To study a more micro-invasive procedure for patients having pancreatic duct stones(PDS).Till now,there has been no report of laparoscopic pancreatic duct incision and stone removal and T-type tube drainage for PDS in...To study a more micro-invasive procedure for patients having pancreatic duct stones(PDS).Till now,there has been no report of laparoscopic pancreatic duct incision and stone removal and T-type tube drainage for PDS in the English literature.An 82-year-old man suffered from subxiphoid pain associated with a dilated pancreatic duct(7 mm)containing one stone,but without a mass in the head of the pancreas.Laparoscopic pancreatic duct incision,stone removal,and T-type tube drainage were successfully performed without intraoperative or postoperative complications.An uneventful operation was performed with laparoscopically completed procedures in 160 min.The intraoperative loss of blood was around 50 mL.After patient a discharge on day 11,complete relief from the subxiphoid pain was reported at a follow-up visit 15 mo later.Laparoscopic pancreatic duct incision with stone removal and T-type tube drainage is applicable in carefully selected patients and can be effectively and safely used for the treatment of the abdominal pain of chronic pancreatitis.展开更多
目的 分析老年胆总管结石患者应用经腹腔镜胆总管切开探查并取石术(Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Ex-ploration,LCBDE)并一期缝合与并T形管引流治疗取得的疗效。方法 采用目的抽样法选取2020年2月—2023年12月安徽省池州市人民医院78...目的 分析老年胆总管结石患者应用经腹腔镜胆总管切开探查并取石术(Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Ex-ploration,LCBDE)并一期缝合与并T形管引流治疗取得的疗效。方法 采用目的抽样法选取2020年2月—2023年12月安徽省池州市人民医院78例老年胆总管结石患者为研究对象(均行LCBDE术治疗),按照治疗方法不同分为两组,每组39例,分别提供一期缝合治疗(观察组)和T形管引流治疗(对照组),比较两组手术时间、引流时间、住院时间、出血量、并发症发生率。结果 两组引流时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组手术时间、住院时间短于对照组,出血量少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。观察组水电解质紊乱率(2.56%)、胆道出血率为(0)、残余结石率(2.56%)、胆道感染率为(0)低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=3.924、5.343、3.924、5.343,P均<0.05)。结论 老年胆总管结石应用LCBDE术并一期缝合的效果更佳,相比于T形管引流治疗,可以更好地改善患者预后,应用价值高。展开更多
Background and aims:Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE)is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones.However,the choice of primary duct closure(PDC)or T-tube drainage(TTD)t...Background and aims:Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE)is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones.However,the choice of primary duct closure(PDC)or T-tube drainage(TTD)technique after LCBDE is still controversial.This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of PDC and TTD after LCBDE.Methods:Studies published before May 1,2021 in Pub Med,Web of Science,and Cochrane Library databases were searched to screen out randomized controlled trials(RCTs)and cohort studies to compare PDC with TTD.Meta-analyses of fixed effect and random effect models were performed using Rev Man 5.3.Results:A total of 1865 patients were enrolled in six RCTs and ten cohort studies.Regarding RCTs,the PDC group was significantly better than the TTD group in terms of operation time,total postoperative complications,postoperative hospital stay,and hospitalization expenses(all P<0.05).Based on cohort studies of the subgroup,the PDC group had shorter operation time,shorter postoperative hospital stay,less intraoperative blood loss,and limited total postoperative complications.Statistically,there were no significant differences in bile leakage,retained stones,stone recurrence,bile duct stricture,postoperative pancreatitis,other complications,or postoperative exhaust time between the TTD and PDC groups.Conclusions:Based on the available evidence,compared with TTD,PDC is safe and effective,and can be used as the first choice after transductal LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis.展开更多
