胆道专科病房进行肝下引流的理由:对 6140 例择期和紧急腹腔镜胆囊切除术及胆管探查术的回顾。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1007/s00423-024-03459-w
Haitham Qandeel, Israa Hayyawi, Ahmad H M Nassar, Hwei J Ng, Khurram S Khan, Subreen Hasanat, Haneen Ashour
{"title":"胆道专科病房进行肝下引流的理由:对 6140 例择期和紧急腹腔镜胆囊切除术及胆管探查术的回顾。","authors":"Haitham Qandeel, Israa Hayyawi, Ahmad H M Nassar, Hwei J Ng, Khurram S Khan, Subreen Hasanat, Haneen Ashour","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03459-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Drains are used to reduce abdominal collections after procedures where such risk exists. Using abdominal drains after cholecystectomy has been controversial since the open surgery era. Universally accepted indications and agreement exist that routine drainage is unnecessary but the role of selective drainage remains undetermined. This study evaluates the indications and benefits of sub-hepatic drainage in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and bile duct exploration (BDE) in a specialist unit with a large biliary emergency workload.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospectively collected data from 6,140 LCs with a 46.6% emergency workload over 30 years was reviewed. Demographic factors, pre-operative presentations, imaging and operative details in patients with and without drains were compared. Sub-hepatic drains were inserted after all transductal explorations, subtotal cholecystectomies, almost all open conversions and 94% of LC for empyemas. Adverse or beneficial postoperative drain-related outcomes were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Abdominal drains were utilised in 3225/6140 (52.5%). Patients were significantly older with more males. 59.4% were emergency admissions. Preoperative imaging showed thick-walled gallbladders in 25.2% and bile duct stones or dilatation in 36.2%. At operation they had cystic duct stones in 19.8%, acute cholecystitis, empyema or mucocele in 28.4% and operative difficulty grades III or higher in 59%. 38% underwent BDE, 5.4% had fundus-first dissection and the operating times were longer ( 80 vs.45 min). Drain related complications were rare; 3 abdominal pains after anaesthetic recovery settling when drains were removed, 2 drain site infections and one re-laparoscopy to retrieve a retracted drain. 55.8% of 43 bile leaks and 35% of 20 other collections in patients with drains resolved spontaneously.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The utilisation of drains in this study was relatively high due to the high emergency workload and interest in BDE. While drains allowed early detection of bile leakage, avoiding some complications and monitoring conservative management to allow early reinterventions, the study has identified operative criteria that could potentially limit drain insertion through a selective policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Rationale of sub-hepatic drainage on a specialist biliary unit: a review of 6140 elective and urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomies and bile duct explorations.\",\"authors\":\"Haitham Qandeel, Israa Hayyawi, Ahmad H M Nassar, Hwei J Ng, Khurram S Khan, Subreen Hasanat, Haneen Ashour\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-024-03459-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Drains are used to reduce abdominal collections after procedures where such risk exists. Using abdominal drains after cholecystectomy has been controversial since the open surgery era. Universally accepted indications and agreement exist that routine drainage is unnecessary but the role of selective drainage remains undetermined. This study evaluates the indications and benefits of sub-hepatic drainage in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and bile duct exploration (BDE) in a specialist unit with a large biliary emergency workload.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospectively collected data from 6,140 LCs with a 46.6% emergency workload over 30 years was reviewed. Demographic factors, pre-operative presentations, imaging and operative details in patients with and without drains were compared. Sub-hepatic drains were inserted after all transductal explorations, subtotal cholecystectomies, almost all open conversions and 94% of LC for empyemas. Adverse or beneficial postoperative drain-related outcomes were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Abdominal drains were utilised in 3225/6140 (52.5%). Patients were significantly older with more males. 59.4% were emergency admissions. Preoperative imaging showed thick-walled gallbladders in 25.2% and bile duct stones or dilatation in 36.2%. At operation they had cystic duct stones in 19.8%, acute cholecystitis, empyema or mucocele in 28.4% and operative difficulty grades III or higher in 59%. 38% underwent BDE, 5.4% had fundus-first dissection and the operating times were longer ( 80 vs.45 min). Drain related complications were rare; 3 abdominal pains after anaesthetic recovery settling when drains were removed, 2 drain site infections and one re-laparoscopy to retrieve a retracted drain. 55.8% of 43 bile leaks and 35% of 20 other collections in patients with drains resolved spontaneously.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The utilisation of drains in this study was relatively high due to the high emergency workload and interest in BDE. While drains allowed early detection of bile leakage, avoiding some complications and monitoring conservative management to allow early reinterventions, the study has identified operative criteria that could potentially limit drain insertion through a selective policy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03459-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03459-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在存在腹腔积液风险的手术后,引流管被用来减少腹腔积液。自开放手术时代以来,胆囊切除术后使用腹腔引流一直存在争议。普遍接受的适应症和共识是常规引流是不必要的,但选择性引流的作用仍未确定。本研究评估了在一家胆道急诊工作量较大的专科医院接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)和胆管探查术(BDE)的患者进行肝下引流的适应症和益处:方法:回顾了 30 年来从 6,140 例腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)和 46.6% 急诊工作量中收集的前瞻性数据。比较了有引流管和无引流管患者的人口统计学因素、术前表现、影像学和手术细节。在所有经导管探查术、胆囊次全切术、几乎所有开腹转流术和94%的肝积液LC术后都插入了肝下引流管。对术后与引流管相关的不利或有利结果进行了分析:3225/6140(52.5%)例患者使用了腹腔引流管。患者年龄明显偏大,男性居多。59.4%的患者为急诊入院。术前造影显示,25.2%的患者为厚壁胆囊,36.2%的患者为胆管结石或扩张。手术时,19.8%的患者有胆囊管结石,28.4%的患者有急性胆囊炎、胆囊水肿或粘液瘤,59%的患者手术难度达到或超过III级。38%的患者进行了BDE手术,5.4%的患者先进行了胃底剥离,手术时间较长(80分钟对45分钟)。与引流管相关的并发症很少发生:3例在麻醉恢复后拔出引流管时出现腹痛,2例引流管部位感染,1例重新进行腹腔镜检查以取出回缩的引流管。使用引流管的患者中,43例胆汁渗漏中55.8%的患者和20例其他积液中35%的患者可自行缓解:本研究中引流管的使用率相对较高,这是因为急诊工作量大以及对 BDE 的关注。虽然引流管可以及早发现胆漏,避免一些并发症,并对保守治疗进行监测,以便及早进行再干预,但这项研究发现了一些手术标准,有可能通过选择性政策限制引流管的插入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Rationale of sub-hepatic drainage on a specialist biliary unit: a review of 6140 elective and urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomies and bile duct explorations.

