胆道支架或旁路手术治疗无法切除的胰腺癌伴梗阻性黄疸。

Acta chirurgica Scandinavica Pub Date : 1990-05-01
M K Hyöty, I H Nordback
{"title":"胆道支架或旁路手术治疗无法切除的胰腺癌伴梗阻性黄疸。","authors":"M K Hyöty,&nbsp;I H Nordback","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To investigate the effects of surgical and non-surgical palliation of jaundice in unresectable pancreatic carcinoma this retrospective study was performed. Between 1980 and 1983 90 patients were treated of whom 54 (69%) were jaundiced. Of these 36 were treated with biliary bypass (67%), four underwent resection (7%), five were treated by percutaneous drainage (9%) and nine (17%) were in such poor general condition that no treatment for jaundice was possible. Ninety-eight patients were treated between 1984 and 1987 when the initial approach to palliation of jaundice was endoscopic stenting. Transhepatic drainage was used only if stenting failed, and operation only if both non-surgical methods failed. Seventy-two of the 98 patients (73%) were jaundiced, of whom 18 (25%) received a stent placed endoscopically, 11 (15%) underwent transhepatic drainage, 27 (38%) underwent biliary bypass, and 14 (19%) underwent pancreatic resection. Significantly fewer patients in the second group could not be treated because of their poor general condition (n = 2, 3%, p less than 0.02). There were no differences among the methods in overall and 30 day complication rates, or the length of hospital stay, but the late complication rate was 1/63 (2%) for biliary bypass compared with 7/29 (24%) for biliary stenting (p less than 0.001). The difference was because of the high incidence of blockage of the stents causing recurrent jaundice, but the stents could easily be replaced. There was no difference in mortality between the two periods. We conclude that stenting is an acceptable alternative to biliary decompression in the treatment of obstructive jaundice in unresectable pancreatic cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":7005,"journal":{"name":"Acta chirurgica Scandinavica","volume":"156 5","pages":"391-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biliary stent or surgical bypass in unresectable pancreatic cancer with obstructive jaundice.\",\"authors\":\"M K Hyöty,&nbsp;I H Nordback\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To investigate the effects of surgical and non-surgical palliation of jaundice in unresectable pancreatic carcinoma this retrospective study was performed. Between 1980 and 1983 90 patients were treated of whom 54 (69%) were jaundiced. Of these 36 were treated with biliary bypass (67%), four underwent resection (7%), five were treated by percutaneous drainage (9%) and nine (17%) were in such poor general condition that no treatment for jaundice was possible. Ninety-eight patients were treated between 1984 and 1987 when the initial approach to palliation of jaundice was endoscopic stenting. Transhepatic drainage was used only if stenting failed, and operation only if both non-surgical methods failed. Seventy-two of the 98 patients (73%) were jaundiced, of whom 18 (25%) received a stent placed endoscopically, 11 (15%) underwent transhepatic drainage, 27 (38%) underwent biliary bypass, and 14 (19%) underwent pancreatic resection. Significantly fewer patients in the second group could not be treated because of their poor general condition (n = 2, 3%, p less than 0.02). There were no differences among the methods in overall and 30 day complication rates, or the length of hospital stay, but the late complication rate was 1/63 (2%) for biliary bypass compared with 7/29 (24%) for biliary stenting (p less than 0.001). The difference was because of the high incidence of blockage of the stents causing recurrent jaundice, but the stents could easily be replaced. There was no difference in mortality between the two periods. We conclude that stenting is an acceptable alternative to biliary decompression in the treatment of obstructive jaundice in unresectable pancreatic cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta chirurgica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"156 5\",\"pages\":\"391-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta chirurgica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta chirurgica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了探讨手术和非手术对不能切除的胰腺癌黄疸的缓解效果,我们进行了回顾性研究。1980年至1983年间,90例患者接受了治疗,其中54例(69%)为黄疸。其中36例行胆道搭桥治疗(67%),4例行胆道切除术(7%),5例经皮引流(9%),9例(17%)一般情况较差,无法治疗黄疸。1984年至1987年间,98名患者接受了内窥镜支架置入术治疗。只有在支架植入失败时才使用经肝引流,只有在两种非手术方法都失败时才使用手术。98例患者中72例(73%)出现黄疸,其中18例(25%)接受了内镜下支架放置,11例(15%)接受了经肝引流,27例(38%)接受了胆道绕道,14例(19%)接受了胰腺切除术。第二组因一般情况较差而无法治疗的患者明显减少(n = 2.3%, p < 0.02)。两种方法在总并发症发生率和30天并发症发生率以及住院时间方面均无差异,但胆道绕道的晚期并发症发生率为1/63(2%),而胆道支架置入术的晚期并发症发生率为7/29 (24%)(p < 0.001)。不同的原因是支架堵塞的发生率高,导致黄疸复发,但支架很容易更换。这两个时期的死亡率没有差别。我们的结论是,支架植入术是胆道减压治疗梗阻性黄疸的不可切除的胰腺癌的可接受的替代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Biliary stent or surgical bypass in unresectable pancreatic cancer with obstructive jaundice.

To investigate the effects of surgical and non-surgical palliation of jaundice in unresectable pancreatic carcinoma this retrospective study was performed. Between 1980 and 1983 90 patients were treated of whom 54 (69%) were jaundiced. Of these 36 were treated with biliary bypass (67%), four underwent resection (7%), five were treated by percutaneous drainage (9%) and nine (17%) were in such poor general condition that no treatment for jaundice was possible. Ninety-eight patients were treated between 1984 and 1987 when the initial approach to palliation of jaundice was endoscopic stenting. Transhepatic drainage was used only if stenting failed, and operation only if both non-surgical methods failed. Seventy-two of the 98 patients (73%) were jaundiced, of whom 18 (25%) received a stent placed endoscopically, 11 (15%) underwent transhepatic drainage, 27 (38%) underwent biliary bypass, and 14 (19%) underwent pancreatic resection. Significantly fewer patients in the second group could not be treated because of their poor general condition (n = 2, 3%, p less than 0.02). There were no differences among the methods in overall and 30 day complication rates, or the length of hospital stay, but the late complication rate was 1/63 (2%) for biliary bypass compared with 7/29 (24%) for biliary stenting (p less than 0.001). The difference was because of the high incidence of blockage of the stents causing recurrent jaundice, but the stents could easily be replaced. There was no difference in mortality between the two periods. We conclude that stenting is an acceptable alternative to biliary decompression in the treatment of obstructive jaundice in unresectable pancreatic cancer.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis. Atrial septal defects. Prevention of adhesions by high molecular weight dextran in rats. Re-evaluation in nine experiments. Relevant factors in the prognosis of ductal pancreatic carcinoma. A comparison of polypropylene mesh, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene patch and polyglycolic acid mesh for the repair of experimental abdominal wall defects.
×
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