Objective To study the effect of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy and T tube drainage. Metheods Laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct with choledochoscopy via choledochotomy was performed in 105 patients, T tube was placed in all patients with laparoscopic suturing technique.Results Except negative exploration in 2 cases, duct clearance was achieved in 99 per cent (102/103) of patients. Conclusion Laparoscopic exploratoin of common bile duct via choledochotomy and T tube drainage is one of the safe and effective management options for common bile duct calculi.
ObjectiveTo explore how to select the suitable indications of ERCP for clinical diagnosis and treatment. MethodsThe data of patients treated by ERCP between January 2005 and December 2009 in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. ResultsTotal 221 patients received ERCP, among whom 99 (45%) cases of common bile duct stones, 44 (20%) cases of malignant tumor, 9 (4%) cases of papilla narrow, 45 (20%) cases were negative, and 24 (11%) cases were failed. It had the trend that the number of the patients received ERCP reduced year by year. The postoperative complication rate was 11% (25 cases), including 15 cases of postoperative pancreatitis, 3 cases of bleeding, 5 cases of biliary duct infection, and 2 cases of basket stranded. ConclusionIn the modern medical condition, with the advancement of image and laparoscopy technology, we should select the diagnosis and treatment methods with the principles of no damage or less damage for patients, without unlimitedly broadening the clinical indications of ERCP.
Object To evaluate the significance of double common bile duct （DCBD） in hepatobiliary surgery. Metheds The data of diagnosis and treatment of two patients with DCBD in our hospital between Jul. to Dec. 2010 were analyzed retrospective， and the related literatures were reviewed. Results The right hepatic bile duct of DCBD due to mistaking it for cystic duct in 1 case was accidental injuried during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Another example，the DCBD was confirmed by intraoperative exploration and choledochoscopic examination， at the same time with chole-dochal cyst， anomalous pancreaticobiliary ductal junction （APBDJ）， primary hepatolithus， and choledocholith， and then operation was performed. Two cases were typeⅤb of DCBD. A total of 32 English literatures were reviewed. Since the beginning of 1932 English literature had reported 100 cases of DCBD. The type Ⅱand typeⅢwere the most common type of DCBD， and the typeⅤonly 10 cases. There were 27 cases of DCBD in twenty-five Chinese articles from 1994 to 2012. The typeⅤwas the most common type of DCBD. The accessory common bile duct （ACBD） opening in the duod-enum， gastric， and pancreatic duct were the most common. The common complications included stone， APBDJ， choled-ochal cyst， tumor etc. Conclusions DCBD is a very rare anatomic variation of extrahepatic bile duct， often accompanied by calculus of bile duct and common bile duct cyst， APBDJ， and other biliary anatomy abnormality， and potentially carci-nogenic potential. The existence of DCBD may increase the risk of iatrogenic bile duct injury and complexity of biliary operation. In view of this， this abnormality of extrahepatic duct should be paid with close attention during operation.
ObjectiveTo investigate safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) without preoperative prophylactic gastrointestinal decompression.MethodsA prospective study was conducted on the patients with choledocholithiasis and cholecystolithiasis scheduled to undergo LCBDE plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in this hospital from January 2016 to December 2017. All the patients were randomly divided into a gastrointestinal decompression group and a non-gastrointestinal decompression group by the same researcher according to the random number table method. The general conditions, intraoperative status and postoperative status of patients in the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 286 patients were enrolled in this study, including 120 in the non-gastrointestinal decompression group and 166 in the gastrointestinal decompression group. There were no significant differences in the general data such as the age, gender, smoking history, drinking history, preoperative complications, results of preoperative laboratory examination, and preoperative anesthesia score between the two groups (P>0.050). The time of oral feeding in the non-gastrointestinal decompression group was significantly earlier than that in the gastrointestinal decompression group (t=2.181, P=0.030). There were no significant differences in the bleeding volume, operative time, anal ventilation time, total hospitalization time, and postoperative hospitalization time between the two groups (P>0.050). The incidences of nausea/vomiting and poor appetite in the non-gastrointestinal decompression were significantly lower than those in the gastrointestinal decompression group (χ2=5.098, P=0.024; χ2=4.905, P=0.027). There were no significant differences in the incidences of other complications between the two groups (P>0.050).ConclusionFrom results of this study, prophylactic gastrointestinal decompression should not be recommended for patients undergoing LCBDE.
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 investigate therapeutic effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy with small incision (SES) combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) in treatment of larger common bile duct stones. Methods The clinical data of 80 patients with common bile duct stones treated in our hospital from February 2014 to October 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) group (n = 40) and SES+EPBD group (n = 40) according to the therapeutic methods. The diameter of common bile duct stone was 10–20 mm. The operation status, recurrence rate and residual rate of common bile duct stone, and complications rate within 3 months after operation were compared between these two groups. Results The age and gender had no significant differences between these two groups (P>0.05). The operation time was shorter (P<0.05) and the intraoperative bleeding was less (P<0.05) in the SES+EPBD group as compared with the EST group. There were no significant differences in the hospital stay and recovery time of gastrointestinal function between these two groups (P>0.05). The levels of ALT, AST, DBIL, and TBIL in these two groups before treatment had no significant differences (P>0.05); after treatment, the above indicators of liver function in the SES+EPBD group were significantly lower than those in the EST group (P<0.05), and which were significantly decreased more in the same group (P<0.05). The residual stone, stone recurrence, and complications such as acute pancreatitis, acute cholangitis, bile leakage and postoperative hemorrhage were not found in the SES+EPBD group, the rates of these indicators in the SES+EPBD group were significantly lower than those in the EST group (P<0.05). Conclusion SES combined with EPBD has a good therapeutic effect on larger common bile duct stones (diameter of common bile duct stone is 10–20 mm) and recurrence rate is low.
