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.
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(1978 to 2010), EMbase (1966 to 2010), CBMdisc (1978 to 2010), and CNKI (1979 to 2010); and the relevant published and unpublished data and their references were also searched by hand.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.
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.
摘要:目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC)后发生严重并发症的原因、治疗措施和经验教训。方法:分析 2007 年 8 月至2009 年 4月期间华西医院胆道外科收治的LC术后发生严重并发症的7例患者的临床资料。结果:2例继发性胆总管结石合并化脓性胆管炎患者,采用内镜下十二指肠乳头切开(endoscopic sphincterotomy, EST)取出结石;3例胆道损伤患者,均进行肝门胆管成形和肝总管空肠吻合术;1例绞窄性肠梗阻患者,切除坏死空肠管后,行空肠对端吻合术;以上6例患者均顺利出院,随访8～20个月,均生活良好。1例患者LC术后发生肺动脉栓塞,积极抢救后因呼吸衰竭而死亡。结论:术中仔细轻柔的操作以及辩清肝总管、胆总管与胆囊管的三者关系是预防LC术后发生严重并发症的关键。合理可行的治疗措施是提高发生并发症的患者生活质量的保障。LC术时,胆道外科医生思想上要高度重视,不可盲目追求速度,必要时及时中转开腹。Abstract: Objective: To investigate the causes and therapeutic measures and the experience and lesson of sever complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods:Clinical data of 7 patients with severe complications after LC from August 2007 to April 2009 were analyzed retrospectively. The clinical data was got from biliary department of West China Hospital. Results: Two cases of secondary common bile duct stone with acute suppurative cholangitis got cured by endoscopic sphincterotomy. Three cases of severe bile duct injury after LC had stricture of the hilar bile duct, and all of the cases were performed RouxenY hepaticojejunostomy with the diameter of stoma 2.03.0 centimeters. One case of strangulating intestinal obstruction was cured through jejunum endtoend anastomosis after cutting off the necrotic jejunum. All of the above 6 patients recovered well. Following up for 820 months, all lived well. One patient got pulmonary embolism after LC and dead of respiratory failure after active rescue. Conclusion: Carefully making operation and distinguishing the relationship of hepatic bile duct and common bile duct and the duct of gallbladder are the key points to prevent sever complications during LC. Reasonable and feasible treatment is the ensurement of increasing the living quality of the patients with sever complications after LC. And the surgeons of biliary department must have a correct attitude toward LC and should concern think highly during LC and should not pursue speed blindly. In necessary, the operation of LC should be turned into open cholecystectomy.
Objective To discuss the therapeutic effect and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopiccommon bile duct exploration （LC＋LCBDE） and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincte-rotomy plus LC （ERCP/EST＋LC） for cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis patients with obstructive jaundice. Methods The clinical data of cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis patients with obstructive jaundice from January2011 to June 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. During this period， 48 patients were treated by LC＋LCBDE （LC＋LCBDE group）， and 76 patients by ERCP/EST＋LC （ERCP/EST＋LC group）. Results ①There were no statistical significances in the age， gender， preoperative total bilirubin， alanine aminotransferase， number and maximum diameter of common bile duct stone， and internal diameter of common bile duct in two groups （P＞0.05）. ②No perioperative mortality occurred and no significant differences were observed in terms of stone clearance from the common bile duct， postoperative morbidity， and conversion to open surgery in two groups （P＞0.05）. However， the operative time and post-operative hospital stay in the LC＋LCBDE group were shorter than those in the ERCP/EST＋LC group （P＜0.05）. In addi-tion， the costs of surgical procedure and hospitalization charges in the LC＋LCBDE group were less than those in the ERCP/EST＋LC group （P＜0.05）. Conclusions Both LC＋LCBDE and ERCP/EST＋LC are safe and effective therapies forcholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis patients with obstructive jaundice. However， LC＋LCBDE is better for pati-ents’ recovery and cost effective. Especially for patients with common bile duct＞1.0cm in diameter or with multiple common bile duct stones， LC＋LCBDE is the best choice. To sum up， the choice of minimally invasive treatment must be individualized according to the patient’s condition and the availability of local resources.
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.
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 evaluate the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration （LC＋LCBDE） and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterectomy with LC（ERCP/EST＋LC） in treatment for cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Methods From January 2008 to July 2011， 127 patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis underwent either LC＋LCBDE（85 cases， LC＋LCBDE group） or ERCP/EST＋LC（42 cases， ERCP/EST＋LC group） were collected retrospectively. The clearance rate of calculus， hospital stay， hospitalization expenses， and the rate of postoperative complications were compared between two groups. Results Eighty-five patients were performed successfully in the LC＋LCBDE group， out of which 54 patients had primary closure of common bile duct （LC＋LCBDE primary closure group）， whereas in 28 patients common bile ducts were closed over T tube （LC＋LCBDE＋T tube group）. Forty-two patients were performed successfully in the ERCP/EST＋LC group. There were no differences in the clearance rate of calculus〔100%（82/82） versus 97.37%（37/38）， P=0.317〕 and postoperative complications rate 〔（4.71% （4/85） versus 4.76%（2/42）， P=1.000〕 between the LC＋LCBDE group and ERCP/EST＋LC group. The median （quartile） hospital stay in the LC＋LCBDE group was shorter than that in the ERCP/EST＋LC group 〔12 （6） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001〕. In the LC＋LCBDE primary closure group， both median （quartile）?hospital stay and median（quartile） hospitalization expenses were less than those of ERCP/EST＋LC〔hospital stay：11（5） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001；hospitalization expenses：27 054（8 452） yuan versus 31 595（11 743） yuan， P=0.005〕 . Conclusions In the management of patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis， both LC＋LCBDE and ERCP/EST＋LC are safe and effective. LC＋LCBDE， especially primary closure after LCBDE， is associated with significantly less costs as compared with ERCP/EST＋LC. Moreover， patients can be cured by LC＋LCBDE through one-stage treatment with the protection of the papilla function and no limits to the amount or size of the choledocholithiasis. The LC＋LCBDE is a preferable choice for the appropriate cases of cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis.
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.
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.