ObjectiveTo investigate clinical efficacy and advantages and disadvantages of primary closure with two endoscopes (1aparoscope+choledochoscope) or three endoscopes (laparoscope+choledochoscope+duodenoscope) through the cystic duct for treatment of gallbladder stone with secondary common bile duct (CBD) stones.MethodsThe clinical data of 83 patients with gallbladder stones with secondary CBD stones treated by two or three endoscopes combined with CBD exploration and lithotomy and primary closure through cystic duct from January 2017 to December 2018 in the Chengdu Second People’s Hospital were collected retrospectively. Among them, 41 patients were treated by two endoscopes mode (two endoscopes group), 42 cases were treated by three endoscopes mode (three endoscopes group).ResultsThere were no significant differences in the general conditions such as the gender, age, preoperative diameter of CBD, chronic diseases, etc. between the two and three endoscopes group (P>0.05). All 83 cases underwent the operations successfully and recovered well. The success rate of operation, stone clearance rate, drainage volume of abdominal drainage tube on day 1 after the operation, time of abdominal drainage tube removal after the operation, and hospitalization time had no significant differences between these two groups (P>0.05). The time of operation, intraoperative bleeding volume, and the postoperative pancreatitis rate in the three endoscopes group were significantly more (or higher) than those in the two endoscopes group (P<0.05), but the condition of liver function recovered after the operation was better than that in the two endoscopes group (P<0.05).ConclusionsWith the strict control of the operation indications, it is safe and feasible to use two or three endoscopes through the cystic duct pathway and primary closure of CBD for treatment of gallbladder stone with secondary CBD stones. However, the choice of operative methods of two or three endoscopes should be based on the general situation of the patients before and during the operation.
Objective To study the clinical effects of laparoscope combined with choledochoscope in patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Methods Clinical data of 74 patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis between Mar. 2009 and Feb. 2011 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Among them， 37 cases underwent the laparoscope combined with choledochoscope operation （referred to as the double mirror operation group） and 37 cases underwent the conventional open operation （open operation group）. The intraoperative conditions， therapeutic effect， and complications of patients in 2 groups were compared. Results The stone clearance rates of the two groups were 100%. The recurrence rate of 2 groups in the follow-up process was no significantly difference （P＞0.05）. In the double mirror operation group， the operative time was significantly longer than that open operation group （P＜0.01）；the intraoperative bleeding was significantly less than that open operation group （P＜0.01）；the anal exhaust time after operation， get out of bed time after operation， and total duration of hospitalization were significantly shorter than that open operation group （P＜0.01）；and the incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower than that open oper-ation group（P＜0.01）. Conclusion Laparoscope combined with choledochoscope in treatment of cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis patients has exact effects， with minor trauma， quicker recovery， and fewer complications， and it’s worthy of promotion.