Objective To evaluate the use of fast track surgery （FTS） in the treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with calculus of common bile duct （CBD） by combination of laparoscope and duodenoscope. Methods One hundred and twenty patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with calculus of CBD underwent laparoscopic cholecyst-ectomy （LC） and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography （ERCP） were divided into FTS group （n=55） and conventional group （n=65），which were accepted the perioperative therapy of FTS or conventional therapy，respectively. After operation，the incision pain，nausea and vomiting，infusion time，loss of body weight，out-of-bed time，dieting time，postoperative hospitalization，hospital costs，and complications were compared in two groups. Results Compared with the conventional group，the postoperative infusion time，dieting time，out-of-bed time，and postoperative hospitali-zation were shorter，the incidence rates of pulmonary infection，and urinary systems infection，pancreatitis，nausea and vomiting， and incision pain were lower，the loss of body weight was lower in the FTS group （P＜0.05），but the differences of WBC and serum amylase at 24 h after operation were not significant between the FTS group and conventional group（P＞0.05）. Conclusion The FTS is safe，economic，and effective in the treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with calculus of CBD by combination of laparoscope and duodenoscope.
Objective To investigate the method of the treatment on cholecystolithiasis combined with calculus of common bile duct (CBD) by laparoscopy with combination of choledochoscope and duodenoscope and its significances. Methods Forty-two patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with calculus of CBD were treated by laparoscopy with combination of choledochoscope and duodenoscope from Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2008 in this hospital. Under general anesthesia, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed first, then the anterior wall of CBD was opened, calculus of CBD was treated by choledochoscope and duodenoscope intraoperatively. Then primary suture of the CBD was performed under laparoscope and nasobiliary drainage duct was placed. Results One case was converted to laparotomy, 41 cases succeeded and left hospital after being taken off the nasobiliary drainage duct in 5-7 d. No case died, no bile leakage, no bleeding or perforation of upper digestive tract, and no acute pancreatitis happened after operation. Conclusion Laparoscopy with combination of choledochoscope and duodenoscope treating cholecystolithiasis combined with calculus of CBD is a safe, effective and quickly recovering method with less sufferings and trauma.
ObjectiveTo investigate clinical efficacy and advantages and disadvantages of primary closure with two endoscopes (1aparoscope+choledochoscope) or three endoscopes (laparoscope+choledochoscope+duodenoscope) through the cystic duct for treatment of gallbladder stone with secondary common bile duct (CBD) stones.MethodsThe clinical data of 83 patients with gallbladder stones with secondary CBD stones treated by two or three endoscopes combined with CBD exploration and lithotomy and primary closure through cystic duct from January 2017 to December 2018 in the Chengdu Second People’s Hospital were collected retrospectively. Among them, 41 patients were treated by two endoscopes mode (two endoscopes group), 42 cases were treated by three endoscopes mode (three endoscopes group).ResultsThere were no significant differences in the general conditions such as the gender, age, preoperative diameter of CBD, chronic diseases, etc. between the two and three endoscopes group (P>0.05). All 83 cases underwent the operations successfully and recovered well. The success rate of operation, stone clearance rate, drainage volume of abdominal drainage tube on day 1 after the operation, time of abdominal drainage tube removal after the operation, and hospitalization time had no significant differences between these two groups (P>0.05). The time of operation, intraoperative bleeding volume, and the postoperative pancreatitis rate in the three endoscopes group were significantly more (or higher) than those in the two endoscopes group (P<0.05), but the condition of liver function recovered after the operation was better than that in the two endoscopes group (P<0.05).ConclusionsWith the strict control of the operation indications, it is safe and feasible to use two or three endoscopes through the cystic duct pathway and primary closure of CBD for treatment of gallbladder stone with secondary CBD stones. However, the choice of operative methods of two or three endoscopes should be based on the general situation of the patients before and during the operation.
ObjectiveTo compare difference of therapeutic effects between endoscopic frequency-doubled double pulse neodymium yttrium aluminium garnet (FREDDY) laser and endoscopic traditional mechanical lithotripsy in treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDs).MethodsThe clinical data of 207 patients with CBDs treated with ERCP and lithotripsy in the Ninth People’s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from March 2009 to March 2019 were analyzed retrospectively, of which 71 cases treated by FREDDY (FREDDY group) and 136 cases treated by mechanical lithotripsy (mechanical group). The success rate of stone removal, operation time, postoperative hospitalization time, hospitalization cost, consumables cost, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the general condition and the preoperative clinical data between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no perioperative death in the two groups. There were no significant differences in terms of the postoperative routine laboratory biochemical indexes, consumables cost, hospitalization cost, and rates of the bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, perforation and biliary tract infection between the two groups (P>0.05). Although the operation time of the FREDDY group was significantly longer than that of the mechanical group (P<0.05), the success rate of stone removal was significantly higher, the postoperative hospitalization time was shorter, the total complications rate and stone residual rate were significantly lower in the FREDDY group as compared with the mechanical group (P<0.05).ConclusionEndoscopic FREDDY laser lithotripsy has a better curative effect and less complications in treatment of large CBDs than mechanical lithotripsy, but operation time needs further to be improved.