• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

比较符合和不符合东京指南急性胆囊炎诊断标准的患者行经皮胆囊穿刺引流术的结局。

Comparing outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy drain placement between patients within and outside of Tokyo guidelines diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis.

机构信息

Section of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medicine, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC2026, Chicago, IL, 60367, USA.

Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

出版信息

Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Mar;46(3):1188-1193. doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02767-1. Epub 2020 Sep 20.

DOI:10.1007/s00261-020-02767-1
PMID:32954466
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes following percutaneous cholecystostomy drain placement based on presence or absence of Tokyo Guidelines diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

Chart review was performed to identify the presence or absence of Tokyo Guidelines diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis in 146 patients who underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy between 2012 and 2015. Those who met criteria were compared to those who did not in terms of demographics, laboratory values, drain indwelling time, treatment response, eventual surgical management, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

94 patients (64%) met Tokyo Guidelines diagnostic criteria, while 52 did not (36%). Patients within criteria had a shorter mean length of stay (13.5 days vs 18.9 days), were more likely to have a positive gallbladder fluid culture (64.5% vs 28.6%), demonstrated greater response to treatment (87.2% vs 32.7%), and had lower 30-day mortality (6.4% vs 37.8%). There was no significant difference in terms of ICU requirement (38.3% vs 38.9%), mean drain indwelling time (58.8 days vs 65.3 days), eventual laparoscopic cholecystectomy (40.4% vs 25.0%), or open cholecystectomy performed (9.5% vs 9.6%).

CONCLUSION

Patients outside of Tokyo Guidelines diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis were less likely to respond to treatment with percutaneous cholecystostomy and had worse outcomes. Further research may be indicated to better define the indications for percutaneous cholecystostomy placement in this group.

摘要

目的

比较经皮胆囊造瘘引流术(PCD)后根据是否存在东京指南(Tokyo Guidelines)急性胆囊炎诊断标准的治疗结果。

方法

对 2012 年至 2015 年期间行 PCD 的 146 例患者的病历进行了回顾性分析,以确定是否存在东京指南急性胆囊炎诊断标准。将符合标准的患者与不符合标准的患者在人口统计学、实验室值、引流管留置时间、治疗反应、最终手术管理和 30 天死亡率等方面进行比较。

结果

94 例(64%)患者符合东京指南诊断标准,52 例(36%)患者不符合。符合标准的患者平均住院时间更短(13.5 天比 18.9 天),胆囊液培养阳性的可能性更高(64.5%比 28.6%),治疗反应更好(87.2%比 32.7%),30 天死亡率更低(6.4%比 37.8%)。两组在 ICU 需求(38.3%比 38.9%)、引流管留置时间(58.8 天比 65.3 天)、最终行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(40.4%比 25.0%)或开腹胆囊切除术(9.5%比 9.6%)方面无显著差异。

结论

不符合东京指南急性胆囊炎诊断标准的患者对经皮胆囊造瘘引流术的治疗反应较差,结局较差。可能需要进一步研究以更好地确定该组患者行经皮胆囊造瘘术的适应证。

相似文献

1
Comparing outcomes of percutaneous cholecystostomy drain placement between patients within and outside of Tokyo guidelines diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis.比较符合和不符合东京指南急性胆囊炎诊断标准的患者行经皮胆囊穿刺引流术的结局。
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Mar;46(3):1188-1193. doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02767-1. Epub 2020 Sep 20.
2
Cholecystectomy vs. percutaneous cholecystostomy for the management of critically ill patients with acute cholecystitis: a protocol for a systematic review.胆囊切除术与经皮胆囊造瘘术治疗重症急性胆囊炎患者的比较:一项系统评价方案
Syst Rev. 2015 May 30;4:77. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0065-8.
3
Should percutaneous cholecystostomy be used in all cases difficult to manage?在所有难以处理的病例中都应该使用经皮胆囊造瘘术吗?
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2020 Mar;26(2):186-190. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2020.73557.
4
Percutaneous Cholecystostomy for Severe Acute Cholecystitis: A Useful Procedure in High-Risk Patients for Surgery.经皮胆囊造口术治疗重度急性胆囊炎:高危手术患者的有用手术。
Scand J Surg. 2019 Jun;108(2):124-129. doi: 10.1177/1457496918798209. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
5
Comparing clinical outcomes of image-guided percutaneous transperitoneal and transhepatic cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis.比较经皮经腹腔和经肝胆囊穿刺引流术治疗急性胆囊炎的临床疗效。
Acta Radiol. 2021 Sep;62(9):1142-1147. doi: 10.1177/0284185120959829. Epub 2020 Sep 22.
6
Timing of cholecystectomy following cholecystostomy tube placement for acute cholecystitis: a retrospective study aiming to identify the optimal timing between a percutaneous cholecystostomy and cholecystectomy to reduce the number of poor surgical outcomes.经皮胆囊造瘘术后行胆囊切除术治疗急性胆囊炎的时机:一项旨在确定经皮胆囊造瘘术与胆囊切除术之间最佳时机以减少不良手术结局数量的回顾性研究。
Surg Endosc. 2022 Oct;36(10):7541-7548. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09193-y. Epub 2022 Mar 21.
7
Routine surveillance cholangiography after percutaneous cholecystostomy delays drain removal and cholecystectomy.经皮胆囊造瘘术后进行常规监测胆管造影会延迟引流管拔除和胆囊切除术。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Feb;82(2):351-355. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001315.
8
Index cholecystectomy in grade II and III acute calculous cholecystitis is feasible and safe.二级和三级急性结石性胆囊炎的择期胆囊切除术是可行且安全的。
ANZ J Surg. 2015 Nov;85(11):854-9. doi: 10.1111/ans.12986. Epub 2015 Feb 2.
9
Outcomes in Older Patients with Grade III Cholecystitis and Cholecystostomy Tube Placement: A Propensity Score Analysis.老年Ⅲ级胆囊炎患者行胆囊造瘘管置入术的结局:一项倾向评分分析
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Apr;224(4):502-511.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.12.021. Epub 2017 Jan 6.
10
Impact of B-mode-ultrasound-guided transhepatic and transperitoneal cholecystostomy tube placement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy.B超引导下经肝及经腹胆囊造瘘管置入对腹腔镜胆囊切除术的影响
World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep 28;26(36):5498-5507. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i36.5498.

引用本文的文献

1
Percutaneous Cholecystostomy: Procedural Guidance and Future Directions for Clinical Management.经皮胆囊造瘘术:临床管理的操作指南及未来方向
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2024 Dec 10;41(5):460-465. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1791724. eCollection 2024 Oct.
2
Clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with healthcare-associated cholecystitis receiving percutaneous cholecystostomy.接受经皮胆囊造瘘术的医疗相关胆囊炎患者的临床特征和预后
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023 Jan 12;408(1):20. doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-02757-z.