In Ho Lee, Seung Jae Lee, Ju Ik Moon, Sang Eok Lee, Nak Song Sung, Seong Uk Kwon, In Eui Bae, Seung Jae Rho, Sung Gon Kim, Min Kyu Kim, Dae Sung Yoon, Won Jun Choi, In Seok Choi
{"title":"再次腹腔镜胆总管探查复发性胆总管结石:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。","authors":"In Ho Lee, Seung Jae Lee, Ju Ik Moon, Sang Eok Lee, Nak Song Sung, Seong Uk Kwon, In Eui Bae, Seung Jae Rho, Sung Gon Kim, Min Kyu Kim, Dae Sung Yoon, Won Jun Choi, In Seok Choi","doi":"10.4174/astr.2025.108.5.310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes <i>vs.</i> 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL <i>vs.</i> 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% <i>vs.</i> 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% <i>vs.</i> 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days <i>vs.</i> 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% <i>vs.</i> 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days <i>vs.</i>7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% <i>vs.</i> 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% <i>vs.</i> 81.8%, P = 0.057).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":8071,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","volume":"108 5","pages":"310-316"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12059247/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-do laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for recurrent common bile duct stones: a single-center retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"In Ho Lee, Seung Jae Lee, Ju Ik Moon, Sang Eok Lee, Nak Song Sung, Seong Uk Kwon, In Eui Bae, Seung Jae Rho, Sung Gon Kim, Min Kyu Kim, Dae Sung Yoon, Won Jun Choi, In Seok Choi\",\"doi\":\"10.4174/astr.2025.108.5.310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes <i>vs.</i> 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL <i>vs.</i> 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% <i>vs.</i> 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% <i>vs.</i> 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days <i>vs.</i> 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% <i>vs.</i> 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days <i>vs.</i>7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% <i>vs.</i> 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% <i>vs.</i> 81.8%, P = 0.057).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research\",\"volume\":\"108 5\",\"pages\":\"310-316\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12059247/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2025.108.5.310\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2025.108.5.310","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)后胆总管结石复发较为常见。目前还没有研究评估再做LCBDE治疗复发性CBD结石的安全性和可行性。方法:这项单中心回顾性研究回顾了2004年1月至2020年12月期间连续340例接受LCBDE治疗CBD结石的患者。胰胆管恶性肿瘤患者和接受过其他外科手术的患者被排除在外。结果:在340例纳入的患者中,45例在平均随访24.2个月后复发。其中重新行LCBDE 18例,内镜干预20例,放射干预2例,观察5例。在手术时间(113.1分钟对107.5分钟,P = 0.515)、估计失血量(42.5 mL对49.1 mL, P = 0.661)、开腹转换率(2.9%对0%,P = 0.461)、术后并发症(15.3%对22.2%,P = 0.430)和术后住院时间(6.5天对6.4天,P = 0.921)方面,Re-do LCBDE和初始LCBDE的手术结果相似。再行LCBDE与非手术治疗(内镜或放疗)比较,治疗后并发症(22.2%比13.6%,P = 0.477)、住院时间(6.4天比7.3天,P = 0.607)、复发率(50.0%比36.4%,P = 0.385)差异无统计学意义。再行LCBDE组清除率高于非手术组(100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057)。结论:与初始LCBDE和内镜或放射治疗相比,复发性CBD结石的再行LCBDE治疗是一种值得选择的治疗方案。
Re-do laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for recurrent common bile duct stones: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Purpose: Common bile duct (CBD) stone recurrence after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is relatively common. No studies have been conducted evaluating the safety and feasibility of re-do LCBDE in the treatment of recurrent CBD stones.
Methods: This single-center retrospective study reviewed 340 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE for CBD stones between January 2004 and December 2020. Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancies and those who underwent other surgical procedures were excluded.
Results: Of the 340 included patients, 45 experienced a recurrence after a mean follow-up period of 24.2 months. Of them, 18 underwent re-do LCBDE, 20 underwent endoscopic intervention, 2 underwent radiologic intervention, and 5 underwent observation. Re-do LCBDE and initial LCBDE showed similar surgical outcomes in terms of operative time (113.1 minutes vs. 107.5 minutes, P = 0.515), estimated blood loss (42.5 mL vs. 49.1 mL, P = 0.661), open conversion rate (2.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.461), postoperative complication (15.3% vs. 22.2%, P = 0.430), and postoperative hospital stay (6.5 days vs. 6.4 days, P = 0.921). Comparing re-do LCBDE and nonsurgical treatment (endoscopic or radiologic), no statistically significant differences were noted in posttreatment complication (22.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.477), hospital stay (6.4 days vs.7.3 days, P = 0.607), and recurrence (50.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.385). The clearance rate was higher in the re-do LCBDE group than in the nonsurgical group (100% vs. 81.8%, P = 0.057).
Conclusion: Compared to initial LCBDE and endoscopic or radiological treatments, re-do LCBDE for recurrent CBD stones is a treatment option worth considering in selected patients.
期刊介绍:
Manuscripts to the Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research (Ann Surg Treat Res) should be written in English according to the instructions for authors. If the details are not described below, the style should follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications available at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) website (http://www.icmje.org).