Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查术与 Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术后胆囊切除时经胃内镜逆行胆胰管造影术比较。

Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration versus transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

机构信息

Section of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.

Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

出版信息

Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2023 Aug;19(8):882-888. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2023.01.023. Epub 2023 Feb 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) poses a particular challenge given the altered anatomy and inability to perform a standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram (ERC). The optimal treatment strategy for intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in post-RYGB patients has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes following laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and laparoscopy-assisted transgastric ERC for CBDs during cholecystectomy in RYGB-operated patients.

SETTING

Swedish nationwide multi-registry study.

METHODS

The Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCs, GallRiks (n = 215,670), and the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg) (n = 60,479) were cross-matched for cholecystectomies with intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in patients with previous RYGB surgery between 2011 and 2020.

RESULTS

Registry cross-matching found 550 patients. Both LTCBDE (n = 132) and transgastric ERC (n = 145) were comparable in terms of low rates of intraoperative adverse events (1% versus 2%) and postoperative adverse events within 30 days (16% versus 18%). LTCBDE required significantly shorter operating time (P = .005) by on average 31 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) [10.3-52.6], and was more often used for smaller stones <4 mm in size (30% versus 17%, P = .010). However, transgastric ERC was more often used in acute surgery (78% versus 63%, P = .006) and for larger stones >8 mm in size (25% versus 8%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

LTCBDE and transgastric ERC have similarly low complication rates for clearance of intraoperatively encountered CBD stones in RYGB-operated patients, but LTCBDE is faster while transgastric ERC is more often used in conjunction with larger bile duct stones.

摘要

背景

由于解剖结构改变以及无法进行标准的内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERC),Roux-en-Y 胃旁路术(RYGB)后治疗胆总管(CBD)结石具有一定的挑战性。对于 RYGB 术后患者术中发现的 CBD 结石,尚未确定最佳的治疗策略。

目的

比较腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查术(LTCBDE)和腹腔镜辅助经胃 ERC 治疗 RYGB 术后胆囊切除术中 CBD 结石的疗效。

设置

瑞典全国多登记处研究。

方法

2011 年至 2020 年,对瑞典胆囊结石手术和 ERC 登记处(GallRiks,n = 215670)和斯堪的纳维亚肥胖手术登记处(SOReg,n = 60479)进行交叉匹配,以确定 RYGB 术后患者在胆囊切除术中发现 CBD 结石。

结果

登记处交叉匹配发现 550 例患者。LTCBDE(n = 132)和经胃 ERC(n = 145)在术中不良事件发生率(1%对 2%)和术后 30 天内不良事件发生率(16%对 18%)方面均无显著差异。LTCBDE 手术时间明显缩短(P =.005),平均缩短 31 分钟,95%置信区间(CI)[10.3-52.6],且常用于直径<4 mm 的较小结石(30%对 17%,P =.010)。然而,经胃 ERC 更常用于急性手术(78%对 63%,P =.006)和直径>8 mm 的较大结石(25%对 8%,P <.001)。

结论

LTCBDE 和经胃 ERC 治疗 RYGB 术后患者术中发现的 CBD 结石的并发症发生率相似,但 LTCBDE 速度更快,而经胃 ERC 更常用于较大的胆管结石。

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