| Literature DB >> 35832300 |
Xu Xu1, Dongmei Guo1, Yan Zhang1, Dandan Yang1, Guangbin Hou1, Quanfu Li1, Changqing Ge1, Zengwang Qie1, Yonggang Zhong1.
Abstract
To explore the clinical efficacy of microscope combined with Wechat smart platform in patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis, this paper proposes the effect of microscope combined with Wechat smart platform intervention after laparoscopic lithotomy and choledocholithotomy on the clinical efficacy and gastrointestinal function of patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis. From February 2018 to March 2019, 78 patients with gastric cancer were selected by our clinic and included in the research team. Evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic biliary lithotomy (LBL) + bile duct lithotomy (TBL) + T-tube drainage therapy to provide reliable evidence for improved efficacy and efficacy in order to provide a strong reference for improving the effectiveness and safety of surgical treatment of choledocholithiasis. Safety of surgical treatment of diseases. Gallstone disease. The experiments did not show any significant differences between the two groups during surgery. Diabetes was lower in the control group, and hospital incidence was lower in the control group. There were no significant differences between the two groups for preoperative WHOQOL-100 scores. Two weeks and four weeks after surgery, the man-key-100 score was higher than that of the control group. Endoscopic cholecystectomy + choledocholithotomy + choledochoscopic lithotomy + T-tube fluid have been shown to be effective in promoting rapid intestinal function and improving patient quality of life and are appropriate for therapeutic use.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35832300 PMCID: PMC9262574 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9661506
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scanning ISSN: 0161-0457 Impact factor: 1.750
Figure 1Cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.
Comparison of surgical indexes between the two groups.
| Group | Intraoperative time | Intraoperative bleeding | Postoperative hospital stay |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research group | 94.37 ± 13.38 | 50.54 ± 10.17 | 6.73 ± 0.18 |
| Control group | 94.26 ± 13.32 | 106.61 ± 18.22 | 10.55 ± 0.37 |
Comparison of postoperative intestinal function recovery between the two groups.
| Group | Postoperative bowel sounds recovery time | First postoperative anal exhaust time |
|---|---|---|
| Research group | 32.36 ± 5.12 | 15.34 ± 3.18 |
| Control group | 60.54 ± 9.85 | 41.27 ± 6.52 |
Comparison of postoperative complications between the two groups.
| Group | Subcutaneous effusion | Subcutaneous emphysema | Incision infection | Abdominal infection | Acute cholangitis | Acute pancreatitis | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research group | 0 | 2.57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.57 | 5.14 |
| Control group | 7.68 | 0 | 2.57 | 2.57 | 2.57 | 0 | 17.96 |
Comparison of wh0qol-100 scores between the two groups.
| Group | Preoperative | 2 weeks after operation | 4 weeks after operation | 8 weeks after operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research group | 64.36 ± 6.12 | 72.55 ± 3.69 | 79.83 ± 3.92 | 85.27 ± 3.65 |
| Control group | 64.37 ± 6.11 | 64.32 ± 6.09 | 73.37 ± 4.56 | 85.26 ± 3.67 |
Figure 2Comparison of wh0qol-100 scale scores between the two groups.