Comparison of one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy and two-stage endoscopic sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones in patients over 80 years old

Seung Jae Lee, I. Choi, J. Moon, Y. Choi, Ki-Hyun Ryu
{"title":"Comparison of one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy and two-stage endoscopic sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones in patients over 80 years old","authors":"Seung Jae Lee, I. Choi, J. Moon, Y. Choi, Ki-Hyun Ryu","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2022.25.1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose This study was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with those of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) plus LC for concomitant gallbladder (GB) and common bile duct (CBD) stones in elderly patients. Methods This single-center retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients aged >80 years who were diagnosed with concomitant GB and CBD stones between January 2010 and December 2020. Results Of the 137 patients included in this study, 46 underwent one-stage LCBDE + LC and 91 underwent two-stage EST + LC. The frequency of previous gastrectomy (23.9% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.002) and multiple stones (76.1% vs. 49.5%, p = 0.003) was higher in the LCBDE + LC group than in the EST + LC group. Further, patients in LCBDE + LC group had larger CBD stones (11.9 mm vs. 6.0 mm, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clearance (91.3% vs. 95.6%, p = 0.311) and recurrence (4.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.345) rates between the groups. The incidence of posttreatment overall complications (17.4% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.530) and total hospital stay (12.7 days vs. 11.7 days, p = 0.339) were similar in the two groups. Conclusion One-stage LCBDE + LC is a safe and effective treatment for concomitant GB and CBD stones, even in elderly patients, and may be considered as the first treatment option in elderly patients with previous gastrectomy, multiple large (≥ 15 mm) CBD stones, or inability to cooperate with endoscopic procedures.","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2022.25.1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose This study was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with those of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) plus LC for concomitant gallbladder (GB) and common bile duct (CBD) stones in elderly patients. Methods This single-center retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients aged >80 years who were diagnosed with concomitant GB and CBD stones between January 2010 and December 2020. Results Of the 137 patients included in this study, 46 underwent one-stage LCBDE + LC and 91 underwent two-stage EST + LC. The frequency of previous gastrectomy (23.9% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.002) and multiple stones (76.1% vs. 49.5%, p = 0.003) was higher in the LCBDE + LC group than in the EST + LC group. Further, patients in LCBDE + LC group had larger CBD stones (11.9 mm vs. 6.0 mm, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clearance (91.3% vs. 95.6%, p = 0.311) and recurrence (4.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.345) rates between the groups. The incidence of posttreatment overall complications (17.4% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.530) and total hospital stay (12.7 days vs. 11.7 days, p = 0.339) were similar in the two groups. Conclusion One-stage LCBDE + LC is a safe and effective treatment for concomitant GB and CBD stones, even in elderly patients, and may be considered as the first treatment option in elderly patients with previous gastrectomy, multiple large (≥ 15 mm) CBD stones, or inability to cooperate with endoscopic procedures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一期腹腔镜胆总管探查加胆囊切除术与二期内镜括约肌切开术加腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗80岁以上合并胆囊、胆总管结石的比较
目的比较一期腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)加腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)与内镜下括约肌切开术(EST)加LC治疗老年合并胆囊结石(GB)和胆总管结石(CBD)的安全性和有效性。方法本研究为单中心回顾性研究,回顾2010年1月至2020年12月期间诊断为GB和CBD合并结石的80岁以上患者的病历。结果本研究纳入的137例患者中,一期LCBDE + LC 46例,二期EST + LC 91例。LCBDE + LC组既往胃切除术发生率(23.9%比5.5%,p = 0.002)和多发结石发生率(76.1%比49.5%,p = 0.003)高于EST + LC组。此外,LCBDE + LC组患者的CBD结石更大(11.9 mm比6.0 mm, p < 0.001)。两组间清除率(91.3%比95.6%,p = 0.311)和复发率(4.3%比8.8%,p = 0.345)差异无统计学意义。两组治疗后总并发症发生率(17.4%比22.0%,p = 0.530)和总住院时间(12.7天比11.7天,p = 0.339)相似。结论一期LCBDE + LC治疗合并GB和CBD结石是一种安全有效的治疗方法,即使在老年患者中也是如此,可以考虑作为既往胃切除术,多发大(≥15 mm) CBD结石或无法配合内镜手术的老年患者的首选治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute peritonitis caused by a ruptured urachal cyst accompanied by omphalitis in an adult: a case report and literature review. Analyzing the emergence of surgical robotics in Africa: a scoping review of pioneering procedures, platforms utilized, and outcome meta-analysis. Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States. Automated machine learning with R: AutoML tools for beginners in clinical research. Is prophylactic abdominal drainage mandatory in laparoscopic hemicolectomy?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1