Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus common bile duct exploration for extrahepatic bile duct stones and postoperative recurrenceassociated risk factors

BACKGROUND There remain controversies regarding the surgical treatment of extrahepatic bile duct stones(EHBDSs)in clinical practice.AIM To explore the curative effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)plus common bile duct exploration(CBDE)for the surgical treatment of EHBDSs and to analyze the risk factors that affect postoperative stone recurrence.METHODS Eighty-two patients with EHBDSs admitted between March 2017 and March 2023 were selected.Among them,patients treated with open choledocholithotomy plus LC or open cholecystectomy(OC)were set as the control group(n=40),and those treated with LC plus CBDE served as the observation group(n=42).The surgical outcomes of the two groups were compared,the surgical complications and Gas-trointestinal Quality of Life Index(GIQLI)scores were counted,and the one-year prognostic recurrence was recorded.Independent factors for postoperative re-currence were determined using univariate and multivariate analyses.RESULTS The two groups were comparable in the stone residual rate(P>0.05).The ope-ration time(P<0.05),intraoperative bleeding(P<0.05),and total complication rate(P=0.005)were lower in the observation group than in the control group.The observation group exhibited a marked increase in the GIQLI score,which was higher than the control group(P<0.05).A lower one-year recurrence rate was determined in the observation group vs the control group(P=0.027).Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction[odds ratio(OR)=5.712,P=0.007]and the treatment scheme of open choledocholithotomy plus LC or OC(OR=6.771,P=0.008)were the independent risk factors for one-year recurrence in patients after surgery.CONCLUSION LC plus CBDE for patients with EHBDSs can reduce stone residuals,intraoperative bleeding,complications,and postoperative recurrence.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration to treat choledocholithiasis in situs inversus patients:A technical review

Situs inversus(SI)is a rare congenital condition characterized by a mirror-image transposition of the major visceral organs.Since the 1990s,more than one hundred SI patients have been reported to have successfully undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy.In these cases,the major problem is to overcome is the left-right condition for right-handed surgeons.Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE),an alternative to treat patients with bile duct stones,has shown equivalent efficacy and is less likely to cause pancreatitis than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Recent updated meta-analyses revealed that a shorter postoperative hospital stay,fewer procedural interventions,cost-effectiveness,a higher stone clearance rate,and fewer perioperative complications are additional advantages of LCBDE.However,the technique is technically demanding,even for skilled laparoscopic surgeons.Conducting LCBDE in patients with difficult situations,such as SI,is more complex than usual.We herein review published SI patients with choledocholithiasis treated by LCBDE,including our own experience,and this paper focuses on the technical aspects.

Surgical strategies for challenging common bile duct stones in the endoscopic era: A comprehensive review of current evidence

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)remains the primary treatment modality for common bile duct stones(CBDS)or choledocho-lithiasis due to advancements in instruments,surgical intervention,known as common bile duct exploration(CBDE),is still necessary in cases of difficult CBDS,failed endoscopic treatment,or altered anatomy.Recent evidence also supports CBDE in patients requesting single-step cholecystectomy and bile duct stone removal with comparable outcomes.This review elucidates relevant clinical anatomy,selection indications,and outcomes to enhance surgical understanding.The selection between trans-cystic(TC)vs trans-choledochal(TD)approaches is described,along with stone removal techniques and ductal closure.Detailed surgical techniques and strategies for both the TC and TD approaches,including instrument selection,is also provided.Additionally,this review comprehensively addresses operation-specific complications such as bile leakage,stricture,and entrapment,and focuses on preventive measures and treatment strategies.This review aims to optimize the management of CBDS through laparoscopic CBDE,with the goal of improving patient outcomes and minimizing risks.