目的 探讨输尿管镜气压弹道碎石治疗胆总管下段嵌顿性结石的方法及疗效。方法 传统方法取石失败病例改用输尿管镜置入胆总管直视见到胆总管下段嵌顿性结石，气压弹道碎石，盐水冲洗出或钳夹出结石，并探查下段是否通畅。结果 清除结石时间5~10 min，成功率100%（19/19），术后2~4周拔T管，无切口感染、无胆道感染、无残留结石。结论 输尿管镜气压弹道碎石治疗胆总管下段嵌顿性结石，高效、安全，值得临床推广应用。
目的探讨腹腔镜胆道再次手术的适应证、手术方法及临床效果。方法回顾性分析我院2003年2月至2010年11月期间46例腹腔镜胆道再次手术患者的临床资料，对术中及术后结果进行总结。结果本组45例在腹腔镜下完成手术，1例中转开腹。手术时间为45～270 min(平均120 min)，残株胆囊切除时间为(40±10) min，胆总管切开取石+T管引流时间为(150±50) min，胆总管切开取石+等离子碎石+T管引流时间为(180±40) min，术后出血及漏胆腹腔镜探查术时间为（40±15）min。结石一次性取尽23例，术后残余结石2例，住院4～21 d，平均8.6 d。胆管残余结石患者在术后1个月后经T管瘘道用胆道镜取石。术中十二指肠球部损伤3例，及时发现修补; 术后出现右侧胸腔积液4例、肺部感染2例和漏胆1例，均经非手术治疗痊愈。术后电话随访6～24个月（平均15个月），未见异常。结论腹腔镜胆道再次手术可行，并具有创伤小、恢复快等优点，但术前应严格掌握手术适应证，对手术医生的技术要求也较高。
Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration （LC＋LCBDE） and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterectomy with LC（ERCP/EST＋LC） in treatment for cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Methods From January 2008 to July 2011， 127 patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis underwent either LC＋LCBDE（85 cases， LC＋LCBDE group） or ERCP/EST＋LC（42 cases， ERCP/EST＋LC group） were collected retrospectively. The clearance rate of calculus， hospital stay， hospitalization expenses， and the rate of postoperative complications were compared between two groups. Results Eighty-five patients were performed successfully in the LC＋LCBDE group， out of which 54 patients had primary closure of common bile duct （LC＋LCBDE primary closure group）， whereas in 28 patients common bile ducts were closed over T tube （LC＋LCBDE＋T tube group）. Forty-two patients were performed successfully in the ERCP/EST＋LC group. There were no differences in the clearance rate of calculus〔100%（82/82） versus 97.37%（37/38）， P=0.317〕 and postoperative complications rate 〔（4.71% （4/85） versus 4.76%（2/42）， P=1.000〕 between the LC＋LCBDE group and ERCP/EST＋LC group. The median （quartile） hospital stay in the LC＋LCBDE group was shorter than that in the ERCP/EST＋LC group 〔12 （6） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001〕. In the LC＋LCBDE primary closure group， both median （quartile）?hospital stay and median（quartile） hospitalization expenses were less than those of ERCP/EST＋LC〔hospital stay：11（5） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001；hospitalization expenses：27 054（8 452） yuan versus 31 595（11 743） yuan， P=0.005〕 . Conclusions In the management of patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis， both LC＋LCBDE and ERCP/EST＋LC are safe and effective. LC＋LCBDE， especially primary closure after LCBDE， is associated with significantly less costs as compared with ERCP/EST＋LC. Moreover， patients can be cured by LC＋LCBDE through one-stage treatment with the protection of the papilla function and no limits to the amount or size of the choledocholithiasis. The LC＋LCBDE is a preferable choice for the appropriate cases of cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis.
ObjectiveTo explore how to select the suitable indications of ERCP for clinical diagnosis and treatment. MethodsThe data of patients treated by ERCP between January 2005 and December 2009 in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. ResultsTotal 221 patients received ERCP, among whom 99 (45%) cases of common bile duct stones, 44 (20%) cases of malignant tumor, 9 (4%) cases of papilla narrow, 45 (20%) cases were negative, and 24 (11%) cases were failed. It had the trend that the number of the patients received ERCP reduced year by year. The postoperative complication rate was 11% (25 cases), including 15 cases of postoperative pancreatitis, 3 cases of bleeding, 5 cases of biliary duct infection, and 2 cases of basket stranded. ConclusionIn the modern medical condition, with the advancement of image and laparoscopy technology, we should select the diagnosis and treatment methods with the principles of no damage or less damage for patients, without unlimitedly broadening the clinical indications of ERCP.
