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) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (04) : 262 -266. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2023.04.005

论著

胆囊切除术后胆管损伤不同治疗方式的疗效分析
古丽米拉·亚森江, 阿依努尔·艾尔肯, 李佳隆, 郭强, 蒋铁民, 吐尔干艾力·阿吉()   
  1. 830054 乌鲁木齐,省部共建中亚高发病成因与防治国家重点实验室 新疆医科大学第一附属医院消化血管外科中心肝胆包虫病外科
  • 收稿日期:2023-02-06 出版日期:2023-08-01
  • 通信作者: 吐尔干艾力·阿吉
  • 基金资助:
    省部共建中亚高发病成因与防治国家重点实验室项目(SKL-HIDCA-2021-4)

Analysis of different treatment methods for bile duct injury after cholecystectomy

Yasenjiang Gulimila, Aierken Ayinuer, Jialong Li, Qiang Guo, Tiemin Jiang, Aji Tuerganaili()   

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary Hydatidosis, Digestive Vascular Surgery Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Pathogenesis, Prevention and Treatment of High Incidence Diseases in Central Asia,Urumqi 830054, China
  • Received:2023-02-06 Published:2023-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Aji Tuerganaili
引用本文:

古丽米拉·亚森江, 阿依努尔·艾尔肯, 李佳隆, 郭强, 蒋铁民, 吐尔干艾力·阿吉. 胆囊切除术后胆管损伤不同治疗方式的疗效分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 262-266.

Yasenjiang Gulimila, Aierken Ayinuer, Jialong Li, Qiang Guo, Tiemin Jiang, Aji Tuerganaili. Analysis of different treatment methods for bile duct injury after cholecystectomy[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 262-266.

目的

探究不同治疗方式在同一分型医源性胆管损伤(IBDI)中的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2017年10月至2022年2月新疆医科大学第一附属医院收治Ⅱ1型IBDI型患者34例临床资料,按治疗方式不同分为内镜组(13例)和外科手术组(21例)。比较两组患者住院天数、住院费用、手术前后实验室检查指标、术中出血量、手术时间、术后并发症及出院后随访情况。

结果

内镜组术后第1天总胆红素、直接胆红素水平均低于外科手术组,手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数及住院费用均少于外科手术组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组修复时机比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.095,P>0.05)。患者随访时间33.2(6.4~67.7)个月,随访有效率97.1%。近期并发症中Clavien-Dindo≥Ⅲ级9例,均为外科手术组患者。随访效果Terblanche评级:内镜组中优9例,良3例,差1例;外科手术组中优16例,良3例,差2例。两组远期疗效比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.051,P>0.05)。

结论

Ⅱ1型IBDI的治疗方法应根据损伤具体情况来决定。内镜治疗具有微创、手术时间短、术后恢复快等优势,但长期多次更换支架增加了治疗费用、住院次数和并发症可能。而在术中即时发现胆管的横断伤及伴有血管损伤时,外科手术治疗仍作为首选。

Objective

To explore the clinical efficacy of different treatment methods for the same classification of iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out including the clinical data of 34 patients with Ⅱ 1 type IBDI admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from October 2017 to February 2022. The patients were divided into the endoscopic group (13 cases) and the surgical group (21 cases) according to different treatment methods. The hospitalization days, hospitalization expenses, laboratory examination indicators before and after surgery, intraoperative bleeding, operation time, postoperative complications, and follow-up after discharge were compared between the two groups.

Results

The total bilirubin and direct bilirubin levels in the endoscopic group on the first day after surgery were lower than those in the surgical group, and the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, hospitalization days, and hospitalization expenses were lower than those in the surgical group, with statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in repair timing between the two groups (χ2=0.095, P>0.05). The patients were followed up for 33.2 (6.4-67.7) months, with a follow-up effective rate of 97.1%. Among the short-term complications, 9 patients with Clavien-Dindo≥Ⅲ were in the surgical group. Follow-up effect Terblanche rating: in the endoscopic group, 9 cases were excellent, 3 cases were good, and 1 case was poor; in the surgical group, 16 cases were excellent, 3 cases were good, and 2 cases were poor. There was no statistically significant difference in long-term efficacy between the two groups (χ2=0.051, P>0.05).