Role of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in the management of choledocholithiasis

Surgical fraternity has not yet arrived at any consensus for adequate treatment of choledocholithiasis. Sequential treatment in the form of pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) is considered as optimal treatment till date. With refinements in technique and expertise in field of minimal access surgery, many centres in the world have started offering one stage management of choledocholithiasis by LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE). Various modalities have been tried for entering into concurrent common bile duct(CBD) [transcystic(TC) vs transcholedochal(TD)], for confirming stone clearance(intraoperative cholangiogram vs choledochoscopy), and for closure of choledochotomy(T-tube vs biliary stent vs primary closure) during LCBDE. Both TC and TD approaches are safe and effective. TD stone extraction is involved with an increased risk of bile leaks and requires more expertise in intra-corporeal suturing and choledochoscopy. Choice depends on number of stones, size of stone, diameter of cystic duct and CBD. This review article was undertaken to evaluate the role of LCBDE for the management of choledocholithiasis.

Outcomes of laparoscopic bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis with small common bile duct

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)combined with laparoscopic common bile duct(CBD)exploration(LCBDE)is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm.However,for patients with small CBD(CBD diameter≤8 mm),endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the preferred treatment at present,but it also has some drawbacks associated with a series of complications,such as pancreatitis,hemorrhage,cholangitis,and duodenal perforation.To date,few studies have been reported that support the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.AIM To investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.METHODS A total of 257 patients without acute cholangitis who underwent LC+LCBDE for cholecystolithiasis from January 2013 to December 2018 in one institution were reviewed.The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed.According to whether the diameter of CBD was larger than 8 mm,257 patients were divided into large CBD group(n=146)and small CBD group(n=111).Propensity score matching(1:1)was performed to adjust for clinical differences.The demographics,intraoperative data,short-term outcomes,and long-term follow-up outcomes for the patients were recorded and compared.RESULTS In total,257 patients who underwent successful LC+LCBDE were enrolled in the study,146 had large CBD and 111 had small CBD.The median follow-up period was 39(14-86)mo.For small CBD patients,the median CBD diameter was 0.6 cm(0.2-2.0 cm),the mean operating time was 107.2±28.3 min,and the postoperative bile leak rate,rate of residual CBD stones(CBDS),CBDS recurrence rate,and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41%(6/111),3.60%(4/111),1.80%(2/111),and 0%(0/111),respectively;the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.4±3.6 d.For large CBD patients,the median common bile duct diameter was 1.0 cm(0.3-3.0 cm),the mean operating time was 115.7±32.0 min,and the postoperative bile leak rate,rate of residual CBDS,CBDS recurrence rate,and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41%(9/146),1.37%(2/146),6.85%(10/146),and 0%(0/146),respectively;the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.7±2.7 d.After propensity score matching,184 patients remained,and all preoperative covariates except diameter of CBD stones were balanced.Postoperative bile leak occurred in 11 patients overall(5.98%),and no difference was found between the small CBD group(4.35%,4/92)and the large CBD group(7.61%,7/92).The incidence of CBDS recurrence did not differ significantly between the small CBD group(2.17%,2/92)and the large CBD group(6.52%,6/92).CONCLUSION LC+LCBDE is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis patients with small CBD and did not increase the postoperative bile leak rate compared with choledocholithiasis patients with large CBD.

Hem-o-lok clip migration to the common bile duct after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration:A case report

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE)has been widely used for management of gallbladder and common bile duct(CBD)stones.Post-operative clip migration is a rare complication of laparoscopic biliary surgery,which can serve as a nidus for stone formation and cause recurrent cholangitis.CASE SUMMARY A 59-year-old female was admitted to hospital because of fever and acute right upper abdominal pain.She has a history of LC and had a LCBDE surgery 2 mo ago.Physical examination revealed tenderness in the upper quadrant of right abdomen.Computed tomography scan demonstrated a high-density shadow at the distal CBD,which was considered as migrated clips.The speculation was confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography examination,and two displaced Hem-o-lok clips were removed with a stone basket.No fever or abdominal pain presented after the operation.In addition to the case report,literature regarding surgical clip migration after laparoscopic biliary surgery was reviewed and discussed.CONCLUSION Incidence of postoperative clip migration may be reduced by using clips properly and correctly;however,new methods should be explored to occlude cystic duct and vessels.If a patient with a past history of LC or LCBDE presents with features of sepsis and recurrent upper quadrant pain,clip migration must be considered as one of the differential diagnosis.

