58.35±17.26) years. If the probe entered and exited the anastomotic port smoothly, it was recorded as a non-resistance group; if the resistance existed but the probe could pass and exit, it was recorded as a resistance group; if the probe could not pass the anastomotic port for obvious resistance, it was recorded as the stenosis group. In the stenosis group, the grafts were re-anastomosed and the flow parameters were re-measured by TTFM.ResultsA total of 202 anastomotic ports were carried out by exploration and dredging. Among them, 87 anastomosis (43.1%) were in the non-resistance group, and there was no significant change in the blood flow volume (BFV) and pulsatility index (PI) before and after exploration and dredging (6.16±3.41 mL/min vs. 6.18±3.44 mL/min, P=0.90; 7.06±2.84 vs. 6.96±2.49, P=0.50). Sixty-four anastomosis (31.7%) were in the resistance group, the BFV was higher after exploration and dredging than that before exploration and dredging (17.11±7.52 mL/min vs. 4.96±3.32 mL/min, P<0.01), while the PI was significantly smaller (3.78±2.20 vs. 8.58±2.97, P<0.01). Fifty-one anastomosis (25.2%) were in the stenosis group, and there was no significant change in the BFV and PI before and after exploration and dredging (3.44±1.95 mL/min vs. 3.48±2.11 mL/min, P=0.84; 10.74±4.12 vs. 10.54±4.11, P=0.36). After re-anastomosis, the BFV was higher (16.48±7.67 mL/min, P<0.01) and the PI deceased (3.43±1.39, P<0.01) than that before exploration and dredging.ConclusionThe application of anastomotic exploration and dredging can reduce the occurrence of re-anastomosis, and promptly find and solve the stenosis of the distal coronary artery, improve the poor perfusion of distal coronary, and thus improves the prognosis of patients.
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary closure (PC) and T-tube drainage (TD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Methods The randomized controlled trials of PC and TD after LCBDE were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2015. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using ReviewerManager 5.2 software. Results Both of the two groups had no postoperative deaths within 30 days. The operative time and hospital stay of PC gourp were shorter than TD group statistically〔OR=–24.76, 95CI (–29.21, –20.31),P<0.000 01〕and〔OR=–2.68, 95%CI (–3.69, –1.67),P<0.000 01〕. The reoperative rate of PC group was lower than that of TD group, and the difference was statistically significant〔OR=0.20, 95%CI (0.05, 0.81),P=0.02〕. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the occurrence of postoperative severe complications〔OR=0.54, 95%CI (0.26, 1.12),P=0.10〕. Conclusions Compared with the TD group, the operative time and hospitalization time are shorer in PC group, and complication rate is similar, but the cost of treatment of the TD group is higher than PC group, so after LCBDE a primary closure of common bile duct is safe and effective method.
Objective To assess the benefits and harms of routine primary suture (LBEPS) versus T-tube drainage (LCHTD) following laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration. Methods The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were electronically searched from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2010), PubMed (1978 to 2010), EMbase (1966 to 2010), CBMdisc (1978 to 2010), and CNKI (1979 to 2010); and the relevant published and unpublished data and their references were also searched by hand. The data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by two reviewers independently, and the RevMan 5.0 software was used for data analysis. Results Four studies including 3 RCTs and 1 quasi-RCT involving 274 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that compared with LCHTD, LBEPS was better in shortening operation time (WMD= –17.11, 95%CI –25.86 to –8.36), abdominal drainage time (WMD= –0.74, 95%CI –1.39 to –0.10) and post-operative hospitalization time (WMD= –3.30, 95%CI –3.67 to –2.92), in lowering hospital expenses (WMD= –2 998.75, 95%CI –4 396.24 to –1 601.26) and in reducing the complications due to T-tube such as tube detaching, bile leakage after tube drawing, and choleperitonitis (RR=0.56, 95%CI 0.29 to 1.09). Conclusion LBEPS is superior to LCHTD in total effectiveness for common bile duct stone with the precondition of strictly abiding by operation indication. Due to the low quality of the included studies which decreases the reliability of this conclusion, more reasonably-designed and strictly-performed multi-centered RCTs with large scale and longer follow up time are required to further assess and verify the efficacy and safety of this treatment.
