腹腔镜胆总管探查中T管与内引流管的比较。

Experimental and therapeutic medicine Pub Date : 2023-09-06 eCollection Date: 2023-10-01 DOI:10.3892/etm.2023.12195
Hanzhang Dong, Shaobiao Ke, Jiulin Zhan, Mingjian Luo, Xi Liu, Zhiwei Li
{"title":"腹腔镜胆总管探查中T管与内引流管的比较。","authors":"Hanzhang Dong,&nbsp;Shaobiao Ke,&nbsp;Jiulin Zhan,&nbsp;Mingjian Luo,&nbsp;Xi Liu,&nbsp;Zhiwei Li","doi":"10.3892/etm.2023.12195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 203 patients who underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into internal drainage tube group (n=87) and T-tube group (n=116). Total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase (AST), aspartate aminotransferase (ALT), the diameter of common bile duct, number of stones, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Possible influencing factors were selected as independent variables, and the operation mode was selected as the dependent variable for multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis. There were no significant differences in the sex, age, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, AST, ALT, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative biliary leaks between the two groups (P>0.05). The diameter of the common bile duct was smaller and the incidence of multiple stones in the common bile duct was lower in the internal drainage tube group compared with that in the T-tube group (P<0.05). The results of multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the diameter of the common bile duct and the number of stones in the common bile duct were associated with the operation mode as influencing factors. In conclusion, Patients with multiple stones in the common bile duct or with a wide diameter of the common bile duct are more likely to have T-tube placed rather than an internal drainage tube.</p>","PeriodicalId":94002,"journal":{"name":"Experimental and therapeutic medicine","volume":"26 4","pages":"496"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2b/98/etm-26-04-12195.PMC10518648.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"T‑tube versus internal drainage tube in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.\",\"authors\":\"Hanzhang Dong,&nbsp;Shaobiao Ke,&nbsp;Jiulin Zhan,&nbsp;Mingjian Luo,&nbsp;Xi Liu,&nbsp;Zhiwei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.3892/etm.2023.12195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The 203 patients who underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into internal drainage tube group (n=87) and T-tube group (n=116). Total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase (AST), aspartate aminotransferase (ALT), the diameter of common bile duct, number of stones, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Possible influencing factors were selected as independent variables, and the operation mode was selected as the dependent variable for multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis. There were no significant differences in the sex, age, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, AST, ALT, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative biliary leaks between the two groups (P>0.05). The diameter of the common bile duct was smaller and the incidence of multiple stones in the common bile duct was lower in the internal drainage tube group compared with that in the T-tube group (P<0.05). The results of multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the diameter of the common bile duct and the number of stones in the common bile duct were associated with the operation mode as influencing factors. In conclusion, Patients with multiple stones in the common bile duct or with a wide diameter of the common bile duct are more likely to have T-tube placed rather than an internal drainage tube.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental and therapeutic medicine\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"496\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2b/98/etm-26-04-12195.PMC10518648.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental and therapeutic medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2023.12195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental and therapeutic medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2023.12195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对203例腹腔镜胆总管探查术治疗胆总管结石的患者进行回顾性分析。将患者分为内引流管组(n=87)和T管组(n=116)。比较两组总胆红素、直接胆红素、丙氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)、天冬氨酸氨基转移酶、总胆管直径、结石数、手术时间、术中出血、术后住院时间及术后并发症。选择可能的影响因素作为自变量,选择手术方式作为因变量进行多因素无条件logistic回归分析。性别、年龄、总胆红素、直接胆红素、AST、ALT、手术时间、术中出血量、,两组患者术后住院时间和术后胆漏的发生率比较(P>0.05)。内引流管组胆总管直径较小,胆总管多发结石发生率较T管组低(P
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
T‑tube versus internal drainage tube in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

The 203 patients who underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into internal drainage tube group (n=87) and T-tube group (n=116). Total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase (AST), aspartate aminotransferase (ALT), the diameter of common bile duct, number of stones, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Possible influencing factors were selected as independent variables, and the operation mode was selected as the dependent variable for multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis. There were no significant differences in the sex, age, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, AST, ALT, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative biliary leaks between the two groups (P>0.05). The diameter of the common bile duct was smaller and the incidence of multiple stones in the common bile duct was lower in the internal drainage tube group compared with that in the T-tube group (P<0.05). The results of multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the diameter of the common bile duct and the number of stones in the common bile duct were associated with the operation mode as influencing factors. In conclusion, Patients with multiple stones in the common bile duct or with a wide diameter of the common bile duct are more likely to have T-tube placed rather than an internal drainage tube.

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
[Retracted] Matrix metalloproteinase 14 participates in corneal lymphangiogenesis through the VEGF‑C/VEGFR‑3 signaling pathway. Renal venous hemangioma: Report of a rare case. Refining synovial inflammation assessment: A modified General Synovitis Score for active rheumatoid arthritis. First insight into eosinophils as a biomarker for the early distinction of COVID-19 from influenza A in outpatients. Innovative therapeutic strategies for intrauterine adhesions: Role of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in rat models.
×
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