腹腔镜胆总管探查治疗内镜逆行胆管造影失败后难治的胆总管结石。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Sanjay Gupta, Aaina Aggarwal, Ishan Bansal, Ashok K Attri
{"title":"腹腔镜胆总管探查治疗内镜逆行胆管造影失败后难治的胆总管结石。","authors":"Sanjay Gupta, Aaina Aggarwal, Ishan Bansal, Ashok K Attri","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_23_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This retrospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for managing difficult common bile duct stones (CBDSs) in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Forty-two patients underwent LCBDE between 2019 and 2024, after unsuccessful ERCP. The causes of ERCP failure include cannulation failure, large stones, impacted stones and multiple stones. The surgical technique involved a standard 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy with an additional port for manipulation of the Fogarty catheter or choledochoscope. Stones were extracted by milking the CBD, using a Fogarty balloon catheter or with the aid of a choledochoscope. The choledochotomy was closed primarily or over the stent using interrupted or continuous sutures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean CBD diameter was 14.8 mm (range: 12-33 mm), with 31 patients having single stones and 11 having multiple stones. Two patients were suspected to have CBD strictures. CBD clearance was achieved in 38 (90.5%) patients. In four patients, the procedure was converted to open because of an impacted stone. Post-operative complications included bile leak (n = 2) and residual stones (n = 2). It was also observed that primary closure of the choledochotomy without drainage does not affect the outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that LCBDE is a safe and effective minimally invasive option for managing difficult CBDS when ERCP fails.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for managing difficult common bile duct stones after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.\",\"authors\":\"Sanjay Gupta, Aaina Aggarwal, Ishan Bansal, Ashok K Attri\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jmas.jmas_23_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This retrospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for managing difficult common bile duct stones (CBDSs) in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Forty-two patients underwent LCBDE between 2019 and 2024, after unsuccessful ERCP. The causes of ERCP failure include cannulation failure, large stones, impacted stones and multiple stones. The surgical technique involved a standard 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy with an additional port for manipulation of the Fogarty catheter or choledochoscope. Stones were extracted by milking the CBD, using a Fogarty balloon catheter or with the aid of a choledochoscope. The choledochotomy was closed primarily or over the stent using interrupted or continuous sutures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean CBD diameter was 14.8 mm (range: 12-33 mm), with 31 patients having single stones and 11 having multiple stones. Two patients were suspected to have CBD strictures. CBD clearance was achieved in 38 (90.5%) patients. In four patients, the procedure was converted to open because of an impacted stone. Post-operative complications included bile leak (n = 2) and residual stones (n = 2). It was also observed that primary closure of the choledochotomy without drainage does not affect the outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that LCBDE is a safe and effective minimally invasive option for managing difficult CBDS when ERCP fails.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_23_25\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_23_25","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本回顾性队列研究评估了腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)治疗内镜逆行胆管造影(ERCP)失败患者难治性胆总管结石(cbds)的疗效。患者和方法:2019年至2024年间,42例患者在ERCP失败后接受了LCBDE。ERCP失败的原因包括插管失败、大结石、嵌塞结石和多发结石。手术技术包括一个标准的四孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术和一个用于操作福格蒂导管或胆道镜的额外端口。结石是通过压榨CBD提取的,使用福格蒂气球导管或在胆道镜的帮助下。胆总管切开术主要闭合或在支架上使用间断或连续缝合。结果:CBD平均直径为14.8 mm(范围:12-33 mm), 31例为单发结石,11例为多发结石。2例患者怀疑有CBD狭窄。38例(90.5%)患者获得CBD清除率。在4例患者中,由于结石阻生,手术转为开放。术后并发症包括胆漏(n = 2)和结石残留(n = 2)。我们也观察到胆总管切开术的初次闭合而不引流并不影响结果。结论:本研究表明,当ERCP失败时,LCBDE是治疗困难CBDS的安全有效的微创选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for managing difficult common bile duct stones after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Introduction: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for managing difficult common bile duct stones (CBDSs) in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Patients and methods: Forty-two patients underwent LCBDE between 2019 and 2024, after unsuccessful ERCP. The causes of ERCP failure include cannulation failure, large stones, impacted stones and multiple stones. The surgical technique involved a standard 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy with an additional port for manipulation of the Fogarty catheter or choledochoscope. Stones were extracted by milking the CBD, using a Fogarty balloon catheter or with the aid of a choledochoscope. The choledochotomy was closed primarily or over the stent using interrupted or continuous sutures.

Results: The mean CBD diameter was 14.8 mm (range: 12-33 mm), with 31 patients having single stones and 11 having multiple stones. Two patients were suspected to have CBD strictures. CBD clearance was achieved in 38 (90.5%) patients. In four patients, the procedure was converted to open because of an impacted stone. Post-operative complications included bile leak (n = 2) and residual stones (n = 2). It was also observed that primary closure of the choledochotomy without drainage does not affect the outcome.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that LCBDE is a safe and effective minimally invasive option for managing difficult CBDS when ERCP fails.

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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.
×
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