Bland K I, Jones R S, Maher J W, Cotton P B, Pennell T C, Amerson J R, Munson J L, Berci G, Fuchs G J, Way L W
University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville 32610.
Ann Surg. 1989 Jun;209(6):743-53; discussion 753-5. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198906000-00012.
A multi-institutional study to evaluate the efficacy, clinical application, and safety of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) with the Dornier HM-3 or HM-4 lithotripter for bile duct calculi (BDC) was initiated in September, 1987. Symptomatic patients who entered into this prospective trial had BDC in the common bile duct and/or the intrahepatic, cystic or lobar ducts of the liver that were inaccessible or untreatable by papillotomy or percutaneous stone extraction. The study excluded gallbladder stones. Nasobiliary (54.4%) or transhepatic catheters (10.5%) and T-tube or cholecystostomy tubes (17.5%) or combinations (14.0%) permitted access for radiographic contrast to allow fluoroscopic monitoring of stone position and fragmentation. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, failure to localize the stone, disturbances of coagulation, pacemakers, or vascular aneurysms or large bones that lie in the focal axis of the shock waves. Eleven institutions treated 42 patients (23 male, 19 female) with BDC; age range was 25 to 95 years (mean +/- SD, 73.5 +/- 13.8) and ASA risk category was 1 to 4 (mean, 2.3 +/- 0.8). Fourteen patients (33.3%) had a single BDC; 28 had 2 to 8 stones (mean, 2.7 +/- 1.8) ranging in size from 6 mm to 30 mm (mean, 18.5 +/- 6.4). The majority (66.7%) of patients were postcholecystectomy. The 42 patients received 57 ESWL treatments consisting of 600 to 2400 shocks per treatment (mean, 1924 +/- 289) at 12 to 22 kV (mean, 18.5 +/- 1.9) administered over 20 to 125 minutes (mean, 52.9 +/- 20.8). General anesthesia was used in 32% of the treatments; the majority were treated with epidural or regional block (42.1%), local infiltration (28.1%), or intravenous sedation (38.6%). Fifteen patients (35.7%) required two ESWL treatments. Stone fragmentation occurred in 94.6% of evaluable patients and in 90.4% of ESWL treatments, respectively; however, BDC fragments remained in 59.5% of patients 24 hours after treatment (diameter less than or to 3 mm, 12%; 4 to 9 mm, 16%; greater than or equal to 10 mm, 68%). Some patients (50%) required adjunctive procedures to achieve stone removal that included endoscopic extraction (n = 10; 47.6%), biliary lavage (n = 8; 38.1%), endoscopic bile duct prosthesis (n = 1; 4.8%), and operation (n = 2; 9.5%). ESWL treatment complications during hospitalization were observed in 15 patients (35.7%) and were present in four (9.5%) at discharge. Complications included macrohematuria (5%), biliary pain (15%), biliary sepsis (5%), hemobilia (10%), ileus (2.5%), and adverse pulmonary changes (7.5%). One patient developed pancreatitis before ESWL at ERCP that resolved prior to discharge.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
1987年9月启动了一项多机构研究,以评估使用多尼尔HM - 3或HM - 4碎石机进行体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗胆管结石(BDC)的疗效、临床应用及安全性。进入这项前瞻性试验的有症状患者,其胆总管和/或肝内、胆囊或肝叶胆管存在结石,这些结石无法通过乳头切开术或经皮取石术处理。该研究排除胆囊结石。鼻胆管(54.4%)或经肝导管(10.5%)以及T管或胆囊造瘘管(17.5%)或联合使用(14.0%)可用于注入造影剂,以便在透视下监测结石位置和粉碎情况。排除标准包括妊娠、无法定位结石、凝血功能障碍、起搏器、血管动脉瘤或位于冲击波聚焦轴线上的大骨头。11个机构对42例胆管结石患者(男23例,女19例)进行了治疗;年龄范围为25至95岁(平均±标准差,73.5±1
3.8),美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)风险分级为1至4级(平均,2.3±0.8)。14例患者(33.3%)有单个胆管结石;28例有2至8枚结石(平均,2.7±1.8),大小从6毫米至30毫米不等(平均,18.5±6.4)。大多数患者(66.7%)接受过胆囊切除术。42例患者共接受了57次ESWL治疗,每次治疗冲击600至2400次(平均,1924±289),电压12至22千伏(平均,18.5±1.9),治疗时间20至125分钟(平均,52.9±20.8)。3
2%的治疗使用全身麻醉;大多数采用硬膜外或区域阻滞(42.1%)、局部浸润(28.1%)或静脉镇静(38.6%)。15例患者(35.7%)需要进行两次ESWL治疗。分别有94.6%的可评估患者和90.4% 的ESWL治疗出现结石粉碎;然而,治疗后24小时,59.5%的患者胆管结石碎片仍留存(直径小于或等于
3毫米,12%;4至9毫米,16%;大于或等于10毫米,68%)。一些患者(50%)需要辅助程序以清除结石,包括内镜下取石(n = 10;47
.6%)、胆管冲洗(n = 8;38.1%)、内镜胆管支架置入(n = 1;4.8%)和手术(n = 2;9.5%)。住院期间观察到15例患者(35.7%)出现ESWL治疗并发症,出院时4例(9.5%)仍有并发症。并发症包括肉眼血尿(5%)、胆绞痛(15%)、胆系感染(5%)、胆道出血(10%)、肠梗阻(2.5%)和肺部不良反应(7.5%)。1例患者在ESWL治疗前于内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)时发生胰腺炎,出院前已缓解。(摘要截断于400字)