目的:比较一期腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)联合胆总管探查取石(LCBDE)与分期内镜取石(ERCP)和LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析2013年1月—2014年6月在西安交通大学第一附属医院行微创治疗的112例胆囊结石合并胆总管结...目的:比较一期腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)联合胆总管探查取石(LCBDE)与分期内镜取石(ERCP)和LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析2013年1月—2014年6月在西安交通大学第一附属医院行微创治疗的112例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者资料,其中52例行一期LC+LCBDE(LCBDE组),60例行ERCP后24 h或择期行LC(ERCP组),比较两组相关临床指标。结果:除LCBDE组平均年龄小于ERCP组外(42.4岁vs.57.4岁,P<0.05),两组其余一般资料均具有可比性。两组均无死亡病例,手术成功率(94.3%vs.98.4%)、总并发症发生率(8.2%vs.10.1%)、结石残余发生率(2.0%vs.1.7%)等差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);ERCP组术后高淀粉酶血症发生率明显高于LCBDE组(16.9%vs.4.1%,P<0.05),但均为单纯性淀粉酶升高;与ERCP组比较,LCBDE组术后住院时间更短(4.9 d vs.6.3 d),总住院费用减少(21 685.9元vs.30 354.3元),但LCBDE组手术时间明显延长(117.1 min vs.97.4 min)(均P<0.05)。结论:一期LC+LCBDE或分期ERCP+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石均安全、有效,可根据患者情况选择应用。展开更多
Gallstone disease and complications from gallstones are a common clinical problem.The clinical presentation ranges between being asymptomatic and recurrent attacks of biliary pain requiring elective or emergency treat...Gallstone disease and complications from gallstones are a common clinical problem.The clinical presentation ranges between being asymptomatic and recurrent attacks of biliary pain requiring elective or emergency treatment.Bile duct stones are a frequent condition associated with cholelithiasis.Amidst the total cholecystectomies performed every year for cholelithiasis,the presence of bile duct stones is 5%-15%;another small percentage of these will develop common bile duct stones after intervention.To avoid serious complications that can occur in choledocholithiasis,these stones should be removed.Unfortunately,there is no consensus on the ideal management strategy to perform such.For a long time,a direct open surgical approach to the bile duct was the only unique approach.With the advent of advanced endoscopic,radiologic,and minimally invasive surgical techniques,however,therapeutic choices have increased in number,and the management of this pathological situation has become multidisciplinary.To date,there is agreement on preoperative management and the need to treat cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis,but a debate still exists on how to cure the two diseases at the same time.In the era of laparoscopy and miniinvasiveness,we can say that therapeutic approaches can be performed in two sessions or in one session.Comparison of these two approaches showed equivalent success rates,postoperative morbidity,stone clearance,mortality,conversion to other procedures,total surgery time,and failure rate,but the onesession treatment is characterized by a shorter hospital stay,and more cost benefits.The aim of this review article is to provide the reader with a general summary of gallbladder stone disease in association with the presence of common bile duct stones by discussing their epidemiology,clinical and diagnostic aspects,and possible treatments and their advantages and limitations.展开更多
Biliary tract complications are the most common complications after liver transplantation.These complications are encountered more commonly as a result of increased number of liver transplantations and the prolonged s...Biliary tract complications are the most common complications after liver transplantation.These complications are encountered more commonly as a result of increased number of liver transplantations and the prolonged survival of transplant patients.Biliary complications remain a major source of morbidity in liver transplant patients,with an incidence of 5%-32%.Post liver transplantation biliary complications include strictures(anastomotic and non-anastomotic),leaks,stones,sphincter of Oddi dysfunction,and recurrence of primary biliary disease such as primary sclerosing cholangitis and primary biliary cirrhosis.The risk of occurrence of a specific biliary complication is related to the type of biliary reconstruction performed at the time of liver transplantation.In this article we seek to review the major biliary complications and their relation to the type of biliary reconstruction performed at the time of liver tranplantation.展开更多