Conclusions

The treatment of Ⅱ 1 type IBDI may be determined based on the specific situation of the injury. Endoscopic therapy has the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, short operation time, and rapid postoperative recovery. However, long-term and repeated stent replacement increases treatment costs, hospital stays, and complications. Surgical treatment is still the first choice when bile duct transection and vascular injury are immediately detected during IBDI surgery.

图1 一例医源性胆总管损伤患者内镜治疗前核磁共振及ERCP影像 A、B为术前核磁,箭头所示为胆漏处;C为ERCP术中可见造影剂外溢(箭头所示)
图2 一例医源性胆管损伤患者术前核磁共振及胆管对端吻合术 箭头所示胆总管中段未显影(A);术中切除胆总管中段狭窄处,箭头所示可见结扎缝线(B)、箭头所示为切除狭窄段后行胆管对端吻合(C)
表1 两组医源性胆管损伤患者一般资料比较
表2 两组医源性胆管损伤患者肝功能指标水平比较(μmol/L,±s)
表3 两组医源性胆管损伤患者围手术期相关指标比较(±s)
[1]
中华医学会外科学分会胆道外科学组. 胆管损伤的诊断和治疗指南(2013版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2013, 12(2): 81-95.
[2]
Pucher PH, Brunt LM, Davies N, et al. Outcome trends and safety measures after 30 years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and pooled data analysis[J]. Surg Endosc, 2018, 32(5): 2175-2183.
[3]
Terblanche J, Worthley CS, Spence RA, et al. High or low hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct strictures?[J]. Surgery, 1990, 108(5): 828-834.
[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]
Thomson BN, Parks RW, Madhavan KK, et al. Early specialist repair of biliary injury[J]. Br J Surg, 2006, 93(2): 216-220.
[6]
吕少诚, 贺强, 郎韧, 等. 医源性胆管损伤外科治疗策略及疗效[J/CD]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志2021, 10(2): 181-185.
[7]
Kambakamba P, Cremen S, Möckli B, et al. Timing of surgical repair of bile duct injuries after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review[J]. World J Hepatol, 2022, 14(2): 442-455.
[8]
Eum YO, Park JK, Chun J, et al. Non-surgical treatment of post-surgical bile duct injury: clinical implications and outcomes[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2014, 20(22): 6924-6931.
[1] 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.
[2] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[3] 易明超, 汪鑫, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种T型记忆金属线在经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 599-599.
[4] 易明超, 汪鑫, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种T型记忆金属线在经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 599-599.
[5] 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.
[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] 中国研究型医院学会微创外科学专业委员会. 日间腹腔镜胆囊切除术专家共识[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(04): 193-199.
[8] 牛朝, 李波, 张万福, 靳文帝, 王春晓, 李晓刚. 腹腔镜袖状胃切除联合胆囊切除治疗肥胖合并胆囊结石安全性和疗效[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 635-639.
[9] 周后平, 袁源, 欧廷政, 李贝贝, 尚明铭, 姚本能, 宋新, 罗雪梅. 胆囊板Laennec膜间隙逆行分离联合Pringle法在困难胆囊LC术中应用(附视频)[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 540-544.
[10] 陆乔友, 寸冬云, 虞弘, 郭鹏恒, 田大广. ICG荧光胆道造影在胆囊结石合并胆囊炎患者LC术中的应用[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(03): 284-288.
[11] 田广磊, 侯梅华, 李智德, 余波锋, 马俊杰, 李婷婷, 王春, 陈伦牮, 陈雄. 胆囊结石合并混合性神经内分泌-非神经内分泌肿瘤一例报告[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(03): 342-344.
[12] 钟东. 大脑凸面脑膜瘤的个体化全程管理[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(04): 193-198.
[13] 刘家伦, 郑占乐. 跟骨载距突解剖与临床应用现状[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 188-192.
[14] 郭震天, 张宗明, 赵月, 刘立民, 张翀, 刘卓, 齐晖, 田坤. 机器学习算法预测老年急性胆囊炎术后住院时间探索[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 955-961.
[15] 马四海, 杨剑, 马显武, 张敏, 吕明礼, 李启菊, 杨轶声, 刘海生. Shamblin Ⅱ型颈动脉体瘤的诊疗及文献综述[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 467-470.
阅读次数
全文


摘要