Objective: To probe the potential use of duodenosco- py in the diagnosis and treatment of acute gallstone pancreatitis (GP). Methods: Fourty-five patients with acute GP were randomly divided into endoscopic retrograde...Objective: To probe the potential use of duodenosco- py in the diagnosis and treatment of acute gallstone pancreatitis (GP). Methods: Fourty-five patients with acute GP were randomly divided into endoscopic retrograde cholan- giopancreatography (ERCP) group (n=20) and non-ERCP group (n=25). Each group was subdivi- ded into mild and severe groups according to A- PACHE Ⅱ scores. They were given supportive treat- ment combined with traditional Chinese medicine. The patients in the ERCP group received ERCP within 24 hours after admission. If there were stones in the common bile duct with stenosis of the inferior extremity or ampulla, endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) was performed to extract the stones by basket. If no calculi were identified or multiple stones were large, endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD) was carried out. Results: The incidence of complication, length of hospitalization and cost were markedly lower in pa- tients with severe acute GP in the ERCP group than those in the non-ERCP group (P<0.05), in contrast to the 2 mild subgroups of the ERCP and non-ERCP groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: It is feasible, effective and safe to apply duodenoseopy in the treatment of severe acute GP.展开更多
AIM: To evaluate clinical presentation, etiology, compli-cations and response to treatment in elderly patients with acute cholangitis.METHODS: Demographics, etiology of biliary obstruc-tion, clinical features, complic...AIM: To evaluate clinical presentation, etiology, compli-cations and response to treatment in elderly patients with acute cholangitis.METHODS: Demographics, etiology of biliary obstruc-tion, clinical features, complications and associated systemic diseases of 175 patients with acute cholangitis were recorded. Endoscopic biliary drainage was performed using nasobiliary drain or stent. The complications related to ERCP, success of biliary drainage, morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 175 patients, 52 aged ≥ 60 years (groupⅠ, age < 60 years; group Ⅱ, age ≥ 60 years) and 105 were men. Fever was present in 38 of 52 patients of group Ⅱ compared to 120 of 123 in groupⅠ. High fever (fever ≥ 38.0℃) was more common in groupⅠ(118/120 vs 18/38). Hypotension (5/123 vs 13/52), altered sensorium (3/123 vs 19/52), peritonism (22/123 vs 14/52), renal failure (5/123 vs 14/52) and associated comorbid diseases (4/123 vs 21/52) were more common in group Ⅱ. Biliopancreatic malignancy was a common cause of biliary obstruction in group Ⅱ (n = 34) and benign diseases in groupⅠ(n = 120). Indications for biliary drainage were any one of the following either singly or in combination: a fever of ≥ 38.0℃ (n = 136), hypotension (n = 18), peritonism (n = 36), altered sensorium (n = 22), and failure to improve within 72 h of conservative management (n = 22). High grade fever was more common indication of biliary drainage in groupⅠand hypotension, altered sensorium, peritonism and failure to improve within 72 h of conservative management were more common indications in group Ⅱ. Endoscopic biliary drainage was achieved in 172 patients (nasobiliary drain: 56 groupⅠ, 24 group Ⅱ, stent: 64 groupⅠ, 28 group Ⅱ) without any significant age related difference in the success rate. Abdominalpain, fever, jaundice, hypotension, altered sensorium, peritonism and renal failure improved after median time of 5 d in 120 patients in groupⅠ(2-15 d) compared to 10 d in 47 patients of group Ⅱ (3-20 d). Normalization of leucocyte count was seen after a median time of 7 d (3-20 d) in 120 patients in groupⅠcompared to 15 d (5-26 d) in 47 patients in group Ⅱ. There were no ERCP related complications in either group. Five patients (carcinoma gallbladder n = 3, CBD stones n = 2) died in group Ⅱ and they had undergone biliary drainage after failure of response to conservative management for 72 h. There was a higher mortality in patients in group Ⅱ despite successful biliary drainage (0/120 vs 5 /52). Length of hospital stay was longer in group Ⅱ patients (16.4 ± 5.6, 7-30 d) than in groupⅠpatients (8.2 ± 2.4, 7-20 d).CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with acute cholangitis have a high incidence of severe cholangitis, concomitant medical illnesses, hypotension, altered sensorium, peritonism, renal failure and higher mortality even after successful biliary drainage.展开更多
