Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2013
Single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with conventional instruments: an innovative technique and a comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chuang Shu-Hung, Chen Pai-Hsi, Chang Chih-Ming, Tsai Yung-Fa, Lin Chih-Sheng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery developed rapidly in recent years. We introduce an innovative technique: single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (SILCBDE) with conventional instruments. A retrospective comparison between SILCBDE and standard laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) was analyzed.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients who underwent LCBDE for choledocholithiasis in a period of 17 months were enrolled. Seventeen standard LCBDEs and 17 SILCBDEs were attempted. Simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.
RESULTS: The stone clearance rate was 94.1% (16 patients) in the standard LCBDE group and 100% in the SILCBDE group. There was no statistical difference in demographic distribution, clinical presentations, and operative results between the two groups, except the SILCBDE group had a higher rate of acute cholecystitis than the standard LCBDE group (76.5 vs. 35.3%; p < 0.05). One procedure (5.9%) in the SILCBDE group was converted to a four-incision transcystic LCBDE. The complication rate was 11.8% (two patients) in the standard LCBDE group and 5.9% (one patient) in the SILCBDE group. The average follow-up period was 4.2 months.
CONCLUSION: SILCBDE is as safe and efficacious as standard LCBDE in experienced hands. Choledochoscope manipulation and bile duct repair are the key skills. Long-term follow-up and further prospective randomized trials are anticipated.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients who underwent LCBDE for choledocholithiasis in a period of 17 months were enrolled. Seventeen standard LCBDEs and 17 SILCBDEs were attempted. Simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.
RESULTS: The stone clearance rate was 94.1% (16 patients) in the standard LCBDE group and 100% in the SILCBDE group. There was no statistical difference in demographic distribution, clinical presentations, and operative results between the two groups, except the SILCBDE group had a higher rate of acute cholecystitis than the standard LCBDE group (76.5 vs. 35.3%; p < 0.05). One procedure (5.9%) in the SILCBDE group was converted to a four-incision transcystic LCBDE. The complication rate was 11.8% (two patients) in the standard LCBDE group and 5.9% (one patient) in the SILCBDE group. The average follow-up period was 4.2 months.
CONCLUSION: SILCBDE is as safe and efficacious as standard LCBDE in experienced hands. Choledochoscope manipulation and bile duct repair are the key skills. Long-term follow-up and further prospective randomized trials are anticipated.