AIMTo evaluate the rate of recurrence of symptomatic choledocholithiasis and identify factors associated with the recurrence of bile duct stones in patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography...AIMTo evaluate the rate of recurrence of symptomatic choledocholithiasis and identify factors associated with the recurrence of bile duct stones in patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for bile duct stone disease. METHODSAll patients who underwent ERCP and EST for bile duct stone disease and had their bile duct cleared from 1/1/2005 until 31/12/2008 was enrolled. All symptomatic recurrences during the study period (until 31/12/2015) were recorded. Clinical and laboratory data potentially associated with common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence were retrospectively retrieved from patients’ files. RESULTSA total of 495 patients were included. Sixty seven (67) out of 495 patients (13.5%) presented with recurrent symptomatic choledocholithiasis after 35.28 ± 16.9 mo while twenty two (22) of these patients (32.8%) experienced a second recurrence after 35.19 ± 23.2 mo. Factors associated with recurrence were size (diameter) of the largest CBD stone found at first presentation (10.2 ± 6.9 mm vs 7.2 ± 4.1 mm, P = 0.024), diameter of the CBD at the first examination (15.5 ± 6.3 mm vs 12.0 ± 4.6 mm, P = 0.005), use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) (P = 0.04) and presence of difficult lithiasis (P = 0.04). Periampullary diverticula showed a trend towards significance (P = 0.066). On the contrary, number of stones, angulation of the CBD, number of ERCP sessions required to clear the CBD at first presentation, more than one ERCP session needed to clear the bile duct initially and a gallbladder in situ did not influence recurrence. CONCLUSIONBile duct stone recurrence is a possible late complication following endoscopic stone extraction and CBD clearance. It appears to be associated with anatomical parameters (CBD diameter) and stone characteristics (stone size, use of ML, difficult lithiasis) at first presentation.展开更多
该指南由欧洲消化内镜学会(ESGE)制订,就如何处理胆总管结石(common bile duct stones, CBDS)提供了切实可行的建议。它包括疑似CBDS患者的诊断策略以及不同CBDS的治疗方案。主要推荐要点如下。1CBDS的流行病学、自然病史和处理推荐胆...该指南由欧洲消化内镜学会(ESGE)制订,就如何处理胆总管结石(common bile duct stones, CBDS)提供了切实可行的建议。它包括疑似CBDS患者的诊断策略以及不同CBDS的治疗方案。主要推荐要点如下。1CBDS的流行病学、自然病史和处理推荐胆囊结石在发达国家患病率达10%~15%,累积年发病率为0.60%。在有症状的胆囊结石患者中CBDS的患病率为8%~18%,但尚无无症状胆囊结石患者中CBDS的流行病学数据。ESGE建议:推荐所有CBDS患者,只要能耐受手术治疗,无论有无症状,均取石治疗。(强烈推荐,低质量证据)CBDS的自然病史尚不清楚。展开更多
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large diameter balloon dilation (EPLBD) following limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and EST alone for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones.
Background Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis （PEP） is regarded as one of the worrisome complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography （ERCP）. Results of randomized c...Background Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis （PEP） is regarded as one of the worrisome complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography （ERCP）. Results of randomized controlled trials evaluating the preventive effect of ulinastatin and gabexate mesylate （GM） on PEP are contradictory. The present study was designed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of ulinastatin and GM on PEP with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials （RCTs）. Methods Five electronic databases were searched for RCTs evaluating the preventive effect of ulinastatin and GM on PEP. Summary effects were assessed with the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results Twelve studies involving 5105 participants were included in our meta-analyses. Administration of ulinastatin decreased the incidence of PEP only at sufficient doses （OR, 0.39; 95% C/, 0.19 to 0.81; P=0.01）. Number needed to treat （NNT） was 6. And administration of ulinastatin also reduced the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia （PEHA） （OR, 0.40; 95% C/, 0.28 to 0.58; P〈0.000 01）. Slow infusion of high-dose GM was effective for PEP prevention （OR, 0.44; 95% Cl, 0.25 to 0.79; P=0.006）, and rapid infusion of low-dose GM also showed efficacy for PEP prophylaxis （OR, 0.37; 95% C/, 0.20 to 0.69; P=0.002）. NNT was 7 and 6 respectively. However, administration