The major papilla of Vater is usually located in the second portion of the duodenum, to the posterior medial wall. Sometimes the mouth of the biliary duct is located in other areas. Drainage of the common bile duct in...The major papilla of Vater is usually located in the second portion of the duodenum, to the posterior medial wall. Sometimes the mouth of the biliary duct is located in other areas. Drainage of the common bile duct into the pylorus is extremely rare. A 73-year old man, with a history of duodenal ulcer, was admitted to hospital with the diagnosis of cholangitis. Dilatation of the extrahepatic biliary duct was observed by abdominal ultrasonography, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography （ERCP） was performed. No area suggesting the presence of the papilla of Vater was found within the second duodenal portion. Finally the major papilla was located in the theoretical pyloric duct. Cholangiography was performed and choledocholithiasis was found in the biliary tree. The patient underwent dilatation of the papilla with a balloon tyre and removal of a 7 mm stone using a Dormia basket, which solved the problem without further complications. This anomaly increased the difficulty of performing therapeutic interventions during ERCR This alteration in anatomy may increase the risk of complications during papillotomy, with a theoretically higher risk of perforation. Dilatation using a balloon was the chosen therapeutic technique both in our case and in the literature, due to its low rate of complications.展开更多
目的:系统评价腹腔镜胆总管探查(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)取石后胆管一期缝合(primaryclosure,PC)与T管引流(T-tube drainage,TD)治疗胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法:检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、中...目的:系统评价腹腔镜胆总管探查(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)取石后胆管一期缝合(primaryclosure,PC)与T管引流(T-tube drainage,TD)治疗胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法:检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、中国生物医学、中国期刊全文等数据库,查找2000-2012年发表的关于LCBDE取石后PC与TD治疗胆总管结石的文献资料,进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入5篇文献,合计572例患者。Meta分析结果显示,LCBDE取石后PC与TD相比,在胆道相关并发症发生率上无统计学差异(RR=0.87,95%CI[0.46,1.63],P=0.66),但在手术时间(WMD=-28.66,95%CI[-34.00,-23.32],P<0.000 01)、术后住院时间(WMD=-3.03,95%CI[-3.85,-2.47],P<0.000 01)、总并发症发生率(RR=0.55,95%CI[0.34,0.89],P=0.01)等方面明显减少。结论:LCBDE取石后PC安全有效,可作为治疗胆总管结石的有效方法。展开更多
目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后T管的处理方法。方法1997年7月-2004年10月，我院行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石（laparoscopic common bile duct exploration，LCBDE）、置T管治疗肝外或肝外合并肝内胆管结石420例。明确有胆总管结石后，...目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后T管的处理方法。方法1997年7月-2004年10月，我院行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石（laparoscopic common bile duct exploration，LCBDE）、置T管治疗肝外或肝外合并肝内胆管结石420例。明确有胆总管结石后，胆总管切开取石，胆总管一期缝合或置T管。结果胆总管切开取石一期缝合27例（6．4％），置T管393例（93．6％）。术中取尽结石236例（56．2％），术后胆道镜取石184例（43．8％）。209例术后3-4周行经T管胆道造影，无残余结石，拔除T型管。420例随访3个月-6年。平均47．5月，3例复发。结论腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后T管拔管时间，T管造影无残留结石拔管时间应3—4周，T管造影有残留结石，应于术后6周胆道镜取石后拔管，均闭管2周。展开更多
基金Supported by Foundation of Department of Science and Technology of Jinhua,No.2015-3-0012015-3-012
文摘To study a more micro-invasive procedure for patients having pancreatic duct stones(PDS).Till now,there has been no report of laparoscopic pancreatic duct incision and stone removal and T-type tube drainage for PDS in the English literature.An 82-year-old man suffered from subxiphoid pain associated with a dilated pancreatic duct(7 mm)containing one stone,but without a mass in the head of the pancreas.Laparoscopic pancreatic duct incision,stone removal,and T-type tube drainage were successfully performed without intraoperative or postoperative complications.An uneventful operation was performed with laparoscopically completed procedures in 160 min.The intraoperative loss of blood was around 50 mL.After patient a discharge on day 11,complete relief from the subxiphoid pain was reported at a follow-up visit 15 mo later.Laparoscopic pancreatic duct incision with stone removal and T-type tube drainage is applicable in carefully selected patients and can be effectively and safely used for the treatment of the abdominal pain of chronic pancreatitis.
