普通管道结石的一阶段和两阶段方法。

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
American Surgeon Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-09 DOI:10.1177/00031348251341960
Shannon M Smith, Jesse K Kelley, Giuseppe M Zambito, Amy L Banks-Venegoni
{"title":"普通管道结石的一阶段和两阶段方法。","authors":"Shannon M Smith, Jesse K Kelley, Giuseppe M Zambito, Amy L Banks-Venegoni","doi":"10.1177/00031348251341960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The prevalence of cholelithiasis is estimated to be upwards of 30% within the United States population. Of these patients, 10-20% will progress to develop choledocholithiasis. Prior to 2000, choledocholithiasis was managed via open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration. However, as minimally invasive surgical techniques and endoscopy have advanced, the current management of choledocholithiasis has progressed to a two-staged, laproendoscopic approach consisting of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Review of the literature from 2005 to 2025 reveals that the preferred approach to choledocholithiasis continues to evolve. Management of choledocholithiasis via a single-stage such as performing intraoperative ERCP at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a statistically significant decrease in overall 30-day morbidity as well as shorter hospital length of stay compared with a twostaged laproendoscopic approach. Alternatively, performing intraoperative rendezvous endoscopy significantly improves patient morbidity profiles due the absence of post-endoscopic pancreatitis compared with ERCP. A third management option includes laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via a transcystic or transductal approach. These approaches are associated with superior stone clearance rates compared with ERCP as well as decreased cost and hospital length of stay. Barriers to implementation of these techniques include surgeon training, equipment availability, and appropriate staffing. Future studies should investigate the role of robotic surgery in the management of choledocholithiasis as well as compare patient centered outcomes between the three, single-staged approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"1362-1367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One- and Two-Stage Approaches to Common Duct Stones.\",\"authors\":\"Shannon M Smith, Jesse K Kelley, Giuseppe M Zambito, Amy L Banks-Venegoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00031348251341960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The prevalence of cholelithiasis is estimated to be upwards of 30% within the United States population. Of these patients, 10-20% will progress to develop choledocholithiasis. Prior to 2000, choledocholithiasis was managed via open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration. However, as minimally invasive surgical techniques and endoscopy have advanced, the current management of choledocholithiasis has progressed to a two-staged, laproendoscopic approach consisting of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Review of the literature from 2005 to 2025 reveals that the preferred approach to choledocholithiasis continues to evolve. Management of choledocholithiasis via a single-stage such as performing intraoperative ERCP at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a statistically significant decrease in overall 30-day morbidity as well as shorter hospital length of stay compared with a twostaged laproendoscopic approach. Alternatively, performing intraoperative rendezvous endoscopy significantly improves patient morbidity profiles due the absence of post-endoscopic pancreatitis compared with ERCP. A third management option includes laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via a transcystic or transductal approach. These approaches are associated with superior stone clearance rates compared with ERCP as well as decreased cost and hospital length of stay. Barriers to implementation of these techniques include surgeon training, equipment availability, and appropriate staffing. Future studies should investigate the role of robotic surgery in the management of choledocholithiasis as well as compare patient centered outcomes between the three, single-staged approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Surgeon\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1362-1367\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Surgeon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251341960\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251341960","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

据估计,美国人口中胆石症的患病率高达30%以上。在这些患者中,10-20%会发展为胆总管结石。在2000年以前,胆总管结石是通过开放胆囊切除术和胆总管探查来治疗的。然而,随着微创手术技术和内窥镜技术的进步,目前胆总管结石的治疗已经发展到两阶段,由内窥镜逆行胆管胰胆管造影(ERCP)和腹腔镜胆囊切除术组成的腹腔镜下胆管结石治疗。回顾2005年至2025年的文献显示,胆总管结石的首选治疗方法在不断发展。单阶段胆总管结石的治疗,如在腹腔镜胆囊切除术时进行术中ERCP,与两阶段腹腔镜胆囊切除术相比,在统计学上显著降低了总30天发病率,缩短了住院时间。另外,与ERCP相比,术中会合内窥镜检查可以显著改善患者的发病率,因为没有内窥镜后胰腺炎。第三种治疗方法包括经膀胱或转导入路腹腔镜胆总管探查。与ERCP相比,这些方法具有更高的结石清除率,并且降低了费用和住院时间。实施这些技术的障碍包括外科医生培训、设备可用性和适当的人员配备。未来的研究应探讨机器人手术在胆总管结石治疗中的作用,并比较三种单阶段方法的以患者为中心的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
One- and Two-Stage Approaches to Common Duct Stones.

The prevalence of cholelithiasis is estimated to be upwards of 30% within the United States population. Of these patients, 10-20% will progress to develop choledocholithiasis. Prior to 2000, choledocholithiasis was managed via open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration. However, as minimally invasive surgical techniques and endoscopy have advanced, the current management of choledocholithiasis has progressed to a two-staged, laproendoscopic approach consisting of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Review of the literature from 2005 to 2025 reveals that the preferred approach to choledocholithiasis continues to evolve. Management of choledocholithiasis via a single-stage such as performing intraoperative ERCP at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a statistically significant decrease in overall 30-day morbidity as well as shorter hospital length of stay compared with a twostaged laproendoscopic approach. Alternatively, performing intraoperative rendezvous endoscopy significantly improves patient morbidity profiles due the absence of post-endoscopic pancreatitis compared with ERCP. A third management option includes laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via a transcystic or transductal approach. These approaches are associated with superior stone clearance rates compared with ERCP as well as decreased cost and hospital length of stay. Barriers to implementation of these techniques include surgeon training, equipment availability, and appropriate staffing. Future studies should investigate the role of robotic surgery in the management of choledocholithiasis as well as compare patient centered outcomes between the three, single-staged approaches.

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
American Surgeon
American Surgeon 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊介绍: The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信