of GM at low doses and by slow infusions was ineffective （OR, 0.99; 95% Cl, 0.64 to 1.55; P=0.98）. Administration of GM had the tendency to reduce PEHA rate, but not to a statistical significance （OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01; P=0.06）. When low-quality studies were excluded, the meta-analysis with two high-quality studies indicated that ulinastatin did not reduce the rate of PEP （OR, 0.63; 95% Cl, 0.32 to 1.26; P=0.19） and PEHA incidence （OR, 0.80; 95% Cl, 0.31 to 2.07; P=0.64）. The meta-analysis with six high-quality studies showed that GM administration decreased PEP incidence （OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.91;展开更多
文摘目的:比较一期腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)联合胆总管探查取石(LCBDE)与分期内镜取石(ERCP)和LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析2013年1月—2014年6月在西安交通大学第一附属医院行微创治疗的112例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者资料,其中52例行一期LC+LCBDE(LCBDE组),60例行ERCP后24 h或择期行LC(ERCP组),比较两组相关临床指标。结果:除LCBDE组平均年龄小于ERCP组外(42.4岁vs.57.4岁,P<0.05),两组其余一般资料均具有可比性。两组均无死亡病例,手术成功率(94.3%vs.98.4%)、总并发症发生率(8.2%vs.10.1%)、结石残余发生率(2.0%vs.1.7%)等差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);ERCP组术后高淀粉酶血症发生率明显高于LCBDE组(16.9%vs.4.1%,P<0.05),但均为单纯性淀粉酶升高;与ERCP组比较,LCBDE组术后住院时间更短(4.9 d vs.6.3 d),总住院费用减少(21 685.9元vs.30 354.3元),但LCBDE组手术时间明显延长(117.1 min vs.97.4 min)(均P<0.05)。结论:一期LC+LCBDE或分期ERCP+LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石均安全、有效,可根据患者情况选择应用。
文摘Gallstone disease and complications from gallstones are a common clinical problem.The clinical presentation ranges between being asymptomatic and recurrent attacks of biliary pain requiring elective or emergency treatment.Bile duct stones are a frequent condition associated with cholelithiasis.Amidst the total cholecystectomies performed every year for cholelithiasis,the presence of bile duct stones is 5%-15%;another small percentage of these will develop common bile duct stones after intervention.To avoid serious complications that can occur in choledocholithiasis,these stones should be removed.Unfortunately,there is no consensus on the ideal management strategy to perform such.For a long time,a direct open surgical approach to the bile duct was the only unique approach.With the advent of advanced endoscopic,radiologic,and minimally invasive surgical techniques,however,therapeutic choices have increased in number,and the management of this pathological situation has become multidisciplinary.To date,there is agreement on preoperative management and the need to treat cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis,but a debate still exists on how to cure the two diseases at the same time.In the era of laparoscopy and miniinvasiveness,we can say that therapeutic approaches can be performed in two sessions or in one session.Comparison of these two approaches showed equivalent success rates,postoperative morbidity,stone clearance,mortality,conversion to other procedures,total surgery time,and failure rate,but the onesession treatment is characterized by a shorter hospital stay,and more cost benefits.The aim of this review article is to provide the reader with a general summary of gallbladder stone disease in association with the presence of common bile duct stones by discussing their epidemiology,clinical and diagnostic aspects,and possible treatments and their advantages and limitations.
文摘Biliary tract complications are the most common complications after liver transplantation.These complications are encountered more commonly as a result of increased number of liver transplantations and the prolonged survival of transplant patients.Biliary complications remain a major source of morbidity in liver transplant patients,with an incidence of 5%-32%.Post liver transplantation biliary complications include strictures(anastomotic and non-anastomotic),leaks,stones,sphincter of Oddi dysfunction,and recurrence of primary biliary disease such as primary sclerosing cholangitis and primary biliary cirrhosis.The risk of occurrence of a specific biliary complication is related to the type of biliary reconstruction performed at the time of liver transplantation.In this article we seek to review the major biliary complications and their relation to the type of biliary reconstruction performed at the time of liver tranplantation.
