AIM: To summarize the experience in diagnosis, management and prevention of iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI). METHODS: A total of 210 patients with bile duct injury occurred during cholecystectomy admitted to Hunan ...AIM: To summarize the experience in diagnosis, management and prevention of iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI). METHODS: A total of 210 patients with bile duct injury occurred during cholecystectomy admitted to Hunan Provincial People’s Hospital from March 1990 to March 2006 were included in this study for retrospective analysis. RESULTS: There were 59.5% (103/173) of patients with IBDI resulting from the wrong identification of the anatomy of the Calot’s triangle during cholecystectomy. The diagnosis of IBDI was made on the basis of clinical features, diagnostic abdominocentesis and imaging findings. Abdominal B ultrasonography (BUS) was the most popular way for IBDI with a diagnostic rate of 84.6% (126/149). Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) could reveal the site of injury, the length of injured bile duct and variation of bile duct tree with a diagnostic rate 100% (45/45). According to the site of injury, IBDI could be divided into six types. The most common type (type 3) occurred in 76.7% (161/210) of the patients and was treated with partial resection of the common hepatic duct and common bile duct. One hundred and seventy-six patients were followed up. The mean follow-up time was 3.7 (range 0.25-10) years. Good results were achieved in 87.5% (154/176) of the patients. CONCLUSION: The key to prevention of IBDI is to follow the "identifying-cutting-identifying" principle during cholecystectomy. Re-operation time and surgical procedure are decided according to the type of IBDI.展开更多
AIM:To compare long-term results of gastric cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic and open gastrec-tomy in a single unit.METHODS:From February 2000 to September 2004,all patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach w...AIM:To compare long-term results of gastric cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic and open gastrec-tomy in a single unit.METHODS:From February 2000 to September 2004,all patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach were assessed to entry in this longitudinal prospective non-randomized trial.Primary endpoint was cancer-related survival and secondary endpoints were overall survival,evaluation of surgical complications and mortality.RESULTS:Fifty-eight patients were enrolled.Forty-seven patients were followed-up(range 11-103,me-dian 38 mo).Four patients were lost at follow up.Twenty-two patients underwent a laparoscopic gastric surgery(LGS)and 25 had a standard open procedure(OGS).No statistical difference was found between the two groups in terms of 5 years cancer-related mortality rate(50% vs 52%,P = 1),and 5 years overall mortal-ity rate(54.5% vs 56%,P = 1).Accordingly,cancer-related and overall survival probability by Kaplan-Meier method showed comparable results(P = 0.81 and P = 0.83,respectively).We found no differences in surgical complications in the 2 groups.There was no conversion to open surgery in this series.CONCLUSION:LGS is as effective as OGS in the man-agement of advanced gastric cancer.However LGS can-not be recommended routinely over OGS for the treat-ment of advanced gastric cancer.展开更多
AIM:To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection(LLR) and open liver resection(OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).METHODS:PubMed(Medline),EMBASE and Science Citat...AIM:To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection(LLR) and open liver resection(OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).METHODS:PubMed(Medline),EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library were searched systematically to identify relevant comparative studies reporting outcomes for both LLR and OLR for HCC between January 1992 and February 2012.Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data.Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.0 software(The Cochrane Collaboration,Oxford,United Kingdom).Pooled odds ratios(OR) or weighted mean differences(WMD) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects(Mantel-Haenszel method) or random effects models(DerSimonian and Laird method).Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes(operation time,intraoperative blood loss,blood transfusion requirement),postoperative outcomes(liver failure,cirrhotic decompensation/ascites,bile leakage,postoperative bleeding,pulmonary complications,intraabdominal abscess,mortality,hospital stay and oncologic outcomes(positive resection margins and tumor recurrence).RESULTS:Fifteen eligible non-randomized studies were identified,out of which,9 high-quality studies involving 550 patients were included,with 234 patients in the LLR group and 316 patients in the OLR group.LLR was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss,based on six studies with 333 patients [WMD:-129.48 mL;95%CI:-224.76-(-34.21) mL;P = 0.008].Seven studies involving 416 patients were included to assess blood transfusion requirement between the two groups.The LLR group had lower blood transfusion requirement(OR:0.49;95%CI:0.26-0.91;P = 0.02).While analyzing hospital stay,six studies with 333 patients were included.Patients in the LLR group were found to have shorter hospital stay [WMD:-3.19 d;95%CI:-4.09-(-2.28) d;P < 0.00001] than their OLR counterpart.Seven studies including 416 patients were pooled together to estimate the odds of developing postoperative ascites in the patient groups.The LLR group appeared to have a lower incidence of postoperative ascites(OR:0.32;95%CI:0.16-0.61;P = 0.0006) as compared with OLR patients.Similarly,fewer patients had liver failure in the LLR group than in the OLR group(OR:0.15;95%CI:0.02-0.95;P =0.04).However,no significant differences were found between the two approaches with regards to operation time [WMD:4.69 min;95%CI:-22.62-32 min;P = 0.74],bile leakage(OR:0.55;95%CI:0.10-3.12;P = 0.50),postoperative bleeding(OR:0.54;95%CI:0.20-1.45;P = 0.22),pulmonary complications(OR:0.43;95%CI:0.18-1.04;P = 0.06),intra-abdominal abscesses(OR:0.21;95%CI:0.01-4.53;P = 0.32),mortality(OR:0.46;95%CI:0.14-1.51;P = 0.20),presence of positive resection margins(OR:0.59;95%CI:0.21-1.62;P = 0.31) and tumor recurrence(OR:0.95;95%CI:0.62-1.46;P = 0.81).CONCLUSION:LLR appears to be a safe and feasible option for resection of HCC in selected patients based on current evidence.However,further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to ascertain these findings.展开更多
