Common bile duct(CBD)stone is a common biliary problem,which often requires endoscopic approach as the initial treatment option.Roughly,7%-12%of the subjects who experience cholecystectomy were subsequently referred t...Common bile duct(CBD)stone is a common biliary problem,which often requires endoscopic approach as the initial treatment option.Roughly,7%-12%of the subjects who experience cholecystectomy were subsequently referred to biliary endoscopist for further management.In general,there are three classifications of difficult CBD stone,which are based on the characteristics of the stone(larger than 15 mm,barrel or square-shaped stones,and hard consistency),accessibility to papilla related to anatomical variations,and other clinical conditions or comorbidities of the patients.Currently,endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)of a previous sphincterotomy and EPLBD combined with limited sphincterotomy performed on the same session is still recommended by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy as the main approach in difficult CBD stones with history of failed sphincterotomy and balloon and/or basket attempts.If failed extraction is still encountered,mechanical lithotripsy or cholangioscopy-assisted lithotripsy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy can be considered.Surgical approach can be considered when stone extraction is still failed or the facilities to perform lithotripsy are not available.To our knowledge,conflicting evidence are still found from previous studies related to the comparison between endoscopic and surgical approaches.The availability of experienced operator and resources needs to be considered in creating individualized treatment strategies for managing difficult biliary stones.展开更多
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery(SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecyste...Single-incision laparoscopic surgery(SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC) has been the most frequently studied SILS to date. Hundreds of studies on SILC have failed to present conclusive results. Most randomized controlled trials(RCTs) have been small in scale and have been conducted under ideal operative conditions. The role of SILC in complicated scenarios remains uncertain. As common bile duct exploration(CBDE) methods have been used for more than one hundred years, laparoscopic CBDE(LCBDE) has emerged as an effective, demanding, and infrequent technique employed during the laparoscopic era. Likewise, laparoscopic biliary-enteric anastomosis is difficult to carry out, with only a few studies have been published on the approach. The application of SILS to CBDE and biliary-enteric anastomosis is extremely rare, and such innovative procedures are only carried out by a number of specialized groups across the globe. Herein we present a thorough and detailed analysis of SILC in terms of operative techniques, training and learning curves, safety and efficacy levels, recovery trends, and costs by reviewing RCTs conducted over the past three years and two recently updated meta-analyses. All existing literature on single-incision LCBDE and singleincision laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy has been reviewed to describe these two demanding techniques.展开更多
目的:探讨快速康复外科(ERAS)理念下经腹腔镜胆总管Ⅰ期缝合与传统T管引流对胆总管结石的应用效果。方法:选取2019年6月—2021年12月收治的胆总管结石患者133例,根据术中引流处理方式的不同分为ERAS组(59例)和传统组(74例)。传统组患者...目的:探讨快速康复外科(ERAS)理念下经腹腔镜胆总管Ⅰ期缝合与传统T管引流对胆总管结石的应用效果。方法:选取2019年6月—2021年12月收治的胆总管结石患者133例,根据术中引流处理方式的不同分为ERAS组(59例)和传统组(74例)。传统组患者使用术中胆总管切开T管引流,ERAS组采用快速康复外科理念下术中胆总管切开Ⅰ期缝合,术后随访6个月。比较两组患者围术期指标,观察两组患者手术前后疼痛评分,比较两组患者手术前后白蛋白指标和炎症因子水平,比较两组患者并发症发生情况。结果:ERAS组手术时间、排气和住院时间均短于传统组,术中出血量少于传统组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。ERAS组和传统组术前和术后3 d疼痛评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);ERAS组术后7 d和术后2周疼痛评分明显低于传统组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。术前两组患者白蛋白水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后1 d ERAS组谷丙转氨酶(ALT)和谷草转氨酶(AST)水平低于传统组,白蛋白(ALB)水平高于传统组;术后3 d ERAS组ALT,AST和ALB水平高于传统组(P<0.05)。术后7 d ERAS组白细胞计数(WBC)、降钙素原(PCT)和C反应蛋白(CRP)水平低于传统组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。ERAS组患者并发症发生率(1.69%)明显低于传统组(10.81%),差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=4.324,P=0.038)。结论:与传统T管引流比较,ERAS理念下经腹腔镜胆总管Ⅰ期缝合可缩短患者手术时间和住院时间,减少术中出血量,减轻患者疼痛,改善患者白蛋白水平和炎症反应,且并发症较少。展开更多