文摘AIMTo evaluate the rate of recurrence of symptomatic choledocholithiasis and identify factors associated with the recurrence of bile duct stones in patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for bile duct stone disease. METHODSAll patients who underwent ERCP and EST for bile duct stone disease and had their bile duct cleared from 1/1/2005 until 31/12/2008 was enrolled. All symptomatic recurrences during the study period (until 31/12/2015) were recorded. Clinical and laboratory data potentially associated with common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence were retrospectively retrieved from patients’ files. RESULTSA total of 495 patients were included. Sixty seven (67) out of 495 patients (13.5%) presented with recurrent symptomatic choledocholithiasis after 35.28 ± 16.9 mo while twenty two (22) of these patients (32.8%) experienced a second recurrence after 35.19 ± 23.2 mo. Factors associated with recurrence were size (diameter) of the largest CBD stone found at first presentation (10.2 ± 6.9 mm vs 7.2 ± 4.1 mm, P = 0.024), diameter of the CBD at the first examination (15.5 ± 6.3 mm vs 12.0 ± 4.6 mm, P = 0.005), use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) (P = 0.04) and presence of difficult lithiasis (P = 0.04). Periampullary diverticula showed a trend towards significance (P = 0.066). On the contrary, number of stones, angulation of the CBD, number of ERCP sessions required to clear the CBD at first presentation, more than one ERCP session needed to clear the bile duct initially and a gallbladder in situ did not influence recurrence. CONCLUSIONBile duct stone recurrence is a possible late complication following endoscopic stone extraction and CBD clearance. It appears to be associated with anatomical parameters (CBD diameter) and stone characteristics (stone size, use of ML, difficult lithiasis) at first presentation.
文摘该指南由欧洲消化内镜学会(ESGE)制订,就如何处理胆总管结石(common bile duct stones, CBDS)提供了切实可行的建议。它包括疑似CBDS患者的诊断策略以及不同CBDS的治疗方案。主要推荐要点如下。1CBDS的流行病学、自然病史和处理推荐胆囊结石在发达国家患病率达10%~15%,累积年发病率为0.60%。在有症状的胆囊结石患者中CBDS的患病率为8%~18%,但尚无无症状胆囊结石患者中CBDS的流行病学数据。ESGE建议:推荐所有CBDS患者,只要能耐受手术治疗,无论有无症状,均取石治疗。(强烈推荐,低质量证据)CBDS的自然病史尚不清楚。
文摘AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large diameter balloon dilation (EPLBD) following limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and EST alone for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones.
文摘Background Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis （PEP） is regarded as one of the worrisome complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography （ERCP）. Results of randomized controlled trials evaluating the preventive effect of ulinastatin and gabexate mesylate （GM） on PEP are contradictory. The present study was designed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of ulinastatin and GM on PEP with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials （RCTs）. Methods Five electronic databases were searched for RCTs evaluating the preventive effect of ulinastatin and GM on PEP. Summary effects were assessed with the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results Twelve studies involving 5105 participants were included in our meta-analyses. Administration of ulinastatin decreased the incidence of PEP only at sufficient doses （OR, 0.39; 95% C/, 0.19 to 0.81; P=0.01）. Number needed to treat （NNT） was 6. And administration of ulinastatin also reduced the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia （PEHA） （OR, 0.40; 95% C/, 0.28 to 0.58; P〈0.000 01）. Slow infusion of high-dose GM was effective for PEP prevention （OR, 0.44; 95% Cl, 0.25 to 0.79; P=0.006）, and rapid infusion of low-dose GM also showed efficacy for PEP prophylaxis （OR, 0.37; 95% C/, 0.20 to 0.69; P=0.002）. NNT was 7 and 6 respectively. However, administration of GM at low doses and by slow infusions was ineffective （OR, 0.99; 95% Cl, 0.64 to 1.55; P=0.98）. Administration of GM had the tendency to reduce PEHA rate, but not to a statistical significance （OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01; P=0.06）. When low-quality studies were excluded, the meta-analysis with two high-quality studies indicated that ulinastatin did not reduce the rate of PEP （OR, 0.63; 95% Cl, 0.32 to 1.26; P=0.19） and PEHA incidence （OR, 0.80; 95% Cl, 0.31 to 2.07; P=0.64）. The meta-analysis with six high-quality studies showed that GM administration decreased PEP incidence （OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.91;
