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
AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register o...AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011,were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers.The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct,postoperative morbidity and mortality.The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures,number of procedures per patient,length of hospital stay,total operative time,hospitalization charges,patient acceptance and quality of life scores.RESULTS:Seven eligible RCTs [five trials(n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE);two trials(n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE],composed of 787 patients in total,were included in the final analysis.The metaanalysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios(RR) =-0.10,95% confidence intervals(CI):-0.24 to 0.04,P = 0.17],postoperative morbidity(RR = 0.79,95% CI:0.58 to 1.10,P = 0.16),mortality(RR = 2.19,95% CI:0.33 to 14.67,P = 0.42),conversion to other procedures(RR = 1.21,95% CI:0.54 to 2.70,P = 0.39),length of hospital stay(MD = 0.99,95% CI:-1.59 to 3.57,P = 0.45),total operative time(MD = 12.14,95% CI:-1.83 to 26.10,P = 0.09).Two-stage(LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage(LC + LCBDE) management.CONCLUSION:Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures.However,patient's condition,operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.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AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011,were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers.The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct,postoperative morbidity and mortality.The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures,number of procedures per patient,length of hospital stay,total operative time,hospitalization charges,patient acceptance and quality of life scores.RESULTS:Seven eligible RCTs [five trials(n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE);two trials(n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE],composed of 787 patients in total,were included in the final analysis.The metaanalysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios(RR) =-0.10,95% confidence intervals(CI):-0.24 to 0.04,P = 0.17],postoperative morbidity(RR = 0.79,95% CI:0.58 to 1.10,P = 0.16),mortality(RR = 2.19,95% CI:0.33 to 14.67,P = 0.42),conversion to other procedures(RR = 1.21,95% CI:0.54 to 2.70,P = 0.39),length of hospital stay(MD = 0.99,95% CI:-1.59 to 3.57,P = 0.45),total operative time(MD = 12.14,95% CI:-1.83 to 26.10,P = 0.09).Two-stage(LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage(LC + LCBDE) management.CONCLUSION:Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures.However,patient's condition,operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.
