切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华普通外科学文献(电子版)

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (03) : 208 -212. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2019.03.009

所属专题： 文献；

论著

腹腔镜胆总管结石探查后胆总管不同闭合方式的对比研究
张海雄1, 陈焕伟2,†()   
  1. 1. 528000　佛山市禅城中心医院消化一区
    2. 528000　佛山市第一人民医院肝胆外科
  • 收稿日期:2018-10-30 出版日期:2019-06-01
  • 通信作者: 陈焕伟

Comparative study of different bile duct closure methods for laparoscopic common bile duct discovery for choledocholithiasis

Haixiong Zhang1, Huanwei Chen2,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Digestion Medicine, Chancheng Central Hospital of Foshan, Foshan 528000, China
    2. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, theFirst People’s Hospital of Foshan, Foshan 528000, China
  • Received:2018-10-30 Published:2019-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Huanwei Chen
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Chen Huanwei, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

张海雄, 陈焕伟. 腹腔镜胆总管结石探查后胆总管不同闭合方式的对比研究[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2019, 13(03): 208-212.

Haixiong Zhang, Huanwei Chen. Comparative study of different bile duct closure methods for laparoscopic common bile duct discovery for choledocholithiasis[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 208-212.

目的

探讨腹腔镜胆总管结石探查后不同胆总管闭合方式的治疗效果。

方法

回顾性分析2012年6月至2017年5月佛山市第一人民医院和佛山市禅城中心医院298例行腹腔镜胆囊切除和同期胆总管取石患者的临床资料。比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术和胆总管探查术后胆总管不同闭合方式患者的严重并发症发生率（Clavien-Dindo分级≥Ⅲ级）、术后胆漏发生率（Grade分级A/B/C）、住院时间、再入院率、胆总管结石复发和其他相关并发症。

结果

74例（24.8%）行胆总管一期缝合术，118例（39.6%）行T管引流术，106例（35.6%）行胆总管支架引流术。一期缝合、T管引流术以及内支架引流的患者住院时间分别为2~30（5.8±3.7） d、7~75（11.6±8.9） d和7~56（9.8±5.1） d，差异有统计学意义（F=5.96，P=0.04）；再入院率分别为0（0/74）、10.2%（12/118）、5.7%（6/106），差异有统计学意义（χ2=8.25，P=0.02）；术后总并发症发生率分别为28.4%（21/74）、31.4%（37/118）、27.4%（29/106），严重并发症的发生率分别为0（0/74）、7.6%（9/118）、4.7%（5/106），差异有统计学意义（χ2=6.52，P=0.04）；术后胆漏并发症分别为23.0%（17/74）、16.9%（20/118）和8.5%（9/106），差异有统计学意义（χ2=7.34，P=0.02）。但胆总管一期缝合术无C级胆漏发生，B级胆漏通过延长引流而治愈；术后结石复发率分别为2.7%（2/74）、4.2%（5/118）、11.3%（12/106），差异有统计学意义（χ2=6.91，P=0.03）。

结论

腹腔镜胆总管结石探查术后采用T管引流和内支架植入并不能带来更多的益处，反而有较多相关的并发症。尽管胆总管一期缝合容易出现术后胆漏，但很少出现严重的并发症。

关键词: 胆总管结石, 腹腔镜检查, 伤口闭合技术, 引流术, 支架, 一期缝合
Objective

To analyze the therapeutic effect of different bile duct closure methods for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis.

Methods

The clinical data of two hundred and ninety-eight patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and choledocholithotomy from June 2012 to May 2017 in Chancheng Central Hospital of Foshan and the First People’s Hospital of Foshan were retrospectively analyzed. The incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo> III), the incidence of bile leakage (Grade A/B/C), hospitalization time, re-admission rate, recurrence of common bile duct stones and other related complications were compared among patients with different closure modes of common bile duct.

Results

There were 74 cases (24.8%) undergoing primary suture of common bile duct, 118 cases (39.6%) undergoing T-tube drainage and 106 cases (35.6%) undergoing stent drainage. The hospitalization time of patients with primary suture, T-tube drainage and stent drainage was 2-30 (5.8±3.7) days, 7-75 (11.6±8.9) days and 7-56 (9.8±5.1) days, respectively, the difference was statistically significant (F=5.96, P=0.04); the re-admission rates were 0 (0/74), 10.2% (12/118) and 5.7% (6/106), respectively (χ2=8.25, P=0.02); the total incidence of postoperative complications was 28.4% (21/74), 31.4% (37/118) and 27.4% (29/106) and the incidence of severe complications was 0 (0/74), 7.6% (9/118) and 4.7% (5/106), respectively, the difference was statistically significant (χ2=6.52, P=0.04); postoperative complications of biliary leakage was 23.0% (17/74), 16.9% (20/118) and 8.5% (9/106), respectively (χ2=7.34, P=0.02). However, Grade C bile leakage did not occur in primary suture of common bile duct and Grade B bile leakage was cured by prolonging drainage. Postoperative stone recurrence rates of patients with primary suture, T-tube drainage and stent drainage were 2.7% (2/74), 4.2% (5/118) and 11.3% (12/106), with statistically significant difference (χ2=6.91, P=0.03).

