Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Liver Transplantation, GB Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research and MAM College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):1254-1263. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07496-6. Epub 2020 Mar 16.
Surgical management by a bilioenteric anastomosis is the standard for the repair of post-cholecystectomy benign biliary strictures (BBS). This is traditionally done as an open operation. There are a few reports describing the procedure by a laparoscopic technique. The aim of the present study was to describe our experience of laparoscopic bilio-enteric anastomosis [Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (LRYHJ)/laparoscopic hepaticoduodenostomy (LHD)] in the management of post-cholecystectomy BBS and compare the outcomes with our patients operated by the open approach.
Retrospective analysis of prospective data of post-cholecystectomy BBS patients treated by laparoscopic bilio-enteric anastomosis. The outcomes were compared with patients who underwent an open repair.
Between January 2016 and February 2019, 63 patients underwent surgery for post-cholecystectomy BBS. Twenty-nine patients who underwent laparoscopic bilio-enteric anastomosis (LRYHJ-13, LHD-16) were compared with 34 patients who underwent an open repair. The median age (40 vs 39) years, type of index surgery [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (13 vs 15), laparoscopic converted to open cholecystectomy (10 vs 16), and open cholecystectomy (6 vs 3)], type of injury low stricture (7 vs 5) and high stricture (22 vs 29), preoperative biliary fistula (23 vs 30), and time from injury to repair (6 vs 7 months) were similar in the 2 groups. The median duration of surgery was also similar (210 vs 200 min, p = 0.937); however, the median intraoperative blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p = 0.001), time to resume oral diet (2 vs 4 days p = 0.023),** and median duration of postoperative hospital stay (6 vs 8 days, p = 0.001) were significantly less in the laparoscopy group. Overall morbidity rate (within 30 days post-surgery) was significantly higher in the open repair group (38% vs 20%). In a subgroup analysis of the laparoscopic repair group, the operative time in patients who underwent an LHD was significantly less than LRYHJ (190 vs 230 min, p = 0.034). The other parameters like the mean intraoperative blood loss, time to initiate oral diet, duration of postoperative hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative bile leak were similar. Patients undergoing open repair had a median follow-up of 26 months with two developing anastomotic stenosis and those undergoing laparoscopic repair had a median follow-up for 9 months with one developing anastomotic stenosis.
Laparoscopic surgery for post-cholecystectomy BBS with an LRYHJ or LHD is feasible and safe and compares favourably with the open approach.
胆肠吻合术是治疗胆囊切除术后良性胆管狭窄(BBS)的标准方法。传统上,这种手术是开放性的。有一些报告描述了腹腔镜技术的应用。本研究的目的是描述我们在处理胆囊切除术后 BBS 时进行腹腔镜胆肠吻合术[Roux-en-Y 肝肠吻合术(LRYHJ)/腹腔镜肝十二指肠吻合术(LHD)]的经验,并将我们的结果与开放手术患者进行比较。
对接受腹腔镜胆肠吻合术治疗的胆囊切除术后 BBS 患者的前瞻性数据进行回顾性分析。将结果与接受开放修复的患者进行比较。
2016 年 1 月至 2019 年 2 月,63 例患者因胆囊切除术后 BBS 接受手术。将 29 例接受腹腔镜胆肠吻合术(LRYHJ-13 例,LHD-16 例)的患者与 34 例接受开放修复的患者进行比较。两组患者的中位年龄(40 岁比 39 岁)、索引手术类型[腹腔镜胆囊切除术(13 例比 15 例)、腹腔镜转为开放胆囊切除术(10 例比 16 例)和开放胆囊切除术(6 例比 3 例)]、损伤类型[低位狭窄(7 例比 5 例)和高位狭窄(22 例比 29 例)]、术前胆瘘(23 例比 30 例)和从损伤到修复的时间(6 个月比 7 个月)相似。手术时间也相似(210 分钟比 200 分钟,p=0.937);然而,术中出血量(50 毫升比 200 毫升,p=0.001)、恢复口服饮食的时间(2 天比 4 天,p=0.023)和术后住院时间(6 天比 8 天,p=0.001)中位数显著减少在腹腔镜组。术后 30 天内的总体发病率(术后并发症发生率)在开放修复组明显更高(38%比 20%)。在腹腔镜修复组的亚组分析中,行 LHD 的患者手术时间明显短于 LRYHJ(190 分钟比 230 分钟,p=0.034)。其他参数如平均术中出血量、开始口服饮食的时间、术后住院时间和术后胆漏的发生率相似。接受开放修复的患者中位随访 26 个月,2 例发生吻合口狭窄,接受腹腔镜修复的患者中位随访 9 个月,1 例发生吻合口狭窄。
腹腔镜治疗胆囊切除术后 BBS 行 LRYHJ 或 LHD 是可行和安全的,与开放手术相比具有优势。