ERCP治疗胆总管结石临床疗效及其相关并发症分析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-8535.2016.03.021

广州医药 ›› 2016, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (3): 58-60.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8535.2016.03.021

ERCP治疗胆总管结石临床疗效及其相关并发症分析

任伟鹏¹, 刘阳²

1 广州市花都区赤坭镇卫生院外科 (广州 510830)
2 南方医科大学附属花都医院普外科(广州 510800)

收稿日期:2015-11-24 出版日期:2016-05-20 发布日期:2021-11-30

ERCP analysis of clinical efficacy and complications of the treatment of common bile duct stones

Ren Weipeng, Liu Yang

Ren Weipeng. Department of Surgery, Township Hospitals of Chini Town, Huadu district, Guangzhou 510830,China
Liu Yang. Department of General Surgery, Huadu Hospital of Nanfang Medical University, Guangzhou 510800, China

Received:2015-11-24 Online:2016-05-20 Published:2021-11-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨内镜下逆行胰胆管造影( ERCP) 治疗胆总管结石患者的临床疗效及其相关并发症。方法严格筛选纳入从2012年1月—2015年1月在我院行ERCP治疗的胆总管结石患者,归纳评估ERCP手术对胆总管结石治疗的有效性及安全性。结果 359例胆总管结石患者,其中行ERCP治疗共347例,其中9例因一般情况差无法耐受手术或无法配合而未予以实施ERCP治疗,其中3例因术中穿孔转为开放手术治疗。 1次性取净结石者311例(89.6%),结石2次以上(含2次)取净者27例(7.8%),放置胆道支架者9 例(2.6%)。ERCP 术后总胆红素(61.7±103.8) μmol/L; 直接胆红素(34.7±59.6) μmol/L; 谷丙转氨酶(62.8±74.2) U/L; 谷草转氨酶(48.3±61) U/L。术后 2 h血淀粉酶(115±162) U/L,无统计学差异(P＞0.05) ,24 h血淀粉酶(124.7±215.8)U/L,与术前相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05) 。术后寒战、发热、腹痛、黄疸等症状均有不同程度的减轻;肝功能术后明显好转(P＜ 0.05);术后平均住院天数4～6 d;出现并发症患者16例,其中急性胰腺炎占6例,急性胆管炎占5例,出血占3例,穿孔占2例,经对症支持治疗后均治愈出院。结论 ERCP 治疗胆总管结石安全、有效,临床疗效显著,是胆胰疾病重要的诊治手段。

关键词: ERCP, 胆总管结石, 并发症

Abstract: Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the treatment of common bile duct stones. Methods Cases received ERCP therapy from January 2012 to January 2015 were studied retrospectively,and evaluated the safety and efficacy of therapeutic ERCP in patients with common bile duct calculi. Results 359 Cases of patients with common bile duct stones treated successfully with 347 cases,among them 9 cases unable to implementation of ERCP because of bad surgery tolerance,3 cases of intraoperative perforation to have surgical operation treatment. The stones were removed completely one time in 311 cases(89.6%). More than two times removing net calculi in 27 cases(7.8%). 9 cases were placed biliary stent (2.6%). Postoperative total bilirubin ERCP:61.7 ±103.8 μmol / l; Postoperative bilirubin direct: 34.7±59.6 μmol/l; Postoperative ALT:62.8±74.2 U/L; Postoperative AST: 48.3±61 U/L; Postoperative 2 h blood amylase was 115±162 U/L. It showed no significant difference (P＞0.05).24 h blood amylase was 124.7±215.8 U/L,there was significant difference compared with before operation(P＜0.05). Postoperative chills,fever, pain,jaundice have different degrees of ease. Postoperative liver function was improved significantly(P＜0.05). The postoperative average length of stay in common bile duct stones was 4～ 6 days. Complications occurred in 16 cases,including 6 cases of acute pancreatitis,5 cases of acute cholangitis,3 cases of bleeding,perforation in 2 cases. After treatment they were cured and discharged. Conclusion ERCP is safe,effective in treatment of common bile duct stones. It is an important means in treatment in bile duct diseases

Key words: ERCP, Common bile duct stones, Complication

任伟鹏, 刘阳. ERCP治疗胆总管结石临床疗效及其相关并发症分析[J]. 广州医药, 2016, 47(3): 58-60.