AIM:To investigate the short-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision(TME) in patients with mid and low rectal cancers.METHODS:A consecutive series of 138 patients with middle and low rectal cancer were ...AIM:To investigate the short-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision(TME) in patients with mid and low rectal cancers.METHODS:A consecutive series of 138 patients with middle and low rectal cancer were randomly assigned to either the laparoscopic TME(LTME) group or the open TME(OTME) group between September 2008 and July 2011 at the Department of Colorectal Cancer of Shanghai Cancer Center,Fudan University and pathological data,as well as surgical technique were reviewed retrospectively.Short-term clinical and oncological outcome were compared in these two groups.Patients were followed in the outpatient clinic 2 wk after the surgery and then every 3 mo in the first year if no adjuvant chemoradiation was indicated.Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 13.0 software.RESULTS:Sixty-seven patients were treated with LTME and 71 patients were treated with OTME(sex ratio 1.3:1vs 1.29:1,age 58.4 ± 13.6 years vs 59.6 ± 9.4 years,respectively).The resection was considered curative in all cases.The sphincter-preserving rate was 65.7%(44/67) vs 60.6%(43/71),P = 0.046;mean blood loss was 86.9 ± 37.6 mL vs 119.1 ± 32.7 mL,P = 0.018;postoperative analgesia was 2.1 ± 0.6 d vs 3.9 ± 1.8 d,P = 0.008;duration of urinary drainage was 4.7 ± 1.8 d vs 6.9 ± 3.4 d,P = 0.016,respectively.The conversion rate was 2.99%.The complication rate,circumferential margin involvement,distal margins and lymph node yield were similar for both procedures.No port site recurrence,anastomotic recurrence or mortality was observed during a median follow-up period of 21 mo(range:9-56 mo).CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic TME is safe and feasible,with an oncological adequacy comparable to the open approach.Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the present results.展开更多
文摘AIM: To summarize the experience in diagnosis, management and prevention of iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI). METHODS: A total of 210 patients with bile duct injury occurred during cholecystectomy admitted to Hunan Provincial People’s Hospital from March 1990 to March 2006 were included in this study for retrospective analysis. RESULTS: There were 59.5% (103/173) of patients with IBDI resulting from the wrong identification of the anatomy of the Calot’s triangle during cholecystectomy. The diagnosis of IBDI was made on the basis of clinical features, diagnostic abdominocentesis and imaging findings. Abdominal B ultrasonography (BUS) was the most popular way for IBDI with a diagnostic rate of 84.6% (126/149). Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) could reveal the site of injury, the length of injured bile duct and variation of bile duct tree with a diagnostic rate 100% (45/45). According to the site of injury, IBDI could be divided into six types. The most common type (type 3) occurred in 76.7% (161/210) of the patients and was treated with partial resection of the common hepatic duct and common bile duct. One hundred and seventy-six patients were followed up. The mean follow-up time was 3.7 (range 0.25-10) years. Good results were achieved in 87.5% (154/176) of the patients. CONCLUSION: The key to prevention of IBDI is to follow the "identifying-cutting-identifying" principle during cholecystectomy. Re-operation time and surgical procedure are decided according to the type of IBDI.
文摘AIM:To compare long-term results of gastric cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic and open gastrec-tomy in a single unit.METHODS:From February 2000 to September 2004,all patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach were assessed to entry in this longitudinal prospective non-randomized trial.Primary endpoint was cancer-related survival and secondary endpoints were overall survival,evaluation of surgical complications and mortality.RESULTS:Fifty-eight patients were enrolled.Forty-seven patients were followed-up(range 11-103,me-dian 38 mo).Four patients were lost at follow up.Twenty-two patients underwent a laparoscopic gastric surgery(LGS)and 25 had a standard open procedure(OGS).No statistical difference was found between the two groups in terms of 5 years cancer-related mortality rate(50% vs 52%,P = 1),and 5 years overall mortal-ity rate(54.5% vs 56%,P = 1).Accordingly,cancer-related and overall survival probability by Kaplan-Meier method showed comparable results(P = 0.81 and P = 0.83,respectively).We found no differences in surgical complications in the 2 groups.There was no conversion to open surgery in this series.CONCLUSION:LGS is as effective as OGS in the man-agement of advanced gastric cancer.However LGS can-not be recommended routinely over OGS for the treat-ment of advanced gastric cancer.
