目的:总结应用腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆总管结石的体会。方法:回顾分析2003年1月至2009年5月成都市第五人民医院联合应用腹腔镜胆道镜治疗胆总管结石的临床资料。结果:经胆囊颈管取石成功21例,切开胆总管取石27例,其中胆总管I期缝合17例,T管引流31例,3例术后发生胆总管残余结石,经T管窦道胆道镜取石治愈,5例中转开腹。结论:选择合适病例,腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆总管结石患者创伤小,效果好,且安全可靠。
目的 总结开展腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆总管探查取石的手术技巧及应用体会。方法 回顾性分析笔者所在医院肝胆外科2010年7月至2012年12月期间行腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术的36例患者的临床资料。结果 30例病例经胆道探条扩张胆囊管后直接完成网篮取石，3例经胆囊管汇入胆总管处微切开完成取石，3例经胆道镜联合激光碎石完成手术。全组病例的手术时间为（110.88±25.99） min，术后住院时间为（6.59±1.18） d，均无严重操作相关并发症发生。结论 腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术是安全可行的，若能综合各种技术，可提高手术的成功率。
Objective To study the effect of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy and T tube drainage. Metheods Laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct with choledochoscopy via choledochotomy was performed in 105 patients, T tube was placed in all patients with laparoscopic suturing technique.Results Except negative exploration in 2 cases, duct clearance was achieved in 99 per cent (102/103) of patients. Conclusion Laparoscopic exploratoin of common bile duct via choledochotomy and T tube drainage is one of the safe and effective management options for common bile duct calculi.
目的比较腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术（LC＋LCBDE）与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开取石联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术（EST＋LC）治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石的临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析45例行LC＋LCBDE及60例行EST＋LC患者的临床资料，观察2组在单次结石清除率、中转手术率、手术并发症、住院时间等指标方面的效果。 结果2组患者的基线资料相近，无手术死亡病例；2组术后并发症发生情况的差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；LC＋LCBDE组单次治疗成功率高于EST＋LC组，而住院时间及中转手术率则短于或低于EST＋LC组（P＜0.05）。 结论LC＋LCBDE是治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石患者安全有效的方法。
ObjectiveTo investigate safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) without preoperative prophylactic gastrointestinal decompression.MethodsA prospective study was conducted on the patients with choledocholithiasis and cholecystolithiasis scheduled to undergo LCBDE plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in this hospital from January 2016 to December 2017. All the patients were randomly divided into a gastrointestinal decompression group and a non-gastrointestinal decompression group by the same researcher according to the random number table method. The general conditions, intraoperative status and postoperative status of patients in the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 286 patients were enrolled in this study, including 120 in the non-gastrointestinal decompression group and 166 in the gastrointestinal decompression group. There were no significant differences in the general data such as the age, gender, smoking history, drinking history, preoperative complications, results of preoperative laboratory examination, and preoperative anesthesia score between the two groups (P>0.050). The time of oral feeding in the non-gastrointestinal decompression group was significantly earlier than that in the gastrointestinal decompression group (t=2.181, P=0.030). There were no significant differences in the bleeding volume, operative time, anal ventilation time, total hospitalization time, and postoperative hospitalization time between the two groups (P>0.050). The incidences of nausea/vomiting and poor appetite in the non-gastrointestinal decompression were significantly lower than those in the gastrointestinal decompression group (χ2=5.098, P=0.024; χ2=4.905, P=0.027). There were no significant differences in the incidences of other complications between the two groups (P>0.050).ConclusionFrom results of this study, prophylactic gastrointestinal decompression should not be recommended for patients undergoing LCBDE.