Ren Weipeng, Liu Yang. ERCP analysis of clinical efficacy and complications of the treatment of common bile duct stones[J]. Guangzhou Medical Journal, 2016, 47(3): 58-60.

参考文献

[1] BYUNG SK,IN-GYU K,BYOUNG YR,et al.Management of endo-scopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforations[J]. J Korean Surg Soc,2011,81(3):195-204.
[2] 李文,范君度,卢焕章,等. 经内镜及外科手术治疗肝胆外胆管结石的治疗效果比较[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志,2009,16(3):154-156.
[3] MILLER R, ZBAR A, KLEIN Y, et al. Perforations following endoscop-ic retrograde cholangiopancreatogra:a single institution ex-perience and surgical recommendations[J]. Am J Surg,2013,206(2):180-186.
[4] KIM BS, KIM IG, RYU BY,et al. Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforations[J]. J Korean Surg Soc,2011,81(3):195-204.
[5] PRACHAYAKUL V,ASWAKUL P. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related perforation:Management and prevention[J]. World J Clin Cases,2014,2(10):522-527.
[6] WU WG, GU J, ZHANG WJ, et al. ERCP for patients who have undergone Billroth II gastroenterostomy and Braun anastomosis[J]. World J Gastroenterol,2014,20(2):607-610.
[7] WU WG,ZHANG WJ,GU J,et al. Retrieval-balloon-assisted enterography for ERCP after Billroth II gastroenterostomy and Braun anastomosis[J]. World J Gastroenterol,2014,20(31):10921-10926.
[8] 吴文广,王雪峰. ERCP相关胰腺及十二指肠损伤特点及外科治疗[J]. 中国实用外科杂志,2015,35(3): 237-239.
[9] WANG BC, SHI WB, ZHANG WJ, et al. Entering the duodenal diverticulum: a method for cannulation of the intradiverticular papilla[J]. World J Gastroenterol,2012,18(48):7394-7396.
[10] SZARY NM,AL-KAWAS FH. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: how to avoid and manage them[J]. Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY),2013,9(8):496-504.
[11] CHOUDHARY A,BECHTOLD ML,ARIF M,et al. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post ERCP pancreatitis: a meta analysis and systematic revie[J]. Gastrointest Endosc,2011,73(2):275-282.
[12] FREEMAN ML. Pancreatic stents for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol,2007,5(11):1354-1365.
[13] KAWAGUCHI Y, OGAWA M,OMATA F, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pancreatic stenting to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograp[J]. World J Gastroenterol,2012,18(14):1635-1641.

ERCP治疗胆总管结石临床疗效及其相关并发症分析

ERCP analysis of clinical efficacy and complications of the treatment of common bile duct stones

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 6

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	伍伟红, 江敏仪, 甘蔚明. CICARE沟通模式对中下段尿路结石患者手术室注意事项知晓程度及沟通满意度的影响[J]. 广州医药, 2020, 51(6): 98-100.
[2]	陈子义, 温露华, 李艺域. 对比小儿肠套叠的开腹手术与腹腔镜手术治疗的临床研究[J]. 广州医药, 2020, 51(5): 37-40.
[3]	金海, 胡志文, 柳建华. 压迫止血法在实时超声引导经皮肾穿刺的应用价值[J]. 广州医药, 2020, 51(4): 47-50.
[4]	黄毅敏, 向炳辉, 王小锋, 岑川, 邓永康. 乳腺癌根治术中保留乳头乳晕对术后疗效、上肢功能及外观满意度的影响[J]. 广州医药, 2020, 51(1): 121-124.
[5]	叶东挺, 陈海生, 李彬, 张雄, 崔亚玲, 朱大量. 腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗并发症的处理策略[J]. 广州医药, 2018, 49(5): 40-43.
[6]	石华, 欧阳斌, 柳建明, 邓军洪. 改良包皮环切缝合器精准治疗包皮过长的疗效比较[J]. 广州医药, 2018, 49(4): 43-46.