文摘AIM:To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection(LLR) and open liver resection(OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).METHODS:PubMed(Medline),EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library were searched systematically to identify relevant comparative studies reporting outcomes for both LLR and OLR for HCC between January 1992 and February 2012.Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data.Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.0 software(The Cochrane Collaboration,Oxford,United Kingdom).Pooled odds ratios(OR) or weighted mean differences(WMD) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects(Mantel-Haenszel method) or random effects models(DerSimonian and Laird method).Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes(operation time,intraoperative blood loss,blood transfusion requirement),postoperative outcomes(liver failure,cirrhotic decompensation/ascites,bile leakage,postoperative bleeding,pulmonary complications,intraabdominal abscess,mortality,hospital stay and oncologic outcomes(positive resection margins and tumor recurrence).RESULTS:Fifteen eligible non-randomized studies were identified,out of which,9 high-quality studies involving 550 patients were included,with 234 patients in the LLR group and 316 patients in the OLR group.LLR was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss,based on six studies with 333 patients [WMD:-129.48 mL;95%CI:-224.76-(-34.21) mL;P = 0.008].Seven studies involving 416 patients were included to assess blood transfusion requirement between the two groups.The LLR group had lower blood transfusion requirement(OR:0.49;95%CI:0.26-0.91;P = 0.02).While analyzing hospital stay,six studies with 333 patients were included.Patients in the LLR group were found to have shorter hospital stay [WMD:-3.19 d;95%CI:-4.09-(-2.28) d;P < 0.00001] than their OLR counterpart.Seven studies including 416 patients were pooled together to estimate the odds of developing postoperative ascites in the patient groups.The LLR group appeared to have a lower incidence of postoperative ascites(OR:0.32;95%CI:0.16-0.61;P = 0.0006) as compared with OLR patients.Similarly,fewer patients had liver failure in the LLR group than in the OLR group(OR:0.15;95%CI:0.02-0.95;P =0.04).However,no significant differences were found between the two approaches with regards to operation time [WMD:4.69 min;95%CI:-22.62-32 min;P = 0.74],bile leakage(OR:0.55;95%CI:0.10-3.12;P = 0.50),postoperative bleeding(OR:0.54;95%CI:0.20-1.45;P = 0.22),pulmonary complications(OR:0.43;95%CI:0.18-1.04;P = 0.06),intra-abdominal abscesses(OR:0.21;95%CI:0.01-4.53;P = 0.32),mortality(OR:0.46;95%CI:0.14-1.51;P = 0.20),presence of positive resection margins(OR:0.59;95%CI:0.21-1.62;P = 0.31) and tumor recurrence(OR:0.95;95%CI:0.62-1.46;P = 0.81).CONCLUSION:LLR appears to be a safe and feasible option for resection of HCC in selected patients based on current evidence.However,further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to ascertain these findings.
文摘AIM:To investigate the short-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision(TME) in patients with mid and low rectal cancers.METHODS:A consecutive series of 138 patients with middle and low rectal cancer were randomly assigned to either the laparoscopic TME(LTME) group or the open TME(OTME) group between September 2008 and July 2011 at the Department of Colorectal Cancer of Shanghai Cancer Center,Fudan University and pathological data,as well as surgical technique were reviewed retrospectively.Short-term clinical and oncological outcome were compared in these two groups.Patients were followed in the outpatient clinic 2 wk after the surgery and then every 3 mo in the first year if no adjuvant chemoradiation was indicated.Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 13.0 software.RESULTS:Sixty-seven patients were treated with LTME and 71 patients were treated with OTME(sex ratio 1.3:1vs 1.29:1,age 58.4 ± 13.6 years vs 59.6 ± 9.4 years,respectively).The resection was considered curative in all cases.The sphincter-preserving rate was 65.7%(44/67) vs 60.6%(43/71),P = 0.046;mean blood loss was 86.9 ± 37.6 mL vs 119.1 ± 32.7 mL,P = 0.018;postoperative analgesia was 2.1 ± 0.6 d vs 3.9 ± 1.8 d,P = 0.008;duration of urinary drainage was 4.7 ± 1.8 d vs 6.9 ± 3.4 d,P = 0.016,respectively.The conversion rate was 2.99%.The complication rate,circumferential margin involvement,distal margins and lymph node yield were similar for both procedures.No port site recurrence,anastomotic recurrence or mortality was observed during a median follow-up period of 21 mo(range:9-56 mo).CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic TME is safe and feasible,with an oncological adequacy comparable to the open approach.Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the present results.