Objective To analyze the clinical characteristics associated with hospital infections in patients with common bile duct stones treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), thereby providing a basis for selecting treatment strategies and formulating hospital infection prevention measures for such patients. Methods Patients with common bile duct stones at Jiangsu Provincial People’s Hospital between January 2020 and July 2023 were retrospectively selected and divided into ERCP and LCBDE groups according to their surgical methods. Basic patient data, length of hospital stay, hospitalization costs, perioperative infection-related indicators, and occurance of hospital infections were compared between groups. Results A total of 402 patients were enrolled, with 242 in the ERCP group and 160 in the LCBDE group. Significant differences were noted in smoking, alcohol consumption, history of lung diseases, history of heart diseases, history of cholecystectomy/biliary surgery, presence of cholecystitis, presence of cholecystolithiasis, number of stones, maximum stone diameter, common bile duct diameter, total hospital stay, and total expenses (P<0.05). Twenty-four hours before surgery, except for the neutrophil count, which was slightly higher in the ERCP group than that in the LCBDE group (P=0.043), the infection-related indicators did not differ significantly between the two groups (P>0.05). Twenty-four hours after surgery, the levels of serum white blood cell, neutrophil, and aspartate aminotransferase in the ERCP group were lower than those in the LCBDE group (P<0.05), and the levels of alkaline phosphatase and gamma-glutamyl transferase in the ERCP group were higher than those in the LCBDE group (P<0.05). A total of 179 bile samples were collected and tested, identifying 137 strains of pathogenic bacteria (78 in the ERCP group and 59 in the LCBDE group). In the ERCP group, 42 strains (53.85%) were Gram-negative bacteria, 34 strains (45.59%) were Gram-positive bacteria, and 2 strains (2.56%) were fungi; in the LCBDE group, 33 strains (55.93%) were Gram-negative bacteria and 26 strains (44.07%) were Gram-positive bacteria. No significant difference was observed in the composition of pathogenic bacteria between the two groups (χ2=1.174, P=0.695). Among the 402 patients, 38 cases of hospital infection occurred postoperatively, with an infection rate of 9.45%. The difference in the infection rate between the ERCP group and the LCBDE group were statistically significant (11.98% vs. 5.63%; χ2=4.550, P=0.033). The main sites of infection were bloodstream, lungs, and abdominal-pelvic cavity. Conclusions The predominant pathogens isolated after both ERCP and LCBDE are Gram-negative bacteria. Compared with LCBDE, ERCP has less impact on inflammatory markers, hospital stay, and costs, but has a higher incidence of hospital infections.
目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管探查联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的手术方法及其临床应用价值。方法 回顾性分析2008年3月至2012年6月期间笔者所在医院收治并行腹腔镜胆总管探查联合胆道镜治疗的67例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的临床资料。结果 67例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者中，6例经胆囊管探查取石并行胆囊管一期结扎，15例行胆总管探查取石并行胆总管一期缝合，46例行胆总管探查取石后经T管引流。所有患者的手术均获成功，无中转开腹，无术后大出血及手术死亡。手术时间为（120±30）min（90～150min），术中失血量为（30±10）mL（20～40mL），平均住院时间为8.3d（7～14d）。术后3例患者发生轻度漏胆，经引流后痊愈；4例发生切口感染，经引流并给予抗生素治疗后治愈；1例发生术后早期炎性肠梗阻，经胃肠减压、灌肠、给予生长抑素加地塞米松等保守治疗后痊愈。术后所有患者均获访，随访时间为1个月～3年，平均随访时间为2.1年。随访期间，均无胆道感染和胆管狭窄发生，无结石复发。结论 腹腔镜胆总管探查联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石安全有效。
目的 探讨腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术的优势，总结手术操作经验及常见并发症的预防与处理。方法回顾性分析我院1999年6月至2010年4月期间收治的108 例胆管结石患者行腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术的手术方法、操作要点及并发症的处理。结果 腹腔镜手术成功 105例, 中转开腹3例; 手术时间（120±20） min,出血量（25±5） ml,住院时间（9±1） d; 术后发生胆道出血3例,漏胆7 例,残余结石6 例; 全组无死亡病例。结论 腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术具有创伤小、痛苦轻、恢复快、对腹腔脏器干扰小、住院时间短等优点，值得临床推广。