Darzi A, Geraghty J G, Williams N N, Sheehan S S, Tanner A N, Keane F B
Department of Surgery, Meath and Adelaide Hospitals and Trinity College, Dublin.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994 Jan;76(1):42-6.
The recent introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LAPC) has revolutionised the surgical treatment of gallstone disease. However, it has also raised doubts about the future role of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of gallstones. In this study, we compared patients treated successfully with ESWL and dissolution therapy with patients treated by LAPC. Out of 67 patients, 50 had successful clearance with ESWL while 50 out of 54 had successful LAPC. We evaluate treatment duration, recurrence rate (ESWL) and cost of treatment in both groups. All patients had uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones. The inclusion criteria were similar in both groups with the exception of patients with non-functioning gallbladders who were excluded from ESWL. The results of the study show that although ESWL is noninvasive and associated with minimal morbidity, it is also costly and has a high failure and recurrence rate. In contrast, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, while requiring short-term hospital stay and debility, seems to be a safe and effective alternative with an advantage in terms of cost and duration of treatment.
最近腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LAPC)的引入彻底改变了胆结石疾病的外科治疗方式。然而,它也引发了人们对体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)在胆结石治疗中未来作用的质疑。在本研究中,我们将ESWL联合溶石疗法治疗成功的患者与LAPC治疗的患者进行了比较。67例患者中,50例通过ESWL成功清除结石,而54例中有50例LAPC手术成功。我们评估了两组的治疗持续时间、复发率(ESWL组)和治疗费用。所有患者均患有无并发症的有症状胆结石。除无功能胆囊患者被排除在ESWL组外,两组的纳入标准相似。研究结果表明,尽管ESWL是非侵入性的且发病率极低,但费用高昂且失败率和复发率高。相比之下,腹腔镜胆囊切除术虽然需要短期住院和身体虚弱恢复时间,但似乎是一种安全有效的替代方法,在治疗费用和持续时间方面具有优势。