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.
Due to the special structure and material of the flexible gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes, it is difficult to reprocess endoscopes. Infections caused by endoscope reprocessing failure often occur. Strict implementation of the guidelines/relevant national standards and manufacturer's instructions is essential to prevent the occurrence of endoscopy-related infections and ensure patient safety. In 2020, ASGE (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) released the "multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories". This paper aimed to promote the understanding of the reprocessing process of flexible GI endoscopes by the endoscope decontamination staff, and to provide references for clinical practice.
Objective To explore the application of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation combined with total endoscopic decompression and interbody fusion in single segment lumbar decompression and fusion. Methods A total of 27 cases undergoing single segment lumbar decompression and fusion between August 2020 and May 2021 in the People’s Hospital of Deyang City were retrospectively collected. They were divided into group A and B according to their surgery method. The patients in group A underwent robot-assisted pedicle screw fixation combined with total endoscopic decompression and interbody fusion surgery, while the ones in group B underwent traditional posterior decompression and fusion. The operation time, amount of bleeding, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score before operation and one month and three months after operation, and success rate of screw placement were compared. Results There were 12 patients in group A, 5 males and 7 females, aged (59.83±6.79) years, and 15 patients in group B, 6 males and 9 females, aged (53.73±14.87) years. The amount of intraoperative bleeding [(195.00±45.23) vs. (240.00±47.06) mL] and postoperative hospital stay [(5.92±1.56) vs. (8.33±3.62) d] in group A were less than those in group B (P<0.05), while the operation time [(185.80±52.13) vs. (160.70±21.37) min] and the success rate of screw placement [100.0% (48/48) vs. 96.7% (58/60)] had no statistical difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The VAS score and ODI score of the two groups decreased significantly over time (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups at the same time point before operation, one month after operation, or three months after operation (P>0.05). The ODI score of group A was better than that of group B one month after operation (P=0.010), but there was no significant difference between the two groups before operation or three months after operation (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with traditional open surgery, the application of robot-assisted total endoscopic lumbar decompression and fusion technology in single segment lumbar fusion has good early clinical outcome, high success rate of screw placement, and small trauma, which is beneficial to early functional recovery and has the significance of further exploring its application prospect.