Conclusions

T-tube drainage and stent implantation after laparoscopic choledocholithotomy do not bring more benefits, on the contrary, there are many related complications. Although primary suture of common bile duct is prone to bile leakage after operation, there are few serious complications.

Key words: Choledocholithiasis, Laparoscopy, Wound closure techniques, Drainage, Stents, Primary suture
表1 胆总管不同闭合方式患者的一般情况比较
闭合方式 例数 年龄(岁)a 性别(男/女，例) 腹部手术史(例) 临床症状(例) ASA评分(例)
无症状 腹痛 发热 黄疸 胰腺炎 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ
一期缝合 74 55±12 43/31 3 4 63 26 48 7 11 48 15
T管引流 118 58±11 65/53 7 11 98 42 77 13 18 78 22
内支架引流 106 54±12 59/47 7 9 87 38 67 12 16 70 20
统计值 ? 0.27 0.18 0.55 0.98 0.30 0.01 0.11 0.17 0.05 0.04 0.08
P值 ? 0.54 0.91 0.76 0.61 0.86 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.98 0.96
闭合方式 合并疾病(例) 胆总管直径(mm)a 并发肝内胆管结石(例) 取石方式(例)b
糖尿病 高血压 心脏疾病 肺部疾病 肝硬化 冲洗 球囊导管扩张 网篮
一期缝合 14 28 7 9 3 11±2 4 52 16 48
T管引流 23 36 12 14 5 12±3 9 84 21 72
内支架引流 20 42 9 11 3 11±2 8 76 19 67
统计值 0.02 2.24 0.19 0.18 0.35 0.18 0.41 0.04 0.52 0.30
P值 0.99 0.33 0.91 0.92 0.84 0.65 0.82 0.98 0.77 0.86
表2 胆总管不同闭合方式患者术后胆道相关并发症情况比较[例(%)]
闭合方式 例数 胆道感染 胆漏 胆道狭窄 胆道出血 急性胰腺炎 T管脱落 内支架无法排出 并发症例数
一期缝合 74 1(1.3) 17(23.0) 0(0) 2(2.7) 1(1.3) 0(0) 0(0) 21(28.4)
T管引流 118 11(9.3) 20(16.9) 0(0) 2(1.7) 1(0.8) 3(2.5) 0(0) 37(31.4)
内支架引流 106 4(3.4) 9(8.5) 1(0.9) 4(3.8) 8(7.5) 0(0) 3(2.8) 29(27.4)
χ2值 ? 7.72 7.34 1.81 0.92 8.95 4.62 5.39 0.46
P值 ? 0.02 0.02 0.40 0.63 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.79
表3 胆总管不同闭合方式患者术后胆漏并发症严重程度以及Clavien-Dindo分级
闭合方式 胆漏严重程度 Ⅰ级 Ⅱ级 Ⅲa级 Ⅲb级 Ⅳa级 Ⅳb级 合计
一期缝合 ? 14 7 0 0 0 0 21
? 无胆漏 2 2 0 0 0 0 4
? A级 10 4 0 0 0 0 14
? B级 2 1 0 0 0 0 3
? C级 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T管引流 ? 12 16 4 3 1 1 37
? 无胆漏 2 12 1 1 1 0 17
? A级 9 3 0 0 0 0 12
? B级 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
? C级 0 0 3 2 0 1 6
内支架引流 ? 11 15 3 2 0 0 31
? 无胆漏 6 13 2 1 0 0 22
? A级 4 1 0 0 0 0 5
? B级 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
? C级 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
[1]
李志钰, 冯亮, 尹飞飞, 等. 胆囊结石合并胆总管结石诊治进展[J]. 中国综合临床, 2014, 30(11): 1227-1229.
[2]
Samardzie J, Latic F, Kraljik D, et al. Treatment of common bile duct stones-is the role of ERCP chaged in era of minimally invasive surgery?[J]. Med Arh, 2010, 64(3): 187-188.
[3]
Dasari BV, Tan CJ, Gurusamy KS, et al. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, 3(9): CD003327.
[4]
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6 336 patients and results of a survey[J]. Ann Surg, 2004, 240(2): 205-213.
[5]
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: A definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery[J]. Surgery, 2011, 149(5): 680-688.

