腹腔镜胆囊切除术中胆漏与胆囊管金属夹数量的关系

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Scandinavian Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1177/14574969221102284
Arvid Gustafsson, L. Enochsson, B. Tingstedt, G. Olsson
{"title":"腹腔镜胆囊切除术中胆漏与胆囊管金属夹数量的关系","authors":"Arvid Gustafsson, L. Enochsson, B. Tingstedt, G. Olsson","doi":"10.1177/14574969221102284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and objective: The most common way of closing the cystic duct in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is by using metal clips (>80%). Nevertheless, bile leakage occurs in 0.4%–2.0% of cases, and thus causes significant morbidity. However, the optimal number of clips needed to avoid bile leakage has not been determined. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate bile leakage and post-procedural adverse events after laparoscopic cholecystectomy concerning whether two or three clips were used to seal the cystic duct. Methods: Using a retrospective observational design, we gathered data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (GallRiks). From 2006 until 2019, 124,818 patients were eligible for inclusion. These were nested to cohorts of 75,322 (60.3%) for uncomplicated gallstone disease and 49,496 (39.7%) with complicated gallstone disease. The cohorts were grouped by the number (i.e. two or three) of metal clips applied to the proximal cystic duct. The main outcome was 30-day bile leakage and post-procedural adverse events. Results: No significant differences surfaced in the rate of bile leakage (0.8% vs 0.8%; P = .87) or post-procedural adverse events (three clips, 5.7% vs two clips, 5.4%; P = .16) for uncomplicated gallstone disease. However, for complicated disease, bile leakage (1.4% vs 1.0%; P < .001) and post-procedural adverse events (10.2% vs 8.6%; P < .001) significantly increased when the cystic duct was sealed with three clips compared with two. Conclusions: Because no differences in the rates of bile leakage or adverse events emerged in uncomplicated gallstone disease when a third clip was applied, a third clip for additional safety is not recommended in such cases. On the contrary, bile leakage and adverse events increased when a third clip was used in patients with complicated gallstone disease. This finding probably indicates a more difficult cholecystectomy rather than being caused by the third clip itself.","PeriodicalId":49566,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bile leakage and the number of metal clips on the cystic duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy\",\"authors\":\"Arvid Gustafsson, L. Enochsson, B. Tingstedt, G. Olsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14574969221102284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and objective: The most common way of closing the cystic duct in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is by using metal clips (>80%). Nevertheless, bile leakage occurs in 0.4%–2.0% of cases, and thus causes significant morbidity. However, the optimal number of clips needed to avoid bile leakage has not been determined. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate bile leakage and post-procedural adverse events after laparoscopic cholecystectomy concerning whether two or three clips were used to seal the cystic duct. Methods: Using a retrospective observational design, we gathered data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (GallRiks). From 2006 until 2019, 124,818 patients were eligible for inclusion. These were nested to cohorts of 75,322 (60.3%) for uncomplicated gallstone disease and 49,496 (39.7%) with complicated gallstone disease. The cohorts were grouped by the number (i.e. two or three) of metal clips applied to the proximal cystic duct. The main outcome was 30-day bile leakage and post-procedural adverse events. Results: No significant differences surfaced in the rate of bile leakage (0.8% vs 0.8%; P = .87) or post-procedural adverse events (three clips, 5.7% vs two clips, 5.4%; P = .16) for uncomplicated gallstone disease. However, for complicated disease, bile leakage (1.4% vs 1.0%; P < .001) and post-procedural adverse events (10.2% vs 8.6%; P < .001) significantly increased when the cystic duct was sealed with three clips compared with two. Conclusions: Because no differences in the rates of bile leakage or adverse events emerged in uncomplicated gallstone disease when a third clip was applied, a third clip for additional safety is not recommended in such cases. On the contrary, bile leakage and adverse events increased when a third clip was used in patients with complicated gallstone disease. This finding probably indicates a more difficult cholecystectomy rather than being caused by the third clip itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14574969221102284\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14574969221102284","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:腹腔镜胆囊切除术中最常见的闭合胆囊管的方法是使用金属夹(>80%)。