Objective:To analyze the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and stone removal via the cystic duct with a flexible ureteroscope.Methods:The clinical data of 96 patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis who were admitted to the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, the Third Hospital of Nanchang from September 2021 to November 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 49 male and 47 female patients, aged (59.2±13.9) years. The 96 patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the surgical methods: the flexible ureteroscope group ( n=48) and the choledochotomy group ( n=48), patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus flexible ureteroscope for common bile duct exploration and stone removal via the cystic duct were included in the flexible ureteroscope group; patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus choledocholithotomy and T-tube drainage placement were included in the choledochotomy group. Clinical data including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative intestinal function recovery time, abdominal drainage tube removal time, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results:Compared with the choledochotomy group, the operation time [150 (120, 176) min vs. 197 (165, 240) min], intraoperative blood loss [20 (10, 30) ml vs. 30 (20, 50) ml], postoperative intestinal function recovery time [2 (1, 2) d vs. 3 (2, 4) d], abdominal drainage tube removal time [6 (4, 7) d vs. 7 (6, 8) d], and postoperative hospital stay [8 (6, 9) d vs. 16 (13, 17) d] in the flexible ureteroscope group were all reduced, and the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the choledochotomy group was 10.4% (5/48), compared with 2.1% (1/48) in the flexible ureteroscope group. There was no statistically significant difference ( χ2=1.60, P=0.206). Conclusion:Compared with laparoscopic choledocholithotomy plus T-tube drainage, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and stone removal via the cystic duct with a flexible ureteroscope can shorten the hospital stay of patients with choledocholithiasis, offering a minimally invasive, safe and effective treatment method.

Objective:To analyze the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and stone removal via the cystic duct with a flexible ureteroscope.Methods:The clinical data of 96 patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis who were admitted to the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, the Third Hospital of Nanchang from September 2021 to November 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 49 male and 47 female patients, aged (59.2±13.9) years. The 96 patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the surgical methods: the flexible ureteroscope group ( n=48) and the choledochotomy group ( n=48), patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus flexible ureteroscope for common bile duct exploration and stone removal via the cystic duct were included in the flexible ureteroscope group; patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus choledocholithotomy and T-tube drainage placement were included in the choledochotomy group. Clinical data including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative intestinal function recovery time, abdominal drainage tube removal time, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results:Compared with the choledochotomy group, the operation time [150 (120, 176) min vs. 197 (165, 240) min], intraoperative blood loss [20 (10, 30) ml vs. 30 (20, 50) ml], postoperative intestinal function recovery time [2 (1, 2) d vs. 3 (2, 4) d], abdominal drainage tube removal time [6 (4, 7) d vs. 7 (6, 8) d], and postoperative hospital stay [8 (6, 9) d vs. 16 (13, 17) d] in the flexible ureteroscope group were all reduced, and the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the choledochotomy group was 10.4% (5/48), compared with 2.1% (1/48) in the flexible ureteroscope group. There was no statistically significant difference ( χ2=1.60, P=0.206). Conclusion:Compared with laparoscopic choledocholithotomy plus T-tube drainage, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and stone removal via the cystic duct with a flexible ureteroscope can shorten the hospital stay of patients with choledocholithiasis, offering a minimally invasive, safe and effective treatment method.

Objective    To compare the clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube and both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube for the patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection of esophageal carcinoma. Methods    We enrolled 96 esophageal carcinoma patients who received thoracoscopic radical resection from June 2016 to October 2018. Of them, 49 patients were indwelt with both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube (a chest & mediastinal drainage group, a CMD group) while the other 47 patients were indwelt with single mediastinal drainage tube (a single mediastinal drainage group, a SMD group). The total drainage volume, intubation time and incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) between the two groups were compared. The pain score and comfort score were also compared between the two groups. Results    The total drainage volume and intubation time in the SMD group were not significantly different from those in the CMD group (1 321±421 mL vs. 1 204±545 mL, P=0.541; 6.1±3.7 d vs. 6.4 ±5.1 d, P=0.321). The incidence of postoperative complications (postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary infection, pleural effusion and anastomotic leakage) in the SMD group was not significantly different from that in the CMD group (10.6% vs. 6.1%, P=0.712; 4.3% vs. 10.2%, P=0.656; 6.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.121; 2.1% vs. 4.1%, P=0.526). The numerical rating scale (NRS) pain  scores on the first to the fifth day after surgery and during extubation in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.2±2.1 vs. 5.1±2.4, P=0.041; 2.8±0.6 vs. 4.8±1.4, P=0.015; 2.1±0.4 vs. 4.5±0.4, P=0.019; 1.7±0.7 vs. 4.0±0.8, P=0.004; 1.8±0.7 vs. 3.2±1.2, P=0.006; 1.4±0.2 vs. 2.5±3.4, P=0.012). The VAS comfort scores in the SMD group were significantly lower than those in the CMD group (3.6±1.7 vs. 6.6±3.7, P=0.018; 2.9±2.0 vs. 5.1±3.4, P=0.007; 2.1±1.4 vs. 5.5±2.4, P=0.004; 3.0±0.9 vs. 4.6±3.8, P=0.012; 1.8±1.1 vs. 4.2±2.7, P=0.003; 2.4±3.2 vs. 5.3±1.7, P=0.020). Conclusion    The clinical effect of single mediastinal drainage tube in thoracoscopic resection of esophageal carcinoma is similar to that of both mediastinal drainage tube and closed thoracic drainage tube, but it can significantly improve the comfort of the patients.