检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]解放军总医院肿瘤外二科,北京100853 [2]解放军总医院第一附属医院肝胆外科,北京100048
出 处:《中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版)》2016年第1期37-40,共4页Chinese Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery(Electronic Edition)
摘 要:目的比较ERCP与腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的优、缺点。方法回顾分析2010年4月至2015年4月5年间诊治的197例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者。结果 ERCP组(99例)中有6例患者手术失败,32例合并胰腺炎,1例出现十二指肠壁穿孔。3例患者术后出现胆总管结石复发。LCBDE组(98例)中无手术失败,8例放置T管,无胆总管结石复发,无严重并发症。LCBDE组术后平均住院时间和平均住院费用均低于ERCP组[(5±2)d vs(3±1)d,(2.23±0.85)万元vs(1.73±0.43)万元]。结论 ERCP+EST和LCBDE对于胆囊结石合并胆总管结石都是行之有效的处理方法,对于大多数患者应首选LCBDE,对于特殊患者可选择ERCP+EST+LC方案。Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages of ERCP and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the treatment of gallbladder stones combined with common bile duct stones.Methods The therapeutic results of 197 cases who underwent ERCP or LCBDE were reviewed retrospectively to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the two operations. Results There are6 cases operation failure,32 cases acute pancreaitis,1 case duodenum perforation and 3 cases common bile duct stones recurrence in the ERCP group( 99 cases). There are no operation failure,8 cases with T-tube drainage,no serious complications and no bile duct stones recurrence in the LCBDE group( 98 cases). The hospital stay time and hospital costs of LCBDE group is lower than the ERCP group[( 5 ± 2) d vs( 3 ± 1) d,( 2. 23 ± 0. 85) Million yuan vs( 1. 73 ± 0. 43) Million yuan]. Conclusions The ERCP and LCBDE are effective methods for the treatment of Gallbladder stones combined with common bile duct stones. For most patients,the LCBDE is the first choice method,and for some special patient,ERCP is a good choice.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.30