然而,胆汁渗漏发生在0.4%–2.0%的病例中,因此会导致显著的发病率。然而,避免胆汁渗漏所需的最佳夹子数量尚未确定。本研究的主要目的是评估腹腔镜胆囊切除术后是否使用两个或三个夹子密封胆囊管的胆汁渗漏和术后不良事件。方法:采用回顾性观察设计,我们从瑞典胆囊结石外科和内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)注册处收集数据。从2006年到2019年,共有124818名患者符合入选条件。其中75322例(60.3%)为无并发症胆囊结石,49496例(39.7%)为复杂胆囊结石。根据应用于近端囊性导管的金属夹的数量(即两个或三个)对队列进行分组。主要转归为30天胆汁渗漏和术后不良事件。结果:对于无并发症的胆囊结石疾病,胆汁渗漏率(0.8%与0.8%;P=.87)或术后不良事件(三个夹,5.7%与两个夹,5.4%;P=.16)没有显著差异。然而,对于复杂疾病,与两个夹子相比,用三个夹子密封胆囊管时,胆汁渗漏(1.4%对1.0%;P<.001)和术后不良事件(10.2%对8.6%;P<0.001)显著增加。结论:由于在无并发症的胆囊结石疾病中,当使用第三个夹片时,胆汁渗漏率或不良事件的发生率没有差异,因此在这种情况下,不建议使用第三种夹片以获得额外的安全性。相反,当在患有复杂胆囊结石的患者中使用第三个夹子时,胆汁渗漏和不良事件增加。这一发现可能表明胆囊切除术比第三个夹子本身更困难。
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
Bile leakage and the number of metal clips on the cystic duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Background and objective: The most common way of closing the cystic duct in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is by using metal clips (>80%). Nevertheless, bile leakage occurs in 0.4%–2.0% of cases, and thus causes significant morbidity. However, the optimal number of clips needed to avoid bile leakage has not been determined. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate bile leakage and post-procedural adverse events after laparoscopic cholecystectomy concerning whether two or three clips were used to seal the cystic duct. Methods: Using a retrospective observational design, we gathered data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (GallRiks). From 2006 until 2019, 124,818 patients were eligible for inclusion. These were nested to cohorts of 75,322 (60.3%) for uncomplicated gallstone disease and 49,496 (39.7%) with complicated gallstone disease. The cohorts were grouped by the number (i.e. two or three) of metal clips applied to the proximal cystic duct. The main outcome was 30-day bile leakage and post-procedural adverse events. Results: No significant differences surfaced in the rate of bile leakage (0.8% vs 0.8%; P = .87) or post-procedural adverse events (three clips, 5.7% vs two clips, 5.4%; P = .16) for uncomplicated gallstone disease. However, for complicated disease, bile leakage (1.4% vs 1.0%; P < .001) and post-procedural adverse events (10.2% vs 8.6%; P < .001) significantly increased when the cystic duct was sealed with three clips compared with two. Conclusions: Because no differences in the rates of bile leakage or adverse events emerged in uncomplicated gallstone disease when a third clip was applied, a third clip for additional safety is not recommended in such cases. On the contrary, bile leakage and adverse events increased when a third clip was used in patients with complicated gallstone disease. This finding probably indicates a more difficult cholecystectomy rather than being caused by the third clip itself.
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
5.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
37
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Surgery (SJS) is the official peer reviewed journal of the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society. It publishes original and review articles from all surgical fields and specialties to reflect the interests of our diverse and international readership that consists of surgeons from all specialties and continents.
期刊最新文献
A randomized double-blind noninferiority clinical multicenter trial on oral moxifloxacin versus placebo in the outpatient treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: APPAC IV study protocol. Modern surgical treatments for lymphedema. Impact of oral administration of calcitriol to prevent symptomatic hypocalcemia after total thyroidectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. 16-year outcomes of blunt thoracic aortic injury treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A single-institution experience. Reducing the risk of cancer with bariatric surgery: The need for evidence to guide practice.
×
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