Clinical efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus cholangioscopy for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND Currently,endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)is the main treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.However,the treatment is unsatisfactory,and the development of better therapies is needed.AIM To determine the clinical efficacy of LC plus cholangioscopy for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.METHODS Patients(n=243)with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis admitted to The Affiliated Haixia Hospital of Huaqiao University(910th Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force)between January 2019 and December 2023 were included in the study;111 patients(control group)underwent ERCP+LC and 132 patients(observation group)underwent LC+laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE).Surgical success rates,residual stone rates,complications(pancreatitis,hyperamylasemia,biliary tract infection,and bile leakage),surgical indicators[intraoperative blood loss(IBL)and operation time(OT)],recovery indices(postoperative exhaust/defecation time and hospital stay),and serum inflammatory markers[C-reactive protein(CRP)],tumor necrosis factor-α(TNF-α),and interleukin-6(IL-6)were compared.RESULTS No significant differences in surgical success rates and residual stone rates were detected between the observation and control groups.However,the complication rate,IBL,OT,postoperative exhaust/defecation time,and hospital stays were significantly reduced in the observation group compared with the control group.Furthermore,CRP,TNF-α,and IL-6 Levels after treatment were reduced in the observation group compared with the levels in the control group.CONCLUSION These results indicate that LC+LCBDE is safer than ERCP+LC for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.The surgical risks and postoperative complications were lower in the observation group compared with the control group.Thus,patients may recover quickly with less inflammation after LCBDE.

Two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones

AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011,were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers.The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct,postoperative morbidity and mortality.The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures,number of procedures per patient,length of hospital stay,total operative time,hospitalization charges,patient acceptance and quality of life scores.RESULTS:Seven eligible RCTs [five trials(n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE);two trials(n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE],composed of 787 patients in total,were included in the final analysis.The metaanalysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios(RR) =-0.10,95% confidence intervals(CI):-0.24 to 0.04,P = 0.17],postoperative morbidity(RR = 0.79,95% CI:0.58 to 1.10,P = 0.16),mortality(RR = 2.19,95% CI:0.33 to 14.67,P = 0.42),conversion to other procedures(RR = 1.21,95% CI:0.54 to 2.70,P = 0.39),length of hospital stay(MD = 0.99,95% CI:-1.59 to 3.57,P = 0.45),total operative time(MD = 12.14,95% CI:-1.83 to 26.10,P = 0.09).Two-stage(LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage(LC + LCBDE) management.CONCLUSION:Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures.However,patient's condition,operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.

Single-session minimally invasive management of common bile duct stones

Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones.To avoid serious complications,these stones should be removed.There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for such patients.Traditionally,open surgery was offered but with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) minimally invasive approach had nearly replaced laparotomy because of its well-known advantages.Minimally invasive approach could be done in either twosession(preoperative ERCP followed by LC or LC followed by postoperative ERCP) or single-session(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or LC with intraoperative ERCP).Most recent studies have found that both options are equivalent regarding safety and efficacy but the singlesession approach is associated with shorter hospital stay,fewer procedures per patient,and less cost.Consequently,single-session option should be offered to patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiaisis provided that local resources and expertise do exist.However,the management strategy should be tailored according to many variables,such as available resources,experience,patient characteristics,clinical presentations,and surgical pathology.

