Rogers Stanley J, Cello John P, Horn Jan K, Siperstein Allan E, Schecter William P, Campbell Andre R, Mackersie Robert C, Rodas Alex, Kreuwel Huub T C, Harris Hobart W
San Francisco General Hospital, Department of Surgery, University of California, 94110, USA.
Arch Surg. 2010 Jan;145(1):28-33. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.226.
To compare outcome parameters for good-risk patients with classic signs, symptoms, and laboratory and abdominal imaging features of cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis randomized to either laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC+LCBDE) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/S+LC).
Our study was a prospective trial conducted following written informed consent, with randomization by the serially numbered, opaque envelope technique.
Our institution is an academic teaching hospital and the central receiving and trauma center for the City and County of San Francisco, California.
We randomized 122 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1 or 2) meeting entry criteria. Ten of these patients, excluded from outcome analysis, were protocol violators having signed out of the hospital against medical advice before 1 or both procedures were completed.
Treatment was preoperative ERCP/S followed by LC, or LC+LCBDE.
The primary outcome measure was efficacy of stone clearance from the common bile duct. Secondary end points were length of hospital stay, cost of index hospitalization, professional fees, hospital charges, morbidity and mortality, and patient acceptance and quality of life scores.
The baseline characteristics of the 2 randomized groups were similar. Efficacy of stone clearance was likewise equivalent for both groups. The time from first procedure to discharge was significantly shorter for LC+LCBDE (mean [SD], 55 [45] hours vs 98 [83] hours; P < .001). Hospital service and total charges for index hospitalization were likewise lower for LC+LCBDE, but the differences were not statistically significant. The professional fee charges for LC+LCBDE were significantly lower than those for ERCP/S+LC (median [SD], $4820 [1637] vs $6139 [1583]; P < .001). Patient acceptance and quality of life scores were equivalent for both groups.
Both ERCP/S+LC and LC+LCBDE were highly effective in detecting and removing common bile duct stones and were equivalent in overall cost and patient acceptance. However, the overall duration of hospitalization was shorter and physician fees lower for LC+LCBDE.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00807729.
比较具有典型体征、症状、实验室及腹部影像学特征的胆囊结石和胆总管结石低风险患者的预后参数,这些患者被随机分为接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术加腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LC+LCBDE)或内镜逆行胰胆管造影括约肌切开术加腹腔镜胆囊切除术(ERCP/S+LC)两组。
我们的研究是一项前瞻性试验,在获得书面知情同意后进行,采用连续编号的不透明信封技术进行随机分组。
我们的机构是一家学术教学医院,也是加利福尼亚州旧金山市和县的中央接收及创伤中心。
我们将122例符合入选标准的患者(美国麻醉医师协会1或2级)进行了随机分组。其中10例患者被排除在预后分析之外,他们是在完成1项或2项手术之前违反医嘱擅自出院的方案违背者。
治疗方法为术前ERCP/S然后行LC,或LC+LCBDE。
主要结局指标是胆总管结石清除的疗效。次要终点包括住院时间、首次住院费用、专业费用、医院收费、发病率和死亡率,以及患者接受度和生活质量评分。
两个随机分组的基线特征相似。两组的结石清除疗效同样相当。LC+LCBDE组从首次手术到出院的时间明显更短(均值[标准差],55[45]小时对98[83]小时;P<.001)。LC+LCBDE组首次住院的医院服务和总费用同样较低,但差异无统计学意义。LC+LCBDE组的专业费用明显低于ERCP/S+LC组(中位数[标准差],4820美元[1637]对6139美元[1583];P<.001)。两组的患者接受度和生活质量评分相当。
ERCP/S+LC和LC+LCBDE在检测和清除胆总管结石方面均非常有效,在总体费用和患者接受度方面相当。然而,LC+LCBDE的总体住院时间更短,医生费用更低。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00807729。