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
作 者:周长升[1] 芶欣[1] 苏正[1] 李校城 黄建钊[1] Zhou Changsheng, Gou Xin, Su Zheng, Li Xiaocheng, Huang Jianzhao.(Department of Hepatobiliary Sugery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang 550002, Chin)
出 处:《中华普通外科杂志》2018年第3期228-231,共4页Chinese Journal of General Surgery
摘 要:目的比较腹腔镜与开腹手术行胆总管切开取石、T管引流术治疗肝内外胆管结石的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2016年12月于贵州省人民医院肝胆外科住院行手术治疗的肝内外胆管结石患者300例,按照手术方式分为腹腔镜胆总管切开取石、T管引流术组(腹腔镜组,120例)和开腹胆总管切开取石、T管引流术组(开腹组,180例),比较两组患者的相关临床指标。结果腹腔镜组手术时间(237±32)min(t=0.671,P=0.504)、手术成功率(100%)、一期治愈率(81.7%)(r=0.400,P=0.531)、残石率(18.3%)(χ^2=0.400,P=0.531)、住院费用(2.6±0.4)万元(t=0.981,P=0.329)、胆漏(0)、胆管出血(0)、腹腔出血(0)、急性胆管炎(0)(Ⅳ。=0.669,P=1.000)、腹腔感染(0)、切口感染(0)(χ^2=1.342,P=0.518)等围手术期并发症和胆管狭窄(0)、结石复发(11.7%)(χ^2=0.022,P=1.000)等远期并发症与开腹组比较差异无统计学意义。但是腹腔镜组出血量(25±14)ml(t=-7.191,P=0.000)、术后胃肠功能恢复时间(1.8±0.6)d(t=-5.847,P=0.000)、术后住院时间(10.1±0.3)d(t=-3.145,P=0.000)、术后切口液化(0)(χ^2=26.415,P=0.000)等较开腹组明显减少,差异有统计学意义。结论腹腔镜胆总管切开取石、T管引流术治疗肝内外胆管结石是可行、有效的。Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic vs open choledocho- lithotomy plus T tube drainage for the treatment of extra-and intrahepatic cholangiolithiasis. Methods 300 patients with eholangiolithiasis undergoing surgical treatment in the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, from January 2012 to December 2016 were evaluated. Patients were divided into laparoscopic lithotomy of common bile duct plus T tube drainage group (n = 120 ) and open surgery (n = 180 ). Results The difference was not statistically significant in operation time (237 ±32) rain, (t =0. 671 ,P = 0. 504), operation success rate ( 100% ), primary cure rate (81.7%), (χ^2 =0. 400,P = 0. 531 ), residual stone rate ( 18.3% ), (χ^2 = 0. 400, P = 0. 531 ), hospitalization costs (26 ±4) × 10^3 RMB, (t = 0. 981 ,P = 0. 329) , perioperative complications including bile leakage(0) , biliary bleeding ( 0 ), abdominal hemorrhage ( 0 ), acute eholangitis ( 0 ), (χ^2 = 0. 669, P = 1. 000 ), abdominal infection ( 0 ) and incisional infection ( 0 ) , (χ^2 = 1. 342, P = 0. 518 ) and late complications including biliary stricture(0) and stone recurrence ( 11.7% ) , (X2 = 0. 022,P = 1. 000) between the two groups. While intraoperative blood loss (25 ± 14) ml, (t = - 7. 191, P = 0. 000), postoperative recovery time of gastrointestinal function ( 1.8 ± 0. 6) d, ( t = - 5. 847, P = 0. 000 ), postoperative hospital stay ( 10. 1 ± 0. 3) d, ( t = - 3. 145, P = 0. 000) , postoperative incision liquefaction (0) , (χ^2 = 26. 415, P = 0. 000) were in favor of laparoscopy group with statistically significant difference. Conclusions For the treatment of extra-and intrahepatic cholangiolithiasis, it was feasible and effective for laparoscopic lithotomy of common bile duct plus T tube drainage.
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:216.73.216.154