腹腔镜胆总管探查术后不经鼻胆管引流一期管封闭的安全性和有效性。

IF 0.8 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastrointestinal Tumors Pub Date : 2020-10-01 Epub Date: 2020-08-12 DOI:10.1159/000508874
Yan Yang, Lin Han, Da-Ning Lin, Zeng-Ji Hu, Wei Tu, Feng Chen, Yong-Qiang Li
{"title":"腹腔镜胆总管探查术后不经鼻胆管引流一期管封闭的安全性和有效性。","authors":"Yan Yang,&nbsp;Lin Han,&nbsp;Da-Ning Lin,&nbsp;Zeng-Ji Hu,&nbsp;Wei Tu,&nbsp;Feng Chen,&nbsp;Yong-Qiang Li","doi":"10.1159/000508874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary duct closure (PDC) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely applied for choledocholithiasis. However, there has been controversy over the placement of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) during operation. To date, few studies compare the clinical effect of PDC without and with ENBD. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of PDC without ENBD for choledocholithiasis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2016 to December 2018, a total of 164 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled and divided into group A (undergone LCBDE + PDC without ENBD, 81 cases) and group B (undergone LCBDE + PDC with ENBD, 83 cases) in this study. The intraoperative conditions and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In group A, the time of operation, postoperative first flatus, extubation, antibiotics, and discharge were shorter than in group B (<i>t</i> = -17.775, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -7.649, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -5.807, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -9.247, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -9.322, <i>p</i> = 0.000, respectively). Furthermore, intraoperative blood loss was less (<i>t</i> = -2.199, <i>p</i> = 0.029) and hospital costs were lower (<i>t</i> = -6.685, <i>p</i> = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the 2 groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients who meet the screening criteria, PDC without ENBD after LCBDE is safe and effective and worthy of clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":45017,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal Tumors","volume":"7 4","pages":"117-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000508874","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Safety and Efficacy of Primary Duct Closure without Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.\",\"authors\":\"Yan Yang,&nbsp;Lin Han,&nbsp;Da-Ning Lin,&nbsp;Zeng-Ji Hu,&nbsp;Wei Tu,&nbsp;Feng Chen,&nbsp;Yong-Qiang Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000508874\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary duct closure (PDC) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely applied for choledocholithiasis. However, there has been controversy over the placement of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) during operation. To date, few studies compare the clinical effect of PDC without and with ENBD. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of PDC without ENBD for choledocholithiasis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2016 to December 2018, a total of 164 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled and divided into group A (undergone LCBDE + PDC without ENBD, 81 cases) and group B (undergone LCBDE + PDC with ENBD, 83 cases) in this study. The intraoperative conditions and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In group A, the time of operation, postoperative first flatus, extubation, antibiotics, and discharge were shorter than in group B (<i>t</i> = -17.775, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -7.649, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -5.807, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -9.247, <i>p</i> = 0.000; <i>t</i> = -9.322, <i>p</i> = 0.000, respectively). Furthermore, intraoperative blood loss was less (<i>t</i> = -2.199, <i>p</i> = 0.029) and hospital costs were lower (<i>t</i> = -6.685, <i>p</i> = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the 2 groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients who meet the screening criteria, PDC without ENBD after LCBDE is safe and effective and worthy of clinical application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastrointestinal Tumors\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"117-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000508874\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastrointestinal Tumors\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000508874\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/8/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal Tumors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000508874","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)后一期胆总管闭合术(PDC)已广泛应用于胆总管结石的治疗。然而,手术中内镜下鼻胆道引流术(ENBD)的放置一直存在争议。迄今为止,很少有研究比较无ENBD和有ENBD的PDC的临床效果。本研究的目的是评估无ENBD的PDC治疗胆总管结石的安全性和有效性。方法:2016年1月至2018年12月,本研究共纳入164例符合纳入标准的患者,分为a组(行LCBDE + PDC,无ENBD, 81例)和B组(行LCBDE + PDC,合并ENBD, 83例)。比较两组患者术中情况及术后并发症。结果:A组患者手术时间、术后首次排气时间、拔管时间、抗生素使用时间、出院时间均短于B组(t = -17.775, p = 0.000;T = -7.649, p = 0.000;T = -5.807, p = 0.000;T = -9.247, p = 0.000;T = -9.322, p = 0.000)。术中出血量较少(t = -2.199, p = 0.029),住院费用较低(t = -6.685, p = 0.000)。两组术后并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。结论:在符合筛查标准的患者中,LCBDE术后无ENBD的PDC是安全有效的,值得临床推广。
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 Safety and Efficacy of Primary Duct Closure without Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.

Background: Primary duct closure (PDC) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely applied for choledocholithiasis. However, there has been controversy over the placement of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) during operation. To date, few studies compare the clinical effect of PDC without and with ENBD. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of PDC without ENBD for choledocholithiasis.

Methods: From January 2016 to December 2018, a total of 164 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled and divided into group A (undergone LCBDE + PDC without ENBD, 81 cases) and group B (undergone LCBDE + PDC with ENBD, 83 cases) in this study. The intraoperative conditions and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.

Results: In group A, the time of operation, postoperative first flatus, extubation, antibiotics, and discharge were shorter than in group B (t = -17.775, p = 0.000; t = -7.649, p = 0.000; t = -5.807, p = 0.000; t = -9.247, p = 0.000; t = -9.322, p = 0.000, respectively). Furthermore, intraoperative blood loss was less (t = -2.199, p = 0.029) and hospital costs were lower (t = -6.685, p = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the 2 groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: In patients who meet the screening criteria, PDC without ENBD after LCBDE is safe and effective and worthy of clinical application.

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
Gastrointestinal Tumors
Gastrointestinal Tumors GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigation of Novel Urinary Biomarkers in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in a Predominantly African American Population: A Case-Control Study. Real-World Outcomes of FLOT versus CROSS Regimens for Patients with Oesophagogastric Cancers. Association between Serum Zinc Levels and Clinicopathological Characteristics in Patients with Gastric Cancer. Mixed Neuroendocrine and Non-Neuroendocrine Neoplasm of Pancreas: What Do We Know, What Have We Learnt? Mast Cell Sarcoma of Small Intestine, Early Diagnosis, and Good Prognosis: An Extremely Rare Case Report and Review of the Literature.
×
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