Suppr超能文献

内镜逆行胰胆管造影失败后腹腔镜胆总管探查术的结果:一项比较研究

Outcome of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration After Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Comparative Study.

作者信息

Di Mauro Davide, Ricciardi Edoardo, Siragusa Leandro, Manzelli Antonio

机构信息

Department of Upper GI Surgery, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Department of Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Nov;29(11):1391-1396. doi: 10.1089/lap.2019.0383. Epub 2019 Jul 29.

Abstract

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) are treated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) or with the single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and LC. Multiple ERCP attempts and failure increase the risk of postprocedural complications. In such circumstances surgery is advocated. The aim of the study is to compare the outcome of LCBDE and LC in patients who had never had an ERCP, to that of patients who underwent previously failed ERCP. A retrospective analysis of 54 patients undergoing LCBDE and LC between 2010 and 2017, was performed. Patients were divided in 2 groups: primary surgery (group 1), surgery after failed ERCP (group 2). Demographics and preoperative investigation results were collected. Comparative outcomes were common bile duct (CBD) clearance rate, operative time, conversion to open rate, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay. Data were evaluated with the Student's , Chi-square, or Fisher's tests. Results were considered as statistically significant when  < .05. In both groups CBD clearance was above 90%. The mean operative time was longer in group 2 (130.3 minutes ± SD 83.72 vs. 178.73 ± 57.22;  < .05). There was no difference in the conversion to open and postoperative complication rates between groups. A bile leak occurred in 2 patients from group 1, 3, from group 2. No postoperative mortality occurred. The median hospital stay was longer in group 2 (2 days ± SD 2.54 vs. 5 ± 5.77;  < .05). LCBDE and LC is safe and effective in patients who had previous failed ERCP. If ERCP failure is anticipated and/or the risk of post-ERCP complications is high, surgery should be considered as the first-line treatment of CBDS. Longer intraoperative time and hospital stay are expected.

摘要

胆总管结石(CBDS)的治疗方法是先进行内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP),然后行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC),或者采用单阶段腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)联合LC。多次ERCP尝试及失败会增加术后并发症的风险。在这种情况下,提倡进行手术治疗。本研究的目的是比较从未接受过ERCP的患者行LCBDE联合LC的结果与先前ERCP失败患者的结果。对2010年至2017年间接受LCBDE联合LC的54例患者进行了回顾性分析。患者分为两组:初次手术组(第1组)、ERCP失败后手术组(第2组)。收集了人口统计学资料和术前检查结果。比较的结果指标包括胆总管(CBD)清除率、手术时间、转为开腹手术率、术后发病率、死亡率和住院时间。数据采用Student's检验、卡方检验或Fisher检验进行评估。当P<0.05时,结果被认为具有统计学意义。两组的CBD清除率均高于90%。第2组的平均手术时间更长(130.3分钟±标准差83.72对178.73±57.22;P<0.05)。两组之间转为开腹手术率和术后并发症发生率没有差异。第1组有2例患者发生胆漏,第2组有3例。未发生术后死亡。第2组的中位住院时间更长(2天±标准差2.54对5±5.77;P<0.05)。对于先前ERCP失败的患者,LCBDE联合LC是安全有效的。如果预计ERCP会失败和/或ERCP术后并发症风险较高,应考虑将手术作为CBDS的一线治疗方法。预计手术时间和住院时间会更长。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验