| Literature DB >> 34911513 |
HongTian Xia1, XiangFei Meng2, XianLei Xin2, Tao Yang2, Yang Liu2, Bin Liang2, Jing Wang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of our new surgical procedures for primary intra- and extrahepatic hepatolithiasis. Hepatolithiasis is an intractable disease with frequent recurrences.Entities:
Keywords: Abnormality of the duodenal papilla; Hepatolithiasis; Hilar bile duct stenosis; Oddis sphincter; Partial hepatectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34911513 PMCID: PMC8672556 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01419-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Fig. 1The flowchart of the surgical procedure for the observation group
Demographic and clinical characteristics
| Parameters | Control (n = 142) | Observation (n = 128) | All (n = 270) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, year | 45.73 ± 12.02 | 45.94 ± 12.60 | 45.83 ± 12.27 | 0.897 |
| Gender | 0.999 | |||
| Male | 61 (42.96%) | 55 (42.97%) | 116 (42.96%) | |
| Female | 81 (57.04%) | 73 (57.03%) | 154 (57.04%) | |
| Imaging diagnosis method | 0.009 | |||
| Ultrasound, CT, MRCP | 114 (80.28%) | 116 (90.63%) | 230 (85.19%) | |
| Ultrasound, MRCP | 8 (5.63%) | 7 (5.47%) | 15 (5.56%) | |
| CT, MRCP | 9 (6.34%) | 5 (3.91%) | 14 (5.19%) | |
| Ultrasound, CT | 11 (7.75%) | 0 (0.00%) | 11 (4.07%) | |
| γ-Glutamyltransferase | 0.895 | |||
| Elevation | 136 (95.77%) | 123 (96.09%) | 259 (95.93%) | |
| Normal | 6 (4.23%) | 5 (3.91%) | 11 (4.07%) | |
| Alkaline phosphatase | 0.917 | |||
| Elevation | 140 (98.59%) | 126 (98.44%) | 266 (98.52%) | |
| Normal | 2 (1.41%) | 2 (1.56%) | 4 (1.48%) | |
| Stone distribution | 0.842 | |||
| Limited distribution | 105 (73.94%) | 96 (75.00%) | 201 (74.44%) | |
| Diffuse stone | 37 (26.06%) | 32 (25.00%) | 69 (25.56%) | |
| Surgical methods | < 0.001 | |||
| Surgical Methods I | 24 (16.90%) | 93 (72.66%) | 117 (43.33%) | |
| Surgical Methods II | 22 (15.49%) | 35 (27.34%) | 57 (21.11%) | |
| Surgical Methods III | 67 (47.18%) | 0 (0.00%) | 67 (24.81%) | |
| Surgical Methods IV | 29 (20.42%) | 0 (0.00%) | 29 (10.74%) |
ERCP/EST, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan- creatography/endoscopic sphincterotomy; CBDE, Common bile duct exploration ; LC+LCBDE, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration; LC, laparoscopic cholecystectomy ; CT, computed tomography
Surgical method I: exploratory laparotomy, bile duct exploration with stone extraction, extrahepatic bile duct resection, partial hepatectomy, hilar ductoplasty, Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy
Surgical method II: exploratory laparotomy, bile duct exploration with stone extraction, extrahepatic bile duct resection, hilar ductoplasty, Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy
Surgical method III: exploratory laparotomy, bile duct exploration with stone extraction, partial hepatectomy, T-tube drainage
Surgical method IV: exploratory laparotomy, bile duct exploration with stone extraction, T-tube drainage