Background: Drains are used to reduce abdominal collections after procedures where such risk exists. Using abdominal drains after cholecystectomy has been controversial since the open surgery era. Universally accepted indications and agreement exist that routine drainage is unnecessary but the role of selective drainage remains undetermined. This study evaluates the indications and benefits of sub-hepatic drainage in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and bile duct exploration (BDE) in a specialist unit with a large biliary emergency workload.

Methods: Prospectively collected data from 6,140 LCs with a 46.6% emergency workload over 30 years was reviewed. Demographic factors, pre-operative presentations, imaging and operative details in patients with and without drains were compared. Sub-hepatic drains were inserted after all transductal explorations, subtotal cholecystectomies, almost all open conversions and 94% of LC for empyemas. Adverse or beneficial postoperative drain-related outcomes were analysed.

Results: Abdominal drains were utilised in 3225/6140 (52.5%). Patients were significantly older with more males. 59.4% were emergency admissions. Preoperative imaging showed thick-walled gallbladders in 25.2% and bile duct stones or dilatation in 36.2%. At operation they had cystic duct stones in 19.8%, acute cholecystitis, empyema or mucocele in 28.4% and operative difficulty grades III or higher in 59%. 38% underwent BDE, 5.4% had fundus-first dissection and the operating times were longer ( 80 vs.45 min). Drain related complications were rare; 3 abdominal pains after anaesthetic recovery settling when drains were removed, 2 drain site infections and one re-laparoscopy to retrieve a retracted drain. 55.8% of 43 bile leaks and 35% of 20 other collections in patients with drains resolved spontaneously.

Conclusions: The utilisation of drains in this study was relatively high due to the high emergency workload and interest in BDE. While drains allowed early detection of bile leakage, avoiding some complications and monitoring conservative management to allow early reinterventions, the study has identified operative criteria that could potentially limit drain insertion through a selective policy.

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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
期刊最新文献
Intensified outpatient nutrition management improves body weight and skeletal muscle loss after esophageal cancer surgery: a single-center, retrospective, single-arm clinical study. Assessment of first-touch skills in robotic surgical training using hi-Sim and the hinotori surgical robot system among surgeons and novices. Comparing surgical outcomes of powered versus manual surgical staplers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 3D vs. 2D-4 K: Performance and self-perception of laparoscopic novices in a randomized prospective teaching intervention using standard tasks and box trainers. Research methodologies for eliciting patients' preferences in invasive procedures: a scoping review.
×
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