LC+LERV与LC+LCBDE治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果比较

目的通过对比分析腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)+腹腔镜术中联合内镜(LERV)与LC+腹腔镜胆总管切开取石(LCBDE)对胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床疗效,探讨两种手术方式的临床应用价值。方法前瞻性分析2021年12月至2023年5月江油市人民医院和潍坊市人民医院收治的110例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的临床资料,按随机数字表法分为LC+LERV组(n=54)和LC+LCBDE组(n=56),对两组患者的手术成功率、术中出血量、手术时间、引流管留置时间、术后并发症、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、平均住院时间以及住院费用进行比较分析。结果与LC+LCBDE组相比,LC+LERV组手术成功率较低[47(87.04%)vs 56(100.00%),χ2=7.467,P=0.006],手术时间较长[(112.0±15.6)min vs(98.0±21.5)min,t=3.771,P<0.001],但引流管留置时间明显较短[(2.34±0.66)d vs(7.41±12.88)d,t=-2.693,P=0.008],两组比较差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组在术中出血量、术后并发症发生率方面比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组在术前、术后6 h、术后1 d及出院日VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但术后3 d LC+LCBDE组VAS评分高于LC+LERV组(P<0.05)。两组平均住院时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但LC+LERV组平均住院费用明显高于LC+LCBDE组[(25653.6±3317.0)元vs(17978.4±2158.0)元,t=14.219,P<0.001]。结论在治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石方面,LC+LCBDE和LC+LERV安全性上表现一致,LC+LERV术后舒适性更佳,但LC+LCBDE在治疗有效性、经济效率性方面更好,且LC+LCBDE可作为LC+LERV插管或取石失败后的补救术式。根据具体病情个性化选择手术方式,有利优势互补,获得最佳治疗效果。

腹腔镜胆总管探查一期缝合术适应证及胆漏防治4100例临床经验

目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)一期缝合适应证及胆漏并发症防治技术。方法回顾性分析2000年1月至2023年8月我院收治的4100例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石行LCBDE一期缝合术患者的临床资料,包括病例纳入标准、技术方法及胆漏并发症的防治经验。结果4100例LCBDE一期缝合术均顺利完成,无中转开腹。术后3991例(97.34%)恢复顺利,109例(2.66%)发生胆漏。其中101例(2.46%)漏胆不伴腹膜炎50~200 ml/d,乳胶管引流1~2周自愈,8例(0.19%)胆漏伴腹膜炎再次手术胆总管置T管及腹腔引流术,本组无死亡病例。结论胆总管结石采用LCBDE一期缝合术的方法是安全有效而且有优势的选择术式。

老年胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者腹腔镜微创取石术后发生胰腺炎的危险因素及其预测效能

目的探讨老年胆囊结石(GS)合并胆总管结石(CBDS)患者腹腔镜微创取石术后发生胰腺炎的危险因素及预测效能。方法选择南阳市中心医院2020年1月至2023年1月收治的行腹腔镜微创取石术治疗的372例老年GS合并CBDS患者,根据术后是否发生胰腺炎分为胰腺炎组和非胰腺炎组。单因素和二元logistic回归分析老年GS合并CBDS患者腹腔镜微创取石术后并发胰腺炎的危险因素。结果372例老年GS合并CBDS患者行腹腔镜微创取石术后胰腺炎发生率为13.71%。胰腺炎组乳头旁憩室、胰管显影、行胰管括约肌切开术、胰腺支架与鼻胆管引流患者占比分别为68.63%、76.47%、58.82%、45.10%,高于非胰腺炎组的33.33%、34.89%、19.31%、21.50%(P<0.05)。乳头旁憩室、胰管显影、胰腺支架与鼻胆管引流、行胰管括约肌切开术为老年GS合并CBDS患者腹腔镜微创取石术后并发胰腺炎的独立危险因素(P<0.05)。logistic回归模型对老年GS合并CBDS患者腹腔镜微创取石术后并发胰腺炎的曲线下面积为0.860(95%CI:0.792~0.933),敏感度为90.20%,特异度为67.29%。结论老年GS合并CBDS患者腹腔镜微创取石术后并发胰腺炎风险较高,主要与乳头旁憩室、胰管显影、胰腺支架与鼻胆管引流、行胰管括约肌切开术等因素有关,基于上述因素构建预测模型具有良好预测效能,对上述危险因素进行针对性预防干预,可减少术后胰腺炎的发生,改善患者的预后。