URL    
[6]
Bansal VK, Misra MC, Rajan K, et al. Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones: A randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2014, 28(3): 875-885.

URL    
[7]
Ding G, Cai W, Qin M. Single-stage vs two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: A prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up[J]. J Gastroinest Surg, 2014, 18(5): 947-951.
[8]
Pan L, Chen M, Ji L, et al. The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: An up-to-date Meta-analysis[J]. Ann Surg, 2018, 268(2): 247-253.
[9]
Baucom RB, Feurer ID, Shelton JS, et al. Surgeons, ERCP, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: Do we need a standard approach for common bile duct stones?[J]. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(2): 414-423.
[10]
Zhang W, Li G, Chen YL. Should T-tube drainage be performed for choledocholithiasis after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration? A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2017, 27(6): 415-423.
[11]
邵文浩, 徐钧. 腹腔镜胆总管探查术与内置管引流术的临床应用进展[J]. 中国临床实用医学, 2017, 8(4): 100-102.
[12]
Lyon M, Menon S, Jain A, et al. Use of biliary stent in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015, 15, 29(5): 1094-1098.
[13]
吴鹏, 方路, 付小伟, 等. 单向倒刺线与普通可吸收线在腹腔镜胆总管切开取石一期缝合术中应用的对比研究[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2016, 22(9): 52-56.

URL    
[14]
He MY, Zhou XD, Chen H, et al. Various approaches of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus primary duct closure for choledocholithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2018, 17(3): 183-191.
[1] 郭璐琦, 赵雅琦, 李霁欣, 周兰, 林金鹏, 张子砚, 李俊杰, 王少白. 免荷矫形器对膝骨关节炎的生物力学影响的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 560-565.
[2] 刘虹宏, 杨永红, 张冬花, 林运. 老年冠脉分叉病变主支支架植入后在损伤边支使用药物涂层球囊进行修复的临床研究[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(05): 387-393.
[3] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[4] 鲁鑫, 许佳怡, 刘洋, 杨琴, 鞠雯雯, 徐缨龙. 早期LC术与PTCD续贯LC术治疗急性胆囊炎对患者肝功能及预后的影响比较[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 648-650.
[5] 张海涛, 康婵娟, 翟静洁. 胰管支架置入治疗急性胆源性胰腺炎效果观察[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 654-657.
[6] 张建波, 东爱华. 不同腹腔镜手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效及并发症对比[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 693-696.
[7] 钟文文, 李科, 刘碧好, 蔡炳, 脱颖, 叶雷, 马波, 瞿虎, 汪中扬, 王德娟, 邱剑光. 不同比例聚乳酸/丝素蛋白复合支架在兔尿道缺损修复中的疗效[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 516-522.
[8] 杨海龙, 邓满军, 樊羿辰, 徐梦钰, 陈芳德, 吴威浩, 张生元. 腹腔镜胆总管探查术一期缝合术后胆漏危险因素Meta分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 545-550.
[9] 张天献, 吕云福, 郑进方. 胆总管结石微创治疗进展[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 585-588.
[10] 周标, 陈达伟, 汤晓东, 陈胜, 刘双海, 邓志成. 腹腔镜下经胆囊管汇入部微切开取石在细径胆总管结石合并胆囊结石中的应用[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 422-426.
[11] 刘虎, 崔昭扬, 乐羿, 杨豪, 张绍庚. 胰十二指肠切除术后胰管支架管致肝脓肿一例并文献复习[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 444-448.
[12] 范小彧, 孙司正, 鄂一民, 喻春钊. 梗阻性左半结肠癌不同手术治疗方案的选择应用[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 500-504.
[13] 运陌, 李茂芳, 王浩, 刘东远. 微创穿刺引流联合吡拉西坦、乌拉地尔治疗基底节区高血压性脑出血的临床研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 278-285.
[14] 吴佳霖, 罗骏阳, 钟胜, 王有枝, 姜在波. 肝内小直径覆膜支架联合抽栓、溶栓治疗门静脉血栓二例[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 377-379.
[15] 袁畅, 李志刚. 胸部恶性肿瘤相关气管食管瘘的诊治进展[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(04): 241-246.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号