文摘目的 分析老年胆总管结石患者应用经腹腔镜胆总管切开探查并取石术(Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Ex-ploration,LCBDE)并一期缝合与并T形管引流治疗取得的疗效。方法 采用目的抽样法选取2020年2月—2023年12月安徽省池州市人民医院78例老年胆总管结石患者为研究对象(均行LCBDE术治疗),按照治疗方法不同分为两组,每组39例,分别提供一期缝合治疗(观察组)和T形管引流治疗(对照组),比较两组手术时间、引流时间、住院时间、出血量、并发症发生率。结果 两组引流时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组手术时间、住院时间短于对照组,出血量少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。观察组水电解质紊乱率(2.56%)、胆道出血率为(0)、残余结石率(2.56%)、胆道感染率为(0)低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=3.924、5.343、3.924、5.343,P均<0.05)。结论 老年胆总管结石应用LCBDE术并一期缝合的效果更佳,相比于T形管引流治疗,可以更好地改善患者预后,应用价值高。
基金supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(Nos.81972262,81972255,81772597,81801999,and 81702904)the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation(Nos.2020A1515010117 and2018A030313645)+4 种基金the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities(No.18ykpy22)the Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Molecular Mechanism and Translational Medicine of Guangzhou Bureau of Science and Information Technology(No.[2013]163)the Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Gene Regulation and Target Therapy of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes(No.KLB09001)the Guangdong Science and Technology Department(Nos.2015B050501004and 2017B030314026)the Shangrao Science and Technology Department(No.2020D001),China。
文摘Background and aims:Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE)is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones.However,the choice of primary duct closure(PDC)or T-tube drainage(TTD)technique after LCBDE is still controversial.This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of PDC and TTD after LCBDE.Methods:Studies published before May 1,2021 in Pub Med,Web of Science,and Cochrane Library databases were searched to screen out randomized controlled trials(RCTs)and cohort studies to compare PDC with TTD.Meta-analyses of fixed effect and random effect models were performed using Rev Man 5.3.Results:A total of 1865 patients were enrolled in six RCTs and ten cohort studies.Regarding RCTs,the PDC group was significantly better than the TTD group in terms of operation time,total postoperative complications,postoperative hospital stay,and hospitalization expenses(all P<0.05).Based on cohort studies of the subgroup,the PDC group had shorter operation time,shorter postoperative hospital stay,less intraoperative blood loss,and limited total postoperative complications.Statistically,there were no significant differences in bile leakage,retained stones,stone recurrence,bile duct stricture,postoperative pancreatitis,other complications,or postoperative exhaust time between the TTD and PDC groups.Conclusions:Based on the available evidence,compared with TTD,PDC is safe and effective,and can be used as the first choice after transductal LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis.
文摘Objective: To probe the potential use of duodenosco- py in the diagnosis and treatment of acute gallstone pancreatitis (GP). Methods: Fourty-five patients with acute GP were randomly divided into endoscopic retrograde cholan- giopancreatography (ERCP) group (n=20) and non-ERCP group (n=25). Each group was subdivi- ded into mild and severe groups according to A- PACHE Ⅱ scores. They were given supportive treat- ment combined with traditional Chinese medicine. The patients in the ERCP group received ERCP within 24 hours after admission. If there were stones in the common bile duct with stenosis of the inferior extremity or ampulla, endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) was performed to extract the stones by basket. If no calculi were identified or multiple stones were large, endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD) was carried out. Results: The incidence of complication, length of hospitalization and cost were markedly lower in pa- tients with severe acute GP in the ERCP group than those in the non-ERCP group (P<0.05), in contrast to the 2 mild subgroups of the ERCP and non-ERCP groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: It is feasible, effective and safe to apply duodenoseopy in the treatment of severe acute GP.
