内镜逆行胰胆管造影失败后,腹腔镜胆囊切除术和胆总管探查采用胆总管切开术和初步关闭:三孔与多孔的多中心比较研究

Q4 Medicine
M. Pedraza, L. F. Cabrera, Jean A. Pulido, D. Gomez, Andres Mendoza-Zuchini, M. C. Jimenez, R. Villarreal, Sebastián Sánchez-Ussa
{"title":"内镜逆行胰胆管造影失败后,腹腔镜胆囊切除术和胆总管探查采用胆总管切开术和初步关闭:三孔与多孔的多中心比较研究","authors":"M. Pedraza, L. F. Cabrera, Jean A. Pulido, D. Gomez, Andres Mendoza-Zuchini, M. C. Jimenez, R. Villarreal, Sebastián Sánchez-Ussa","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Laparoscopic surgery has changed many ways in which we as surgeons manage patients, offering better results, quicker recovery, and fewer complications using minimally invasive techniques, especially in common bile duct (CBD) surgery. Not only can laparoscopic techniques be applied to programed surgery but also emergencies and those following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Objectives and aims: Describe and compare clinical and surgical results of the laparoscopic CBD exploration with primary closure using a 3-port vs multiport approach. Materials and methods: We present a multicentric comparative study of 197 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic gallbladder removal along with CBD exploration with primary closure following failed (ERCP to extract CBD stones; 104 patients were managed by three-port vs 93 multiport laparoscopic surgery in five centers of Bogotá, Colombia, between 2013 and 2017 with follow-up of 1 year. Results: A total of 197 patients were taken to laparoscopic gallbladder removal along with CBD exploration with primary closure, 104 patients via three-port technique and 93 patients via multiport. All (100%) the patients had previously failed ERCP. The average surgical time on the three-port approach was 106 minutes vs 123 minutes on multiport. Only in the multiport technique we had an average conversion of 2%. Mean hospital stay of 2.5 days, less for the three-port approach vs multiport in 5–7 days. There was a need of reintervention in 1% of the patients who underwent three-port exploration. Conclusion: Postoperative pain, use of an additional port, complication rates, operation time, and cost of the three-port technique were similar to those of the conventional approach. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the true benefits of the three-port","PeriodicalId":38741,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration Using Choledochotomy and Primary Closure Following Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Multicentric Comparative Study Using Three-port vs Multiport\",\"authors\":\"M. Pedraza, L. F. Cabrera, Jean A. Pulido, D. Gomez, Andres Mendoza-Zuchini, M. C. Jimenez, R. Villarreal, Sebastián Sánchez-Ussa\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Laparoscopic surgery has changed many ways in which we as surgeons manage patients, offering better results, quicker recovery, and fewer complications using minimally invasive techniques, especially in common bile duct (CBD) surgery. Not only can laparoscopic techniques be applied to programed surgery but also emergencies and those following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Objectives and aims: Describe and compare clinical and surgical results of the laparoscopic CBD exploration with primary closure using a 3-port vs multiport approach. Materials and methods: We present a multicentric comparative study of 197 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic gallbladder removal along with CBD exploration with primary closure following failed (ERCP to extract CBD stones; 104 patients were managed by three-port vs 93 multiport laparoscopic surgery in five centers of Bogotá, Colombia, between 2013 and 2017 with follow-up of 1 year. Results: A total of 197 patients were taken to laparoscopic gallbladder removal along with CBD exploration with primary closure, 104 patients via three-port technique and 93 patients via multiport. All (100%) the patients had previously failed ERCP. The average surgical time on the three-port approach was 106 minutes vs 123 minutes on multiport. Only in the multiport technique we had an average conversion of 2%. Mean hospital stay of 2.5 days, less for the three-port approach vs multiport in 5–7 days. There was a need of reintervention in 1% of the patients who underwent three-port exploration. Conclusion: Postoperative pain, use of an additional port, complication rates, operation time, and cost of the three-port technique were similar to those of the conventional approach. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the true benefits of the three-port\",\"PeriodicalId\":38741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1392\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:腹腔镜手术已经改变了我们作为外科医生管理患者的许多方式,提供更好的结果,更快的恢复,以及使用微创技术更少的并发症,特别是在胆总管(CBD)手术中。腹腔镜技术不仅可以应用于程序化手术,还可以应用于急诊和内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)失败后的手术。目的和目的:描述和比较采用三孔和多孔入路进行初级闭合的腹腔镜下CBD探查的临床和手术结果。材料和方法:我们提出了一项多中心比较研究,对197例连续患者进行了腹腔镜胆囊切除术,同时进行了CBD探查,并在ERCP取出CBD结石失败后进行了初步闭合。2013年至2017年,在哥伦比亚波哥大的五个中心,104例患者接受了三孔腹腔镜手术,93例患者接受了多孔腹腔镜手术,随访1年。结果:共197例患者行腹腔镜下胆囊切除联合CBD探查术,其中104例采用三孔技术,93例采用多孔技术。所有(100%)患者先前ERCP均失败。三孔入路的平均手术时间为106分钟,而多孔入路为123分钟。只有在多端口技术中,我们的平均转化率为2%。平均住院时间为2.5天,三口入路比多口入路少5-7天。接受三孔探查的患者中有1%需要再干预。结论:三孔技术与常规入路相比,术后疼痛、增加一孔的使用、并发症发生率、手术时间和费用相似。需要大规模的随机对照试验来检验三端口的真正益处
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration Using Choledochotomy and Primary Closure Following Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Multicentric Comparative Study Using Three-port vs Multiport
Background: Laparoscopic surgery has changed many ways in which we as surgeons manage patients, offering better results, quicker recovery, and fewer complications using minimally invasive techniques, especially in common bile duct (CBD) surgery. Not only can laparoscopic techniques be applied to programed surgery but also emergencies and those following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Objectives and aims: Describe and compare clinical and surgical results of the laparoscopic CBD exploration with primary closure using a 3-port vs multiport approach. Materials and methods: We present a multicentric comparative study of 197 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic gallbladder removal along with CBD exploration with primary closure following failed (ERCP to extract CBD stones; 104 patients were managed by three-port vs 93 multiport laparoscopic surgery in five centers of Bogotá, Colombia, between 2013 and 2017 with follow-up of 1 year. Results: A total of 197 patients were taken to laparoscopic gallbladder removal along with CBD exploration with primary closure, 104 patients via three-port technique and 93 patients via multiport. All (100%) the patients had previously failed ERCP. The average surgical time on the three-port approach was 106 minutes vs 123 minutes on multiport. Only in the multiport technique we had an average conversion of 2%. Mean hospital stay of 2.5 days, less for the three-port approach vs multiport in 5–7 days. There was a need of reintervention in 1% of the patients who underwent three-port exploration. Conclusion: Postoperative pain, use of an additional port, complication rates, operation time, and cost of the three-port technique were similar to those of the conventional approach. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the true benefits of the three-port
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
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信