探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗复杂性肝胆结石的安全性及对患者生存质量的影响

目的探讨复杂性肝胆结石开展腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗的安全性及可行性。方法从复杂性肝胆结石患者中抽取92例开展研究,以奇偶数字法分为对照组(n=46)和观察组(n=46)。对照组开展开腹胆总管探查术治疗,观察组开展腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗。比较两组围手术期相关指标、各阶段血清应激反应指标、胆红素水平、机体炎症水平以及生存质量。结果观察组手术所需时间(160.30±19.83)min、术后住院所需时间(11.70±2.08)d均短于对照组的(213.26±28.70)min、(16.21±3.10)d,术中出血量(57.92±15.11)ml少于对照组的(89.53±17.31)ml,并发症发生率4.35%小于对照组的17.39%(P<0.05)。两组术前血清应激反应指标比较无显著差异(P>0.05);术后5 d观察组丙二醛(MDA)(4.03±1.15)μmol/L、氧化型低密度脂蛋白(ox-LDL)(62.76±4.15)μg/L均低于对照组的(5.98±1.52)μmol/L、(73.09±5.30)μg/L,对氧磷酶1(PON-1)(112.71±11.56)U/L高于对照组的(101.91±9.36)U/L(P<0.05)。两组术前体内胆红素水平比较无显著差异(P>0.05);术后5 d观察组直接胆红素(DBil)、总胆红素(TBil)、间接胆红素(IBil)水平分别为(17.31±2.30)、(25.15±1.97)、(25.50±1.18)μmol/L,均低于对照组的(21.41±2.63)、(31.80±2.02)、(30.23±2.95)μmol/L(P<0.05)。两组术前机体炎症水平比较无显著差异(P>0.05);术后5 d观察组IL-6、CRP分别为(63.35±7.38)ng/ml、(21.35±0.47)mg/L,均低于对照组的(81.57±9.43)ng/ml、(49.78±0.52)mg/L,IL-10(37.52±8.21)pg/ml高于对照组的(31.89±5.36)pg/ml(P<0.05)。两组术前生存质量各维度评分比较无显著差异(P>0.05);术后3个月观察组自觉症状、躯体生理功能、生理情绪状况、日常功能评分分别为(3.12±0.49)、(3.01±0.27)、(3.20±0.30)、(3.16±0.28)分,均高于对照组的(2.02±0.69)、(2.38±0.12)、(2.17±0.28)、(2.75±0.40)分(P<0.05)。结论对复杂性肝胆结石开展腹腔镜胆总管探查术具备较高的安全性,该手术方法对患者术后应激反应、机体炎性影响较轻,有助于胆红素恢复至正常水平,促进预后。

腹腔镜下胆囊切除术联合腹腔镜下胆总管探查术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者疗效研究

目的探讨腹腔镜下胆囊切除术(LC)联合腹腔镜下胆总管探查术(LCBD)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的疗效。方法2018年3月~2022年5月我院诊治的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者85例,均接受LC联合LCBDE手术治疗,其中42例观察组采用经鼻胆管引流,另43例对照组采用T管引流。应用胃肠道生活质量指数(GIQLI)问卷评估生活质量。结果观察组引流管拔除时间和医疗花费分别为(5.6±1.8)d和(3.5±0.5)万元,均显著短于或少于对照组[分别为(50.5±6.8)d和(3.9±0.7)万元,P<0.05];在术后1 w,观察组血清ALT和AST水平分别为(37.1±14.6)U/L和(36.7±16.8)U/L,均显著低于对照组【分别为(79.7±13.8)U/L和(53.5±14.7)U/L,P<0.05】;在术后1个月,观察组GIQLI评分为(98.5±3.3)分,显著高于对照组【(81.4±3.9)分,P<0.05】;术后观察组肝功能异常发生率为40.5%,显著低于对照组的65.1%(P<0.05),而两组胆漏、胰腺炎、胆总管结石残留和出血发生率比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论在采用LC联合LCBDE术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者时放置鼻胆管引流可能是一种技术进步,可免除T管引流对患者术后生活质量的干扰,对维持正常的消化功能也有积极的意义。

腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石一期缝合术后胆漏相关危险因素分析

目的探讨腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石一期缝合术后胆漏的独立危险因素,并做出相应预防策略;为临床行腹腔镜下胆道切开取石一期缝合提供帮助,减少术后胆漏的发生。方法回顾性分析我院肝胆外科在2019年至2023年收治的102例胆总管结石并行腹腔镜下胆道切开取石一期缝合手术患者的临床资料,根据患者术后是否发生胆漏分为胆漏组(n=18)和非胆漏组(n=84)。分析所有患者的一般资料、血清白蛋白、结石数目、胆总管直径、手术时间、术中出血量、缝合方式、主刀医生手术经验。通过单因素分析及多因素Logistic回归分析探索术后发生胆漏的危险因素,将危险因素指标纳入受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线进行分析。结果102例患者中18例患者出现胆漏,包括16例A级胆漏以及2例B级胆漏,对两组患者的临床资料行单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示:术者经验<30例,术前血清白蛋白低,使用连续性缝合的胆管缝合方式是患者术后发生胆漏的独立危险因素,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析结果:术前白蛋白水平界值为37.45 g/L(P<0.05)。结论术前血清白蛋白<37.45 g/L,连续缝合胆总管切口,术者手术经验<30例可作为预测腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石一期缝合术后发生胆漏的重要理论依据。

不同时机行腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗急性胆源性胰腺炎的临床效果

目的 探究不同时机行腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)治疗急性胆源性胰腺炎(ABP)的临床效果。方法 回顾性选取2021年8月至2023年8月郑州大学第一附属医院医治的95例ABP患者临床资料,按照手术时机分为A组(49例)、B组(46例),前者于确诊后72 h内行LCBDE,后者于确诊后72~120 h内行LCBDE。比较两组手术指标、手术前后肝功能[碱性磷酸酶(ALP)、谷氨酰转肽酶(GGT)、谷丙转氨酶(ALT)]、生化指标[二胺氧化酶(DAO)、血淀粉酶(AMS)、介导黏附反应的黏附分子(ICAM-1)]、免疫功能[免疫球蛋白G(IgG)、CD8^(+)、免疫球蛋白M(IgM)]、并发症。结果 两组出血量和中转开腹例数相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组首次排气时间、首次排便时间、住院时间、手术时间、首次下床时间均短于B组(P<0.05);术后1周与B组相比,A组血清ALP、GGT、ALT水平较低(P<0.05);与术前相比,两组血清DAO、AMS、ICAM-1水平呈下降趋势(P<0.05);与术前相比,两组IgG、CD8^(+)、IgM指标呈上升趋势(P<0.05);两组并发症发生率相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 ABP患者于确诊后72 h内行LCBDE能减少对免疫功能损伤,促进肝功能恢复,改善生化指标,缩短住院时间,促进患者快速恢复。

鞘管保护下硬质胆道镜经腹腔镜胆总管入路治疗肝内外胆管结石的临床价值

目的探讨鞘管保护下硬质胆道镜(硬镜)经腹腔镜胆总管入路治疗肝内胆管结石和胆总管结石的临床价值。方法选取115例肝内外胆管结石患者作为研究对象。根据手术方法将患者分为硬镜组58例、软镜组57例,硬镜组采用鞘管保护下硬质胆道镜经腹腔镜胆总管入路取石治疗,软镜组采用纤维胆道镜经腹腔镜胆总管入路取石治疗。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、结石清除率,以及术后第1天肝功能(空腹静脉血总胆红素、直接胆红素、碱性磷酸酶、γ-谷氨酰转移酶水平)、术后并发症发生情况等。结果硬镜组患者的手术时间短于软镜组,结石清除率高于软镜组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);两组患者的术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后并发症发生率,以及术后第1天总胆红素、直接胆红素、碱性磷酸酶、γ-谷氨酰转移酶水平比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论鞘管保护下硬质胆道镜经腹腔镜胆总管入路治疗肝内胆管结石和胆总管结石的手术时间短、结石清除率高,是一种安全、高效的手术策略,具有一定的潜在应用价值。

