目的探讨腹腔镜与术中胆道镜联合治疗胆囊结石并肝外胆管结石患者的临床疗效。方法选取82例胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石患者作为本次研究的对象,经随机数字表法将其随机分为观察组与对照组,观察组行腹腔镜与胆道镜联合手术治疗,对照组行...目的探讨腹腔镜与术中胆道镜联合治疗胆囊结石并肝外胆管结石患者的临床疗效。方法选取82例胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石患者作为本次研究的对象,经随机数字表法将其随机分为观察组与对照组,观察组行腹腔镜与胆道镜联合手术治疗,对照组行开腹手术治疗。比较两组的临床指标、并发症、结石清除及复发情况。结果观察组术中出血量、住院时间以及术后肛门排气时间均少于对照组(P<0.05),而手术时间比较两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组术后并发症总发生率显著低于对照组(14.6 vs 36.6%,P<0.05);两组结石清除率均为100%,观察组术后1年复发率低于对照组比较差异无统计学意义(2.4%vs 7.3%,P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石具有创伤小、患者恢复快等优势,能够显著减少并发症的发生率,值得临床推广。展开更多
Gallstones and common bile duct calculi are found to be associated in 8%-20% of patients, leading to possible life-threatening complications, such as acute biliary pancreatitis, jaundice and cholangitis. The gold stan...Gallstones and common bile duct calculi are found to be associated in 8%-20% of patients, leading to possible life-threatening complications, such as acute biliary pancreatitis, jaundice and cholangitis. The gold standard of care for gallbladder calculi and isolated common bile duct stones is represented by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, respectively, while a debate still exists regarding how to treat the two diseases at the same time. Many therapeutic options are also available when the two conditions are associated, including many different types of treatment, which local professionals often administer. The need to limit maximum discomfort and risks for the patients, combined with the economic pressure of reducing costs and utilizing resources, favors single-step procedures. However, a multitude of data fail to strongly demonstrate the superiority of any technique(including a two or multi-step approach), while rigorous clinical trials that include so many different types of treatment are still lacking, and it is most likely unrealistic to conduct them in the future. Therefore, the choice of the best management is often led by the local presence of professional expertise and resources, rather than by a real superiority of one strategy over another.展开更多
AIM:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)vs isolated EST.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective single center study over two years,fr... AIM:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)vs isolated EST.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective single center study over two years,from February 2010 to January 2012.Patients with large(≥ 10 mm),single or multiple bile duct stones(BDS),submitted to endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography(ERCP) were included.Patients in Group A underwent papillary large balloon dilation after limited sphincterotomy(EST+EPLBD),using a through-the-scope balloon catheter gradually inflated to 12-18 mm according to the size of the largest stone and the maximal diameter of the distal bile duct on the cholangiogram.Patients in Group B(control group) underwent isolated sphincterotomy.Stones were removed using a retrieval balloon catheter and/or a dormia basket.When necessary,mechanical lithotripsy was performed.Complete clearance of the bile duct was documented with a balloon catheter cholangiogram at the end of the procedure.In case of residual lithiasis,a double pigtail plastic stent was placed and a second ERCP was planned within 4-6 wk.Some patients were sent for extracorporeal lithotripsy prior to subsequent ERCP.Outcomes of EST+EPLBD(Group A) vs isolated EST(Group B) were compared regarding efficacy(complete stone clearance,number of therapeutic sessions,mechanical and/or extracorporeal lithotripsy,biliary stent placement) and safety(frequency,type and grade of complications).Statistical analysis was performed using χ 2 or Fisher’s exact tests for the analysis of categorical parameters and Student’s t test for continuous variables.A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.RESULTS:One hundred and eleven patients were included,68(61.3%) in Group A and 43(38.7%) in Group B.The mean diameter of the stones was similar in the two groups(16.8 ± 4.4 and 16.0 ± 6.7 in Groups A and B,respectively).Forty-eight(70.6%) patients in Group A and 21(48.8%) in Group B had multiple BDS(P = 0.005).Overall,balloon dilation was展开更多
BACKGROUND:According to the current literature, biliary lithiasis is a worldwide-diffused condition that affects almost 20% of the general population. The rate of common bile duct stones(CBDS) in patients with symptom...BACKGROUND:According to the current literature, biliary lithiasis is a worldwide-diffused condition that affects almost 20% of the general population. The rate of common bile duct stones(CBDS) in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be 10% to 33%, depending on patient’s age.Compared to stones in the gallbladder, the natural history of secondary CBDS is still not completely understood. It is not clear whether an asymptomatic choledocholithiasis requires treatment or not. For many years, open cholecystectomy with choledochotomy and/or surgical sphincterotomy and cleaning of the bile duct were the gold standard to treat both pathologies. Development of both endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) and laparoscopic surgery,together with improvements in diagnostic procedures, influenced new approaches to the management of CBDS in association with gallstones.DATA SOURCES:We decided to systematically review the literature in order to identify all the current therapeutic options for CBDS. A systematic literature search was performed independently by two authors using Pub Med, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central.RESULTS:The therapeutic approach nowadays varies greatly according to the availability of experience and expertise in each center, and includes open or laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, various combinations of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP and combined laparoendoscopic rendezvous.CONCLUSIONS:Although ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred in the majority of hospitals worldwide, the optimal treatment for concomitant gallstones and CBDS is still under debate, and greatly varies among different centers.展开更多