文摘Common bile duct(CBD)stone is a common biliary problem,which often requires endoscopic approach as the initial treatment option.Roughly,7%-12%of the subjects who experience cholecystectomy were subsequently referred to biliary endoscopist for further management.In general,there are three classifications of difficult CBD stone,which are based on the characteristics of the stone(larger than 15 mm,barrel or square-shaped stones,and hard consistency),accessibility to papilla related to anatomical variations,and other clinical conditions or comorbidities of the patients.Currently,endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)of a previous sphincterotomy and EPLBD combined with limited sphincterotomy performed on the same session is still recommended by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy as the main approach in difficult CBD stones with history of failed sphincterotomy and balloon and/or basket attempts.If failed extraction is still encountered,mechanical lithotripsy or cholangioscopy-assisted lithotripsy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy can be considered.Surgical approach can be considered when stone extraction is still failed or the facilities to perform lithotripsy are not available.To our knowledge,conflicting evidence are still found from previous studies related to the comparison between endoscopic and surgical approaches.The availability of experienced operator and resources needs to be considered in creating individualized treatment strategies for managing difficult biliary stones.
文摘Single-incision laparoscopic surgery(SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC) has been the most frequently studied SILS to date. Hundreds of studies on SILC have failed to present conclusive results. Most randomized controlled trials(RCTs) have been small in scale and have been conducted under ideal operative conditions. The role of SILC in complicated scenarios remains uncertain. As common bile duct exploration(CBDE) methods have been used for more than one hundred years, laparoscopic CBDE(LCBDE) has emerged as an effective, demanding, and infrequent technique employed during the laparoscopic era. Likewise, laparoscopic biliary-enteric anastomosis is difficult to carry out, with only a few studies have been published on the approach. The application of SILS to CBDE and biliary-enteric anastomosis is extremely rare, and such innovative procedures are only carried out by a number of specialized groups across the globe. Herein we present a thorough and detailed analysis of SILC in terms of operative techniques, training and learning curves, safety and efficacy levels, recovery trends, and costs by reviewing RCTs conducted over the past three years and two recently updated meta-analyses. All existing literature on single-incision LCBDE and singleincision laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy has been reviewed to describe these two demanding techniques.
文摘目的:探讨快速康复外科(ERAS)理念下经腹腔镜胆总管Ⅰ期缝合与传统T管引流对胆总管结石的应用效果。方法:选取2019年6月—2021年12月收治的胆总管结石患者133例,根据术中引流处理方式的不同分为ERAS组(59例)和传统组(74例)。传统组患者使用术中胆总管切开T管引流,ERAS组采用快速康复外科理念下术中胆总管切开Ⅰ期缝合,术后随访6个月。比较两组患者围术期指标,观察两组患者手术前后疼痛评分,比较两组患者手术前后白蛋白指标和炎症因子水平,比较两组患者并发症发生情况。结果:ERAS组手术时间、排气和住院时间均短于传统组,术中出血量少于传统组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。ERAS组和传统组术前和术后3 d疼痛评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);ERAS组术后7 d和术后2周疼痛评分明显低于传统组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。术前两组患者白蛋白水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后1 d ERAS组谷丙转氨酶(ALT)和谷草转氨酶(AST)水平低于传统组,白蛋白(ALB)水平高于传统组;术后3 d ERAS组ALT,AST和ALB水平高于传统组(P<0.05)。术后7 d ERAS组白细胞计数(WBC)、降钙素原(PCT)和C反应蛋白(CRP)水平低于传统组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。ERAS组患者并发症发生率(1.69%)明显低于传统组(10.81%),差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=4.324,P=0.038)。结论:与传统T管引流比较,ERAS理念下经腹腔镜胆总管Ⅰ期缝合可缩短患者手术时间和住院时间,减少术中出血量,减轻患者疼痛,改善患者白蛋白水平和炎症反应,且并发症较少。