ObjectiveTo compare the effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis in elderly patients and non-elderly patients. MethodsThe clinical data of 185 cases of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis who treated in our hospital from September 2010 to November 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. Then the 185 cases of holecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis were divided into elderly patients group (n=74) and the non-elderly patients group (n=111). The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative exhaust time, postoperative activity time, abdominal drainage time, postoperative hospital stay, total hospital stay, hospitalization cost, incidence of complications, unplanned analgesia, stone-free rate, rate of conversion to laparotomy, recurrence of stone, and mortality were compared between the two groups. Results① Intraoperative and postoperative indexes. No significant difference was noted in operative time and intraoperative blood loss (P > 0.050), but the postoperative exhaust time, postoperative activity time, abdominal drainage time, postoperative hospital stay, total hospital stay, hospitalization cost, and ratio of indwelling T tube of elderly patients group were all higher or longer than corresponding index of non-elderly patients group (P < 0.050). ② Postoperative complications and unplanned analgesia. There was no striking discrepancy in incidence of complications (including biliary leakage, peritonitis, haemorrhage, vomit, ectoralgia, and fever), and Clavien-Dindo grade (P > 0.050), except unplanned analgesia (P=0.007), the rate of unplanned analgesia in elderly patients group was higher than that of non-elderly patients group. ③Surgical effect. There was no significant difference in the stone-free rate, rate of conversion to laparotomy, and rate of recurrence of stone between the 2 groups (P > 0.050). ConclusionLC+LCBDE is also safe and effective in treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis in elderly patients, it's worthy to be expanded and be used broadly.
目的探讨腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆囊及胆总管结石的临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析2010年1月至2013年1月期间收治于笔者所在科室的96例胆囊及胆总管结石患者的临床资料，根据手术方式分为开腹组、腹腔镜联合胆道镜＋T管引流术组和腹腔镜联合胆道镜＋放置鼻胆管一期缝合组3组。对3组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、肛门排气时间、住院时间、残石率、复发率、并发症发生率、手术有效率及术后淀粉酶和肝功能指标水平进行对比分析。 结果微创手术组与开腹组比较，患者的出血量、肛门排气时间、住院时间、残石率、复发率及并发症发生率均减少、缩短或降低，同时手术的有效率提高（P＜0.05）；腹腔镜联合胆道镜＋放置鼻胆管一期缝合组术后淀粉酶和肝功能指标的水平较其他2组明显降低（P＜0.05）。 结论微创手术创伤小，残石率及复发率低，并发症少，患者术后恢复快，是一种安全有效的治疗方式，值得临床推广应用。
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical value of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and LC combined with laparoscopiccommom bile duct exploration and primary sture (LBDEPS) in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis in the elderly (age more than 75 years old).MethodsThe elderly patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis in the Tianyou Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology from March 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 were retrospectively collected, then were designed into an ERCP combined with LC therapy group (ERCP+LC group) and a LC combined with LBDEPS therapy group (LC+LBDEPS group) according to the therapy methods. The operative indexes (total operation time, general anesthesia time, intraoperative bleeding volume, LC conversion to laparotomy) and postoperative indexes (conversion to ICU, use time of ventilator in the ICU, drainage tube indwelling time, ventilation time, time of getting out of bed, postoperative hospitalization time, total hospitalization time, total hospitalization costs, stone clearance rate, and complications) were compared between the two groups.ResultsIn this study, 67 patients were collected, including 35 patients in the ERCP+LC group and 32 patients in the LC+LBDEPS group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the terms of baseline data, such as the patients’ gender, age, preoperative symptoms, preoperative complications, number of choledocholithiasis, maximum diameter of choledocholithiasis, and diameter of common bile duct, etc. (P>0.05). Compared with the LC+LBDEPS group, the ERCP+LC group had more advantages in the terms of the total operation time, general anesthesia time, intraoperative bleeding, rate of LC conversion to laparotomy, time of ventilator use in the ICU, postoperative ventilation time, postoperative time of getting out of bed, and drainage tube indwelling time (P<0.05). The others indexes had no significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsAccording to the results of this study, therapeutic efficacy of ERCP+LC and LC+LBDEPS in treatment of elderly patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis have no significant differences, but ERCP+LC therapy has more advantages than LC+LBDEPS in total operation time, general anesthesia time, intraoperative bleeding, LC conversion to laparotomy, postoperative recovery and so on, and appropriate operation mode might be selected according to specific situation of patients and local medical conditions.