文摘目的探讨腹腔镜与术中胆道镜联合治疗胆囊结石并肝外胆管结石患者的临床疗效。方法选取82例胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石患者作为本次研究的对象,经随机数字表法将其随机分为观察组与对照组,观察组行腹腔镜与胆道镜联合手术治疗,对照组行开腹手术治疗。比较两组的临床指标、并发症、结石清除及复发情况。结果观察组术中出血量、住院时间以及术后肛门排气时间均少于对照组(P<0.05),而手术时间比较两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组术后并发症总发生率显著低于对照组(14.6 vs 36.6%,P<0.05);两组结石清除率均为100%,观察组术后1年复发率低于对照组比较差异无统计学意义(2.4%vs 7.3%,P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石具有创伤小、患者恢复快等优势,能够显著减少并发症的发生率,值得临床推广。
文摘Gallstones and common bile duct calculi are found to be associated in 8%-20% of patients, leading to possible life-threatening complications, such as acute biliary pancreatitis, jaundice and cholangitis. The gold standard of care for gallbladder calculi and isolated common bile duct stones is represented by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, respectively, while a debate still exists regarding how to treat the two diseases at the same time. Many therapeutic options are also available when the two conditions are associated, including many different types of treatment, which local professionals often administer. The need to limit maximum discomfort and risks for the patients, combined with the economic pressure of reducing costs and utilizing resources, favors single-step procedures. However, a multitude of data fail to strongly demonstrate the superiority of any technique(including a two or multi-step approach), while rigorous clinical trials that include so many different types of treatment are still lacking, and it is most likely unrealistic to conduct them in the future. Therefore, the choice of the best management is often led by the local presence of professional expertise and resources, rather than by a real superiority of one strategy over another.
文摘 AIM:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)vs isolated EST.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective single center study over two years,from February 2010 to January 2012.Patients with large(≥ 10 mm),single or multiple bile duct stones(BDS),submitted to endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography(ERCP) were included.Patients in Group A underwent papillary large balloon dilation after limited sphincterotomy(EST+EPLBD),using a through-the-scope balloon catheter gradually inflated to 12-18 mm according to the size of the largest stone and the maximal diameter of the distal bile duct on the cholangiogram.Patients in Group B(control group) underwent isolated sphincterotomy.Stones were removed using a retrieval balloon catheter and/or a dormia basket.When necessary,mechanical lithotripsy was performed.Complete clearance of the bile duct was documented with a balloon catheter cholangiogram at the end of the procedure.In case of residual lithiasis,a double pigtail plastic stent was placed and a second ERCP was planned within 4-6 wk.Some patients were sent for extracorporeal lithotripsy prior to subsequent ERCP.Outcomes of EST+EPLBD(Group A) vs isolated EST(Group B) were compared regarding efficacy(complete stone clearance,number of therapeutic sessions,mechanical and/or extracorporeal lithotripsy,biliary stent placement) and safety(frequency,type and grade of complications).Statistical analysis was performed using χ 2 or Fisher’s exact tests for the analysis of categorical parameters and Student’s t test for continuous variables.A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.RESULTS:One hundred and eleven patients were included,68(61.3%) in Group A and 43(38.7%) in Group B.The mean diameter of the stones was similar in the two groups(16.8 ± 4.4 and 16.0 ± 6.7 in Groups A and B,respectively).Forty-eight(70.6%) patients in Group A and 21(48.8%) in Group B had multiple BDS(P = 0.005).Overall,balloon dilation was
文摘BACKGROUND:According to the current literature, biliary lithiasis is a worldwide-diffused condition that affects almost 20% of the general population. The rate of common bile duct stones(CBDS) in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be 10% to 33%, depending on patient’s age.Compared to stones in the gallbladder, the natural history of secondary CBDS is still not completely understood. It is not clear whether an asymptomatic choledocholithiasis requires treatment or not. For many years, open cholecystectomy with choledochotomy and/or surgical sphincterotomy and cleaning of the bile duct were the gold standard to treat both pathologies. Development of both endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) and laparoscopic surgery,together with improvements in diagnostic procedures, influenced new approaches to the management of CBDS in association with gallstones.DATA SOURCES:We decided to systematically review the literature in order to identify all the current therapeutic options for CBDS. A systematic literature search was performed independently by two authors using Pub Med, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central.RESULTS:The therapeutic approach nowadays varies greatly according to the availability of experience and expertise in each center, and includes open or laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, various combinations of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP and combined laparoendoscopic rendezvous.CONCLUSIONS:Although ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred in the majority of hospitals worldwide, the optimal treatment for concomitant gallstones and CBDS is still under debate, and greatly varies among different centers.
