AIM: Choledocholithiasis is present in 5 to 10 percent of patients who have cholelithiasis. Tn the area of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and intraoperative endosc...AIM: Choledocholithiasis is present in 5 to 10 percent of patients who have cholelithiasis. Tn the area of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) have been used to treat choledocholithiasis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and hospital costs of LCBDE with IOES.METHODS: Between November 1999 and October 2002,patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing LC plus LCBDE (Group A, n=45) were retrospectively compared to those undergoing LC plus IOES (Group B, n=57) at a single institution.RESULTS: Ductal stone clearance rates were equivalent for the two groups (88 % versus 89 %, P=0.436). The conversion rate was higher for Group B (8.8 % versus 4.4 %,P=0.381), as was the morbidity (12.3 % versus 6.7 %,P=0.336). There were no other significant differences between the two groups. The complications were mainly related to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), and the hospital costs were significantly increased in this subset of Group B (median, 23 910 versus 14 955 RMB yuan, P=0.03). Although hospital stay was longer in Group A (median, 7 versus 6 days,P=0.041), the patients in Group A had a significantly decreased cost of hospitalization compared with those in Group B (median, L1 362 versus 15 466 RMB yuan, P=0.000).CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate equivalent ductal stone clearance rates for the two groups. LCBDE management appears safer, and is associated with a significantly decreased hospital cost. The findings suggest LCBDE for choledocholithiasis is a better option.展开更多
AIM: Transcystic biliary decompression (TCBD) has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD). This permits safe primary closure of the choledochotomy and eliminates the...AIM: Transcystic biliary decompression (TCBD) has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD). This permits safe primary closure of the choledochotomy and eliminates the complications associated with T-tubes. TCBD tube has been secured by Roeder knots and transfixation, and removed later than 3 wk after surgery. We presented a modified TCBD (mTCBD) method after LCD using the ureteral catheter and the Lapro-Clip (David and Geck, Danbury, Connecticut, USA), and compared it with T-tube drainage.METHODS: Between October 2002 and June 2003, patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing LCD with mTCBD (mTCBD Group, n = 30) were retrospectively compared to those undergoing LCD with T-tube drainage (T-tube Group,n = 52) at a single institution.RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operative time and retained stones between the two groups. Patients in mTCBD group had a significantly decreased average output of bile compared with those in T-tube group (306±141 vs 409±243 mL/24 h, P=0.000). Removal of dra in tubes inmTCBD group was done significantly earlier than that in T-tube group (median, 5 vs 29 d, P=0.000). No complication related to drain tubes was found in mTCBD group, and morbidity rate with the T-tube was significantly higher (11.5%), and bile leakage following T-tube removal was 5.8%.CONCLUSION: A modified TCBD after LCD is safe, effective and easy to perform. It may reduce postoperative complications, especially bile leakage.展开更多
文摘AIM: Choledocholithiasis is present in 5 to 10 percent of patients who have cholelithiasis. Tn the area of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) have been used to treat choledocholithiasis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and hospital costs of LCBDE with IOES.METHODS: Between November 1999 and October 2002,patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing LC plus LCBDE (Group A, n=45) were retrospectively compared to those undergoing LC plus IOES (Group B, n=57) at a single institution.RESULTS: Ductal stone clearance rates were equivalent for the two groups (88 % versus 89 %, P=0.436). The conversion rate was higher for Group B (8.8 % versus 4.4 %,P=0.381), as was the morbidity (12.3 % versus 6.7 %,P=0.336). There were no other significant differences between the two groups. The complications were mainly related to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), and the hospital costs were significantly increased in this subset of Group B (median, 23 910 versus 14 955 RMB yuan, P=0.03). Although hospital stay was longer in Group A (median, 7 versus 6 days,P=0.041), the patients in Group A had a significantly decreased cost of hospitalization compared with those in Group B (median, L1 362 versus 15 466 RMB yuan, P=0.000).CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate equivalent ductal stone clearance rates for the two groups. LCBDE management appears safer, and is associated with a significantly decreased hospital cost. The findings suggest LCBDE for choledocholithiasis is a better option.
文摘AIM: Transcystic biliary decompression (TCBD) has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD). This permits safe primary closure of the choledochotomy and eliminates the complications associated with T-tubes. TCBD tube has been secured by Roeder knots and transfixation, and removed later than 3 wk after surgery. We presented a modified TCBD (mTCBD) method after LCD using the ureteral catheter and the Lapro-Clip (David and Geck, Danbury, Connecticut, USA), and compared it with T-tube drainage.METHODS: Between October 2002 and June 2003, patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing LCD with mTCBD (mTCBD Group, n = 30) were retrospectively compared to those undergoing LCD with T-tube drainage (T-tube Group,n = 52) at a single institution.RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operative time and retained stones between the two groups. Patients in mTCBD group had a significantly decreased average output of bile compared with those in T-tube group (306±141 vs 409±243 mL/24 h, P=0.000). Removal of dra in tubes inmTCBD group was done significantly earlier than that in T-tube group (median, 5 vs 29 d, P=0.000). No complication related to drain tubes was found in mTCBD group, and morbidity rate with the T-tube was significantly higher (11.5%), and bile leakage following T-tube removal was 5.8%.CONCLUSION: A modified TCBD after LCD is safe, effective and easy to perform. It may reduce postoperative complications, especially bile leakage.
