LCBDE+LC与ERCP/EST+LC治疗胆石症合并胆总管结石的短期疗效:一项回顾性队列研究。

Fuguo Liu, Lunhe Ye, Yongkun Wang, Zinan Zhao, Muladili Mutailipu, Xujing Wang, Qiqi Zhang, Bo Chen, Ran Cui
{"title":"LCBDE+LC与ERCP/EST+LC治疗胆石症合并胆总管结石的短期疗效:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Fuguo Liu, Lunhe Ye, Yongkun Wang, Zinan Zhao, Muladili Mutailipu, Xujing Wang, Qiqi Zhang, Bo Chen, Ran Cui","doi":"10.1089/lap.2024.0345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Minimally invasive treatments for cholelithiasis have gained popularity. The complexity of diagnosing and treating choledocholithiasis offers multiple surgical options, including laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and/or endoscopic sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/EST+LC). <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To compare outcomes in patients with typical signs, symptoms, laboratory, and imaging features of cholelithiasis combined with common bile duct stones, we retrospectively analyzed the short-term outcomes of LCBDE+LC and ERCP/EST+LC. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We analyzed 318 patients with gallbladder stones treated between January 2022 and May 2024. Of these, 152 underwent LCBDE+LC, and 166 underwent ERCP/EST+LC. We compared patients' baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and short-term complications between the two groups. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of choledochal stone removal, while secondary outcomes included length of stay, hospitalization costs, and patient satisfaction. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients' baseline characteristics were similar between the LCBDE+LC and ERCP/EST+LC groups. Stone clearance rates were comparable (97.37% versus 95.18%, <i>P</i> = .306), with a slight advantage in the LCBDE+LC group. The length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the LCBDE+LC group (6.49 ± 1.18 days versus 6.77 ± 1.11 days, <i>P</i> < .05). The LCBDE+LC group also had lower total hospitalization costs ($5188.78 ± 861.26 versus $6498.76 ± 1190.58 <i>P</i> < .01). Additionally, the incidence of pancreatitis was lower in the LCBDE+LC group (0.66% versus 6.02%, <i>P</i> < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups in other short-term complications such as abdominal infection, cholangitis, biliary bleeding, or bile leakage. Postoperative follow-up indicated higher patient satisfaction and acceptance in the LCBDE+LC group (SSQ-8, 85.84 ± 4.31 points versus 81.20 ± 4.54 points, <i>P</i> < .01). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our findings suggest that the LCBDE+LC holds promise as a safe and efficacious approach for the management of cholelithiasis combined with common bile duct stones. However, further prospective clinical trials are essential to corroborate these results and confirm their broader applicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Short-Term Efficacy of LCBDE+LC Versus ERCP/EST+LC in the Treatment of Cholelithiasis Combined with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Fuguo Liu, Lunhe Ye, Yongkun Wang, Zinan Zhao, Muladili Mutailipu, Xujing Wang, Qiqi Zhang, Bo Chen, Ran Cui\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/lap.2024.0345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Minimally invasive treatments for cholelithiasis have gained popularity. The complexity of diagnosing and treating choledocholithiasis offers multiple surgical options, including laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and/or endoscopic sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/EST+LC). <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To compare outcomes in patients with typical signs, symptoms, laboratory, and imaging features of cholelithiasis combined with common bile duct stones, we retrospectively analyzed the short-term outcomes of LCBDE+LC and ERCP/EST+LC. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We analyzed 318 patients with gallbladder stones treated between January 2022 and May 2024. Of these, 152 underwent LCBDE+LC, and 166 underwent ERCP/EST+LC. We compared patients' baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and short-term complications between the two groups. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of choledochal stone removal, while secondary outcomes included length of stay, hospitalization costs, and patient satisfaction. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients' baseline characteristics were similar between the LCBDE+LC and ERCP/EST+LC groups. Stone clearance rates were comparable (97.37% versus 95.18%, <i>P</i> = .306), with a slight advantage in the LCBDE+LC group. The length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the LCBDE+LC group (6.49 ± 1.18 days versus 6.77 ± 1.11 days, <i>P</i> < .05). The LCBDE+LC group also had lower total hospitalization costs ($5188.78 ± 861.26 versus $6498.76 ± 1190.58 <i>P</i> < .01). Additionally, the incidence of pancreatitis was lower in the LCBDE+LC group (0.66% versus 6.02%, <i>P</i> < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups in other short-term complications such as abdominal infection, cholangitis, biliary bleeding, or bile leakage. Postoperative follow-up indicated higher patient satisfaction and acceptance in the LCBDE+LC group (SSQ-8, 85.84 ± 4.31 points versus 81.20 ± 4.54 points, <i>P</i> < .01). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our findings suggest that the LCBDE+LC holds promise as a safe and efficacious approach for the management of cholelithiasis combined with common bile duct stones. However, further prospective clinical trials are essential to corroborate these results and confirm their broader applicability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2024.0345\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2024.0345","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胆总管结石的微创治疗越来越受欢迎。胆总管结石诊断和治疗的复杂性提供了多种手术选择,包括腹腔镜胆总管探查加腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LCBDE+LC)和内镜逆行胰胆管造影术和/或内镜括约肌切开术加腹腔镜胆囊切除术(ERCP/EST+LC)。目的为了比较具有典型症状、体征、实验室和影像学特征的胆石症合并胆总管结石患者的治疗效果,我们回顾性分析了LCBDE+LC和ERCP/EST+LC的短期治疗效果。方法:我们分析了 2022 年 1 月至 2024 年 5 月间接受治疗的 318 例胆囊结石患者。其中152人接受了LCBDE+LC治疗,166人接受了ERCP/EST+LC治疗。我们比较了两组患者的基线特征、围手术期结果和短期并发症。主要结果是胆总管结石取出的有效性,次要结果包括住院时间、住院费用和患者满意度。结果LCBDE+LC组和ERCP/EST+LC组患者的基线特征相似。结石清除率相当(97.37% 对 95.18%,P = .306),LCBDE+LC 组略胜一筹。LCBDE+LC 组的住院时间明显更短(6.49 ± 1.18 天对 6.77 ± 1.11 天,P < .05)。LCBDE+LC 组的住院总费用也较低(5188.78 美元 ± 861.26 对 6498.76 美元 ± 1190.58,P < .01)。此外,LCBDE+LC 组的胰腺炎发病率较低(0.66% 对 6.02%,P < .01)。在腹腔感染、胆管炎、胆道出血或胆汁渗漏等其他短期并发症方面,两组之间没有明显差异。术后随访显示,LCBDE+LC 组患者的满意度和接受度更高(SSQ-8,85.84 ± 4.31 分对 81.20 ± 4.54 分,P < .01)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,LCBDE+LC 是治疗胆石症合并胆总管结石的一种安全有效的方法。然而,进一步的前瞻性临床试验对于证实这些结果并确认其更广泛的适用性至关重要。
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
Short-Term Efficacy of LCBDE+LC Versus ERCP/EST+LC in the Treatment of Cholelithiasis Combined with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Minimally invasive treatments for cholelithiasis have gained popularity. The complexity of diagnosing and treating choledocholithiasis offers multiple surgical options, including laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and/or endoscopic sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/EST+LC). Objective: To compare outcomes in patients with typical signs, symptoms, laboratory, and imaging features of cholelithiasis combined with common bile duct stones, we retrospectively analyzed the short-term outcomes of LCBDE+LC and ERCP/EST+LC. Methods: We analyzed 318 patients with gallbladder stones treated between January 2022 and May 2024. Of these, 152 underwent LCBDE+LC, and 166 underwent ERCP/EST+LC. We compared patients' baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and short-term complications between the two groups. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of choledochal stone removal, while secondary outcomes included length of stay, hospitalization costs, and patient satisfaction. Results: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar between the LCBDE+LC and ERCP/EST+LC groups. Stone clearance rates were comparable (97.37% versus 95.18%, P = .306), with a slight advantage in the LCBDE+LC group. The length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the LCBDE+LC group (6.49 ± 1.18 days versus 6.77 ± 1.11 days, P < .05). The LCBDE+LC group also had lower total hospitalization costs ($5188.78 ± 861.26 versus $6498.76 ± 1190.58 P < .01). Additionally, the incidence of pancreatitis was lower in the LCBDE+LC group (0.66% versus 6.02%, P < .01). There were no significant differences between the groups in other short-term complications such as abdominal infection, cholangitis, biliary bleeding, or bile leakage. Postoperative follow-up indicated higher patient satisfaction and acceptance in the LCBDE+LC group (SSQ-8, 85.84 ± 4.31 points versus 81.20 ± 4.54 points, P < .01). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the LCBDE+LC holds promise as a safe and efficacious approach for the management of cholelithiasis combined with common bile duct stones. However, further prospective clinical trials are essential to corroborate these results and confirm their broader applicability.

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
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
期刊最新文献
Application of Intraoperative Ultrasound in Laparoscopic Liver Resection with Pringle Maneuver: A Comparative Study with the Pringle Maneuver. Short-Term Efficacy of LCBDE+LC Versus ERCP/EST+LC in the Treatment of Cholelithiasis Combined with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Evaluation of Surgical Results and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal and Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Approaches in Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Analysis. Is Endoscopic Resection Essential for Patients with Type 1 Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumor? Is It Necessary to Endoscopically Evaluate the Anastomosis in Robotic or Laparoscopic Surgical Procedures for Colorectal Cancer?
×
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