文摘AIM: To evaluate clinical presentation, etiology, compli-cations and response to treatment in elderly patients with acute cholangitis.METHODS: Demographics, etiology of biliary obstruc-tion, clinical features, complications and associated systemic diseases of 175 patients with acute cholangitis were recorded. Endoscopic biliary drainage was performed using nasobiliary drain or stent. The complications related to ERCP, success of biliary drainage, morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 175 patients, 52 aged ≥ 60 years (groupⅠ, age < 60 years; group Ⅱ, age ≥ 60 years) and 105 were men. Fever was present in 38 of 52 patients of group Ⅱ compared to 120 of 123 in groupⅠ. High fever (fever ≥ 38.0℃) was more common in groupⅠ(118/120 vs 18/38). Hypotension (5/123 vs 13/52), altered sensorium (3/123 vs 19/52), peritonism (22/123 vs 14/52), renal failure (5/123 vs 14/52) and associated comorbid diseases (4/123 vs 21/52) were more common in group Ⅱ. Biliopancreatic malignancy was a common cause of biliary obstruction in group Ⅱ (n = 34) and benign diseases in groupⅠ(n = 120). Indications for biliary drainage were any one of the following either singly or in combination: a fever of ≥ 38.0℃ (n = 136), hypotension (n = 18), peritonism (n = 36), altered sensorium (n = 22), and failure to improve within 72 h of conservative management (n = 22). High grade fever was more common indication of biliary drainage in groupⅠand hypotension, altered sensorium, peritonism and failure to improve within 72 h of conservative management were more common indications in group Ⅱ. Endoscopic biliary drainage was achieved in 172 patients (nasobiliary drain: 56 groupⅠ, 24 group Ⅱ, stent: 64 groupⅠ, 28 group Ⅱ) without any significant age related difference in the success rate. Abdominalpain, fever, jaundice, hypotension, altered sensorium, peritonism and renal failure improved after median time of 5 d in 120 patients in groupⅠ(2-15 d) compared to 10 d in 47 patients of group Ⅱ (3-20 d). Normalization of leucocyte count was seen after a median time of 7 d (3-20 d) in 120 patients in groupⅠcompared to 15 d (5-26 d) in 47 patients in group Ⅱ. There were no ERCP related complications in either group. Five patients (carcinoma gallbladder n = 3, CBD stones n = 2) died in group Ⅱ and they had undergone biliary drainage after failure of response to conservative management for 72 h. There was a higher mortality in patients in group Ⅱ despite successful biliary drainage (0/120 vs 5 /52). Length of hospital stay was longer in group Ⅱ patients (16.4 ± 5.6, 7-30 d) than in groupⅠpatients (8.2 ± 2.4, 7-20 d).CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with acute cholangitis have a high incidence of severe cholangitis, concomitant medical illnesses, hypotension, altered sensorium, peritonism, renal failure and higher mortality even after successful biliary drainage.
文摘The major papilla of Vater is usually located in the second portion of the duodenum, to the posterior medial wall. Sometimes the mouth of the biliary duct is located in other areas. Drainage of the common bile duct into the pylorus is extremely rare. A 73-year old man, with a history of duodenal ulcer, was admitted to hospital with the diagnosis of cholangitis. Dilatation of the extrahepatic biliary duct was observed by abdominal ultrasonography, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography （ERCP） was performed. No area suggesting the presence of the papilla of Vater was found within the second duodenal portion. Finally the major papilla was located in the theoretical pyloric duct. Cholangiography was performed and choledocholithiasis was found in the biliary tree. The patient underwent dilatation of the papilla with a balloon tyre and removal of a 7 mm stone using a Dormia basket, which solved the problem without further complications. This anomaly increased the difficulty of performing therapeutic interventions during ERCR This alteration in anatomy may increase the risk of complications during papillotomy, with a theoretically higher risk of perforation. Dilatation using a balloon was the chosen therapeutic technique both in our case and in the literature, due to its low rate of complications.
文摘目的:系统评价腹腔镜胆总管探查(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)取石后胆管一期缝合(primaryclosure,PC)与T管引流(T-tube drainage,TD)治疗胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法:检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、中国生物医学、中国期刊全文等数据库,查找2000-2012年发表的关于LCBDE取石后PC与TD治疗胆总管结石的文献资料,进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入5篇文献,合计572例患者。Meta分析结果显示,LCBDE取石后PC与TD相比,在胆道相关并发症发生率上无统计学差异(RR=0.87,95%CI[0.46,1.63],P=0.66),但在手术时间(WMD=-28.66,95%CI[-34.00,-23.32],P<0.000 01)、术后住院时间(WMD=-3.03,95%CI[-3.85,-2.47],P<0.000 01)、总并发症发生率(RR=0.55,95%CI[0.34,0.89],P=0.01)等方面明显减少。结论:LCBDE取石后PC安全有效,可作为治疗胆总管结石的有效方法。
文摘目的探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后T管的处理方法。方法1997年7月-2004年10月，我院行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石（laparoscopic common bile duct exploration，LCBDE）、置T管治疗肝外或肝外合并肝内胆管结石420例。明确有胆总管结石后，胆总管切开取石，胆总管一期缝合或置T管。结果胆总管切开取石一期缝合27例（6．4％），置T管393例（93．6％）。术中取尽结石236例（56．2％），术后胆道镜取石184例（43．8％）。209例术后3-4周行经T管胆道造影，无残余结石，拔除T型管。420例随访3个月-6年。平均47．5月，3例复发。结论腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后T管拔管时间，T管造影无残留结石拔管时间应3—4周，T管造影有残留结石，应于术后6周胆道镜取石后拔管，均闭管2周。