【摘要】 目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查一期缝合的可行性和适应证及临床价值。 方法 回顾性分析2007年7月—2010年10月72例胆管结石患者的临床资料，采用三孔法腹腔镜胆总管探查术，术中胆道镜配合胆道手术器械取石，一期缝合胆总管进行治疗。 结果 72例手术均获成功，无中转开腹，4例出现术后胆漏，经腹腔引流3~5 d治愈，无严重并发症。术后住院4~7 d（平均4.4 d）。72例均获随访，随访时间1~24个月（平均10个月）。术后1个月B型超声，未发现胆道狭窄及残余结石。 结论 腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合胆总管，安全、有效、微创效果显著，是临床微创治疗胆囊结石合并胆管结石的一种理想术式，值得临床推广应用。其关键是术中取尽结石和把握适应证，同时需要术者熟练掌握胆道镜技术及腹腔镜下胆总管切开缝合、打结等技术。【Abstract】 Objective To discuss the feasibility, indications and clinical value of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary suture. Methods We analyzed the clinical data of 72 patients with biliary duct stone treated from July 2007 to October 2010. Three-port laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary suture was adopted; choledochoscopy and open bile duct operation instruments were used to take out the stones during the operation; and the common bile duct was treated with primary suture after operation. Results All operations were carried out successfully without any case of conversion to open operation. Bile leakage occurred in four cases and was cured with abdominal drainage tube for three to five days without any severe complications. Postoperative hospitalization time ranged from four to seven days, averaging at 4.4 days. All patients were followed up for one to 24 months (averaging at 10 months). B-mode ultrasonography examination one month after operation showed no biliary tract stricture or residual stone. Conclusions Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary suture is safe, reliable, minimally invasive, more effective, and can be regarded as an ideal operative method for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with biliary duct stone in clinical practices. It is worth popularizing. The key elements for a successful operation lie in completely taking out the stones and having a sound knowledge of indications. Furthermore, surgeons should master the skills in choledochoscopy techniques, laparoscopic incision, suture and ligation.
目的 探讨纤维胆道镜在胆道探查术中及术后的应用价值。方法 对113例在胆道探查术中及术后应用纤维胆道镜治疗患者的疗效进行回顾性分析。结果 23例胆总管扩张合并黄疸且术前未见结石的患者，其中19例术中胆道镜发现结石并于术中取净结石，2例炎性狭窄，1例胆管癌，1例未见异常。58例胆总管结石患者术中胆道镜取净结石。32例肝内、外胆管结石患者术中胆道镜取净结石21例; 2例胆道镜发现结石集中于肝左外叶合并肝内胆管狭窄, 行肝左外叶切除; 其余9例患者的结石术中未取净，于术后6～8周再经胆道镜T管窦道取净结石。113例患者术后均无严重并发症发生。术后获随访98例（86.7%），随访时间6～24个月，平均14个月，2例复发，其余96例未见结石复发。结论术中应用纤维胆道镜可明确胆管内病变，降低胆管残余结石的发生率; 术后经T管窦道取石是治疗胆管残余结石的有效方法，可避免再次手术的痛苦。
目的 比较腹腔镜胆道探查术后胆总管一期缝合与T管引流两种术式治疗胆囊结石合并胆管结石的疗效。方法 回顾性分析2011年4月至2012年5月期间笔者所在科室收治的因胆囊结石合并胆管结石接受腹腔镜胆囊切除＋胆道探查治疗的109例患者的临床资料，其中58例行T管引流，51例行一期胆总管缝合。比较2组患者的手术时间、住院时间、治疗费用、术后恢复正常生活时间以及手术并发症情况。结果 T管引流组术后发生胆瘘2例（3.4%），一期缝合组术后发生胆瘘1例（2.0%），其差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。2组患者的手术时间、住院时间及住院治疗费用的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。一期缝合组患者术后恢复正常生活时间为（7.2±1.1） d，短于T管引流组的（28.2±2.7）d（P=0.001）。结论 经腹腔镜胆道探查术后一期胆总管缝合是安全可行的，可缩短患者的康复时间，提高患者围手术期生活质量。