切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2014, Vol. 08 ›› Issue (05) : 386 -389. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2014.05.011

所属专题: 文献

论著

腹腔镜下胆管切开取石一期胆管缝合应用于高龄患者的安全性探讨
张红卫1,(), 陈亚进1, 李闻达1, 黄泽坚1   
  1. 1. 510120 广州,中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院肝胆胰外科
  • 收稿日期:2013-06-01 出版日期:2014-10-01
  • 通信作者: 张红卫

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure for management of choledoch-olithiasis in elder patients

Hongwei Zhang1,(), Yajin Chen1, Wenda Li1, Zejian Huang1   

  1. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China
  • Received:2013-06-01 Published:2014-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Hongwei Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Hongwei, Email:
引用本文:

张红卫, 陈亚进, 李闻达, 黄泽坚. 腹腔镜下胆管切开取石一期胆管缝合应用于高龄患者的安全性探讨[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2014, 08(05): 386-389.

Hongwei Zhang, Yajin Chen, Wenda Li, Zejian Huang. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure for management of choledoch-olithiasis in elder patients[J/OL]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2014, 08(05): 386-389.

目的

探讨腹腔镜下胆管切开取石后一期缝合胆管而不放置胆管引流在高龄患者中的安全性和可行性。

方法

回顾性分析2007年1月至2012年10月接受腹腔镜下胆管切开取石后不放置胆管引流的高龄病例临床资料,共16例作为研究组,收集同时期接受腹腔镜下胆管切开取石不放置胆管引流管的非高龄病例20例作为对照组。对比分析两组患者的平均手术时间、住院时间、术后并发症情况等。

结果

两组患者术后均康复出院。研究组平均手术时间为(116.31±11.31)min,平均住院时间(10.19±1.22)d;而对照组平均手术时间为(106.80±10.58)min,平均住院时间(7.65±0.88)d;两组比较差异无统计学意义。两组均无胆漏、腹腔出血、膈下感染及术后阻塞性黄疸等术后并发症。两组的切口感染、肺部感染率和结石复发率差异无统计学意义。

结论

腹腔镜下胆管切开取石后一期缝合胆管而不放置胆管引流用于高龄患者是安全、可行的。

Objective

To investigate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with primary closure for management of choledocholithiasis in elder patients.

Methods

The clinical data of sixteen elder patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent primary closure of the common bile duct (without T-tube drainage) after LCBDE (group A) was compared with 20 non-elder patients who underwent the same procedure (group B). Both groups were evaluated with regard to operation time, hospital stay, and postoperative complications.

Results

The mean operation time was (116.31±11.31) minutes for group A and (106.80±10.58) minutes for group B; the hospital stay was (10.19±1.22) days for group A and (7.65±0.88) days for group B; both factors showed no significant difference. There were no bile leakage, abdominal bleeding, subphrenic infection and obstructive jaundice after operation in both groups. And there was no significant difference in incision infection, pulmonary infection and recurrence of stones in both groups.

Conculsion

It is safe and feasible for elder patients to have primary closure of the common bile duct without T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy.

表1 两组患者的一般资料
表2 两组患者术中情况和随访资料的比较
[1]
Yin Z,Xu K,Sun J, et al. Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ann Surg, 2013, 57(1):54-66.
[2]
陈剑,缪刚,李尧, 等. 胆总管汇合部微切开探查取石术的优越性[J/CD]. 中华普通外科学文献:电子版, 2013, 7(2): 114-117.
[3]
Zhang WJ,Xu GF,Wu GZ, et al. Laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct with primary closure versus T-tube drainage: a randomized clinical trial[J]. J Surg Res, 2009,157(1): e1-e5.
[4]
Leida Z,Ping B,Shuguang W, et al. A randomized comparison of primary closure and T-tube drainage of the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy[J]. Surg Endosc, 2008, 22(7): 1595-1600.
[5]
Cai H,Sun D,Sun Y, et al. Primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy[J]. World J Surg, 2012, 36(1): 164-170.
[6]
Shively EH,Richardson M,Romines R, et al. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in 90-bed rural hospital[J]. Am Surg, 2010, 76(6): 626-629.
[7]
Alhamdani A,Mahmud S,Jameel M, et al. Primary closure of choledochotomy after emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration[J]. Surg Endosc, 2008, 22(10): 2190-2195.
[8]
Zhang HW,Chen YJ,Wu CH, et al. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure for management of choledocholithiasis: a retrospective analysis and comparison with conventional T-tube drainage[J]. Am Surg,2014, 80(2): 178-181.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[4] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[5] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[6] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[7] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[8] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[9] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[10] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[11] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[12] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
[13] 郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜下肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 143-143.
[14] 李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[15] 魏丽霞, 张安澜, 周宝勇, 李明. 腹腔镜下Ⅲb型肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 145-145.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?