期刊文献+

Innovative technique of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration:A comparative study 被引量:7

Innovative technique of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration:A comparative study
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(n SIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of conventional laparoscopic CBDE(CL-CBDE).METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent CL-CBDE or n SILCBDE for the treatment of common bile duct(CBD) stones between January 2000 and December 2014. For performing n SIL-CBDE, a needlescopic grasper was also inserted through a direct puncture below the right subcostal line after introducing a single-port through the umbilicus. The needlescopic grasper helped obtain the critical view of safety by retracting the gallbladder laterally and by preventing crossing or conflict between laparoscopic instruments. The gallbladder was then partially dissected from the liver bed and used for retraction. CBD stones were usually extracted through a longitudinal supraduodenal choledochotomy, mostly using flushing a copious amount of normal saline througha ureteral catheter. Afterward, for the certification of CBD clearance, CBDE was performed mostly using a flexible choledochoscope. The choledochotomy site was primarily closed without using a T-tube, and simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE. Of these patients, 20 underwent CL-CBDE and 20 underwent n SIL-CBDE. The operative time for n SIL-CBDE was significantly longer than that for CL-CBDE(238 ± 76 min vs 192 ± 39 min, P = 0.007). The stone clearance rate was 100%(40/40) in both groups. Postoperatively, the n SIL-CBDE group required less intravenous analgesic(pethidine)(46.5 ± 63.5 mg/kg vs 92.5 ± 120.1 mg/kg, P = 0.010) and had a shorter hospital stay than the CL-CBDE group(3.8 ± 2.0 d vs 5.1 ± 1.7 d, P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that n SIL-CBDE could be safe and feasible while improving cosmetic outcomes when performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques. AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(n SIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of conventional laparoscopic CBDE(CL-CBDE).METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent CL-CBDE or n SILCBDE for the treatment of common bile duct(CBD) stones between January 2000 and December 2014. For performing n SIL-CBDE, a needlescopic grasper was also inserted through a direct puncture below the right subcostal line after introducing a single-port through the umbilicus. The needlescopic grasper helped obtain the critical view of safety by retracting the gallbladder laterally and by preventing crossing or conflict between laparoscopic instruments. The gallbladder was then partially dissected from the liver bed and used for retraction. CBD stones were usually extracted through a longitudinal supraduodenal choledochotomy, mostly using flushing a copious amount of normal saline througha ureteral catheter. Afterward, for the certification of CBD clearance, CBDE was performed mostly using a flexible choledochoscope. The choledochotomy site was primarily closed without using a T-tube, and simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE. Of these patients, 20 underwent CL-CBDE and 20 underwent n SIL-CBDE. The operative time for n SIL-CBDE was significantly longer than that for CL-CBDE(238 ± 76 min vs 192 ± 39 min, P = 0.007). The stone clearance rate was 100%(40/40) in both groups. Postoperatively, the n SIL-CBDE group required less intravenous analgesic(pethidine)(46.5 ± 63.5 mg/kg vs 92.5 ± 120.1 mg/kg, P = 0.010) and had a shorter hospital stay than the CL-CBDE group(3.8 ± 2.0 d vs 5.1 ± 1.7 d, P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that n SIL-CBDE could be safe and feasible while improving cosmetic outcomes when performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS 2015年第45期12857-12864,共8页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 CHOLEDOCHOLITHIASIS CHOLEDOCHOTOMY Common BILE DUC Choledocholithiasis Choledochotomy Common bile duc
  • 相关文献

参考文献20

  • 1Zhi-Tao Dong,Guo-Zhong Wu,Kun-lun Luo,Jie-Ming Li.Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus T-tube[J]. Journal of Surgical Research . 2014 (2)
  • 2Yong Zhou,Xu-Dong Wu,Ren-Gen Fan,Guang-Jun Zhou,Xiang-Ming Mu,Wen-Zhang Cha,Jing Jia.Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary closure of choledochotomy after failed endoscopic sphincterotomy[J]. International Journal of Surgery . 2014
  • 3Zhang, Hong-Wei,Chen, Ya-Jin,Wu, Chang-Hao,Li, Wen-Da.Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Primary Closure for Management of Choledocholithiasis: A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison with Conventional T-tube Drainage[J]. The American Surgeon . 2014 (2)
  • 4Helmut G. Weiss,Walter Brunner,Matthias O. Biebl,Jan Schirnhofer,Katharina Pimpl,Christof Mittermair,Christian Obrist,Eberhard Brunner,Tobias Hell.Wound Complications in 1145 Consecutive Transumbilical Single-Incision Laparoscopic Procedures[J].Annals of Surgery.2014(1)
  • 5Th. Carus.Current advances in single-port laparoscopic surgery[J]. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery . 2013 (7)
  • 6Zi Yin,Kang Xu,Jian Sun,Jianlong Zhang,Zhiyu Xiao,Jie Wang,Haitao Niu,Qiang Zhao,Shangxiong Lin,Yajie Li.Is the End of the T-Tube Drainage Era in Laparoscopic Choledochotomy for Common Bile Duct Stones Is Coming? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Annals of Surgery . 2013 (1)
  • 7Rajat Goel,Davide Lomanto.Controversies in Single-port Laparoscopic Surgery[J]. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques . 2012 (5)
  • 8David Yeo,Sean Mackay,David Martin.Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography and common bile duct exploration via the umbilical port[J].Surgical Endoscopy.2012(4)
  • 9Xiangsong Wu,Yong Yang,Ping Dong,Jun Gu,Jianhua Lu,Maolan Li,Jiasheng Mu,Wenguang Wu,Jiahua Yang,Lin Zhang,Qichen Ding,Yingbin Liu.Primary closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials[J]. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery . 2012 (6)
  • 10Say-June Kim,Gil-O Ryu,Byung-Jo Choi,Jeong-Goo Kim,Kwan-Ju Lee,Sang Chul Lee,Seong-Taek Oh.The Short-term Outcomes of Conventional and Single-port Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer[J].Annals of Surgery.2011(6)

共引文献11

同被引文献45

引证文献7

二级引证文献57

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部