Clinical effect of laparoscopy, choledochoscopy, and duodenoscopy combined with T-tube-free drainage in treatment of gallstones with common bile duct stones
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.04.029
- VernacularTitle:腹腔镜、胆道镜及十二指肠镜联合免T管引流对胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的治疗效果分析
- Author:
Yunfeng WANG
1
;
Bin XU
;
Jie WANG
;
Wenzhong ZHANG
;
Gang LI
;
Jie LING
;
Wei QIU
;
Yueming WANG
;
Yongbing WANG
Author Information
1. Department of General Surgery, Pudong New Area People’s Hospital, Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences, Shanghai 201200, China
- Publication Type:Research Article
- Keywords:
Cholecystolithiasis;
Choledocholithiasis;
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde;
Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic;
Duodenoscopy;
Drainage
- From:
Journal of Clinical Hepatology
2021;37(4):872-876
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effect of laparoscopy, choledochoscopy, and duodenoscopy combined with T-tube-free drainage in the treatment of gallstones with common bile duct stones. MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 564 patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones who were admitted to Department of General Surgery, Pudong New Area People’s Hospital, Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences, from December 2017 to December 2019. According to the surgical procedure, the patients were divided into laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) group with 191 patients, three endoscopies+laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary suture (LBEPS) group with 138 patients, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)+endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST)/endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD)+laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) group with 235 patients. The three groups were analyzed in terms of the general data including sex, age, bile duct diameter, and stone size/number, and surgical condition and complications were compared between groups. A one-way analysis of variance was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data between groups, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed continuous data between groups; the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups. ResultsThere were significant differences between the LBEPS group, the ERCP+EST/EPBD+LC group and the LTCBDE group in hospital costs, drainage volume, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay and time to extraction of drainage tube (F=416.40, 7.80, 33.99, 143.70, and 13.08, P＜0.001, P=0.020, P＜0.001, P＜0.001, and P＜0.001). Compared with the LBEPS group and ERCP+EST/EPBD+LC groups, the LTCBDE group had significantly lower hospital costs and a significantly longer time to first flatus, and significantly shorter length of hospital stay and time to extraction of drainage tube(all P＜0.05). No serious complication was observed after surgery, and there was no significant difference in the incidence rate of complications between the three groups (P＞0.05). All patients were discharged successfully after surgery. ConclusionThe three minimally invasive surgical procedures combined with T-tube-free drainage achieve the goal of little trauma and pain, fast postoperative recovery, and few serious complications, among which LTCBDE has the lowest treatment costs and the best postoperative recovery.