胆囊结石合并胆总管多发结石治疗效果及其logistic回归分析

目的:基于logistic回归分析胆囊结石合并胆总管多发结石治疗效果及其影响因素,为临床防治提供参考依据。方法:选取2020年1月—2022年1月南阳市第一人民医院收治的150例胆囊结石合并胆总管多发结石患者作为研究对象,均行腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)联合腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)术,随访1年,根据术后是否复发进行分组,对两组相关因素进行单因素和多因素非条件的logistic回归分析。结果:随访显示,150例胆囊结石合并胆总管多发结石患者中,术后有18例结石残留,残留率为12.00%(18/150);术后37例复发,纳入观察组,复发率为24.67%(37/150),未复发113例,纳入对照组。观察组胆固醇水平、胆总管直径、乳头旁憩室、胰管反复显影、胆管角成角、合并炎症患者比例高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=4.745、7.037、15.270、10.784、20.156、23.180,P<0.05)。胆固醇水平(>5.72 mmol/L)、胆总管直径(≥1.5 cm)、乳头旁憩室、胰管反复显影、合并炎症是胆囊结石合并胆总管多发结石术后复发危险因素,胆总管成角(>120°)是保护因素。结论:胆固醇水平、胆总管直径、乳头旁憩室、胰管反复显影、胆管角、合并炎症是胆囊结石合并胆总管多发结石术后复发的影响因素,临床应重视此类患者的术前评估及术后操作,以降低术后结石复发风险。

吲哚菁绿荧光导航在腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术中的临床应用

目的探讨吲哚菁绿荧光导航在腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术(LTCBDE)中的临床应用。方法回顾性分析2022年1月至2023年12月仙居县人民医院肝胆外科单个医疗组收治的62例接受腹腔镜手术的胆总管结石患者,其中20例行吲哚菁绿荧光导航LTCBDE(LTCBDE组),42例行腹腔镜胆总管探查取石+T管引流(LCBDE+T管组),比较两组患者围手术期临床指标及术后并发症发生率。结果与LCBDE+T管引流组比较,LTCBDE组患者胆总管直径明显降低(P<0.05),但其他术前特征方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。LTCBDE组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后镇痛药使用时间明显低于LCBDE+T管引流组(P<0.05)。两组患者在术后第3天白细胞、总胆红素、谷丙转氨酶及C-反应蛋白水平、术后发热、术后胆漏、结石残留及胆道狭窄方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论吲哚菁绿荧光导航LTCBDE安全可行;相较于LCBDE+T管引流,LTCBDE可减少手术时间及术中出血,缩短住院时间。

腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石术患者术后结石复发的相关危险因素及预测模型

目的探讨腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石术患者术后结石复发的相关危险因素并构建预测模型。方法选取2020年1月—2022年3月成都大学附属医院收治的102例腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石术患者作为研究对象,根据患者术后复发与否分为复发组(n=21)与未复发组(n=81),统计两组患者临床资料并采用Logistic回归模型分析患者术后结石复发相关危险因素,采用Homser-Lemeshow检验模型拟合优度,绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析该模型预测效能。结果两组年龄、高血脂、结石数量、胆总管扩张、胆囊管扩张比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其余一般资料、结石及手术情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Logistic多因素模型分析结果表明高血脂、胆囊管扩张为影响患者术后结石复发的危险因素(P<0.05);依据Logistic多因素回归模型分析结果构建预测模型,lnλ(t)/λ0(t)=7.399+0.793×年龄+0.975×高血脂+0.965×结石数量+0.835×胆总管扩张+1.043×胆囊管扩张;Homser-Lemeshow检验拟合优度χ2=4.689,P=0.790;预测模型预测患者术后结石复发的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.801(0.710~0.873),Z=5.463、P<0.001,以0.253为截断值,其预测患者结石复发的敏感度、特异度分别为71.43%、81.48%。结论高血脂症、胆囊管扩张为腹腔镜下胆总管切开取石术患者术后结石复发的相关危险因素,且依据危险因素构建的预测模型对术后结石复发有良好的预测效能,值得临床重视。