Fig. 2A representative case in the observation group (female, 51 years old). The CT images showed intrahepatic bile duct stones (A) and common bile duct stones (B). C MRCP image displayed left intrahepatic bile duct stones, left hepatic duct stenosis, and common bile duct stones. D Intraoperative choledochoscope exploration showed incomplete closure of the duodenal papilla at the lower end of the common bile duct. The patient underwent left hepatectomy, hilar ductoplasty (E) and Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy (F)
Surgical parameters and perioperative outcomes
| Parameters | Control (n = 142) | Observation (n = 128) | All (n = 270) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choledochoscopic exploration finding at the lower end of the bile duct | – | |||
| Stricture | – | 35 (27.34%) | (0.00%) | – |
Sphincter of Oddi insufficiency | – | 61 (47.66%) | (0.00%) | – |
| No abnormal finding | – | 32 (25.00%) | (0.00%) | – |
| Choledochoscopic exploration at hilar bile duct | – | |||
| Stricture | – | 122 (95.31%) | (0.00%) | – |
| No abnormal finding | – | 6 (4.69%) | (0.00%) | – |
| Intraoperative bile bacterial culture | 0.635 | |||
| Negative | 17 (11.97%) | 13 (10.16%) | 30 (11.11%) | |
| Positive | 125 (88.03%) | 115 (89.84%) | 240 (88.89%) | |
| Complete stone clearance | < 0.001 | |||
| Yes | 93 (65.96%) | 128 (100.00%) | 221 (82.16%) | |
| No | 48 (34.04%) | 0 (0.00%) | 48 (17.84%) | |
| Post-operative hospitalization, day | 10.30 ± 2.58 | 10.24 ± 2.76 | 10.27 ± 2.66 | 0.852 |
| Short-term postoperative complications | ||||
| Pure bile leakage | 1 (0.70%) | 5 (3.91%) | 6 (2.22%) | 0.105 |
| Bile leakage with abdominal infection | 6 (4.23%) | 5 (3.91%) | 11 (4.07%) | 0.895 |
| Incision delayed healing | 8 (5.63%) | 6 (4.69%) | 14 (5.19%) | 0.726 |
| Postoperative abdominal hemorrhage | 2 (1.41%) | 2 (1.56%) | 4 (1.48%) | 1.000 |
Follow-up and long-term complications
| Parameters | Control (n = 142) | Observation (n = 128) | All (n = 270) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-up | 0.181 | |||
| Yes | 112 (78.87%) | 109 (85.16%) | 221 (81.85%) | |
| No | 30 (21.13%) | 19 (14.84%) | 49 (18.15%) | |
| Follow-up period, month | 97.54 ± 25.42 | 101.87 ± 33.81 | 99.67 ± 29.87 | 0.229 |
| Long-term complications | ||||
| Upper abdominal discomfort | 15 (13.64%) | 19 (17.43%) | 34 (15.53%) | 0.438 |
| Bloating | 14 (12.73%) | 17 (15.60%) | 31 (14.16%) | 0.543 |
| Cholangitis | 36 (32.73%) | 9 (8.26%) | 45 (20.55%) | < 0.001 |
| Occasional cholangitis | 15 (13.64%) | 5 (4.59%) | 20 (9.13%) | 0.020 |
| More severe cholangitis | 1 (0.91%) | 1 (0.92%) | 2 (0.91%) | 1.000 |
| Bile duct stones | 36 (32.73%) | 6 (5.50%) | 42 (19.18%) | < 0.001 |
| Cholangiocarcinoma | 3 (2.73%) | 2 (1.83%) | 5 (2.28%) | 1.000 |
| Stricture | 1 (0.91%) | 2 (1.83%) | 3 (1.37%) | 0.622 |
| Diarrhoea | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (0.92%) | 1 (0.46%) | 0.498 |
Long-term therapeutic efficacy
| Parameters | Control (n = 142) (%) | Observation (n = 128) (%) | All (n = 270) (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 43 (39.09) | 75 (68.81) | 118 (53.88) | < 0.001 |
| Good | 15 (13.64) | 19 (17.43) | 34 (15.53) | |
| Fair | 16 (14.55) | 9 (8.26) | 25 (11.42) | |
| Poor | 36 (32.73) | 6 (5.50) | 42 (19.18) |
Fig. 3Kaplan-Meier survival function between control and observation groups, the dichotomous outcomes were excellent+good vs. fair+poor (as event). The comparison test was log-rank test, P < 0.001