American journal of surgery · 2019
10 years of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: A single tertiary institution experience.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Ballou Jessica, Wang Yuxuan, Schreiber Martin, Kiraly Laszlo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE-LC) or ERCP plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP-LC) represent minimally invasive choledocholithiasis treatments. We hypothesized that LCBDE-LC has a shorter length of stay (LOS) and lower charges than ERCP-LC.
METHODS: Charts were reviewed for all LCBDE-LC or ERCP-LC for choledocholithiasis from 2007 to 2017. Exclusions included cholangitis, concomitant procedures, or history of Roux-en-Y or biliary surgery. Groups were determined via intention-to-treat with LCBDE-LC or ERCP-LC.
RESULTS: 281 subjects were identified; 157 met inclusion criteria. 89 (56%) were in the LCBDE-LC group. There were no differences in age, sex, or ASA. LOS was shorter for LCBDE-LC (3.1 vs 4.4 days, p < 0.01) although total anesthesia time was longer (292 vs 262 min, p = 0.01). There was no difference in total charges ($44,412 vs $51,353, p = 0.08). Thirty (33%) LCBDE-LC were aborted due to challenges passing the dilator or scope (33%) or clearing stones (30%). Two ERCP-LC cases required post-procedure LCBDE.
CONCLUSION: LCBDE-LC resulted in shorter LOS but had a high failure rate. Further research is needed to predict which cases suit each modality.
METHODS: Charts were reviewed for all LCBDE-LC or ERCP-LC for choledocholithiasis from 2007 to 2017. Exclusions included cholangitis, concomitant procedures, or history of Roux-en-Y or biliary surgery. Groups were determined via intention-to-treat with LCBDE-LC or ERCP-LC.
RESULTS: 281 subjects were identified; 157 met inclusion criteria. 89 (56%) were in the LCBDE-LC group. There were no differences in age, sex, or ASA. LOS was shorter for LCBDE-LC (3.1 vs 4.4 days, p < 0.01) although total anesthesia time was longer (292 vs 262 min, p = 0.01). There was no difference in total charges ($44,412 vs $51,353, p = 0.08). Thirty (33%) LCBDE-LC were aborted due to challenges passing the dilator or scope (33%) or clearing stones (30%). Two ERCP-LC cases required post-procedure LCBDE.
CONCLUSION: LCBDE-LC resulted in shorter LOS but had a high failure rate. Further research is needed to predict which cases suit each modality.