Literature DB >> 6846703

Surgical approaches to recurrent choledocholithiasis. Choledochoduodenostomy versus T-tube drainage after choledochotomy.

N J Lygidakis.   

Abstract

To assess the value of choledochoduodenostomy versus T-tube drainage to manage patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis, a prospective, randomized study was carried out where under strict criteria of selection, 45 patients underwent choledochoduodenostomy after choledochotomy (Group A), and another 45 patients underwent T-tube drainage (Group B). Results revealed that patients in Group A had low early morbidity (8.8 percent), no mortality, and no reoperations due to recurrent choledocholithiasis. In contrast, in Group B patients there was a mortality of 4.4 percent, an early morbidity of 26.6 percent, and a late recurrence and reoperation rate of 20.9 percent. The difference in those elements between patients in Group A and Group B is considered significant (p less than 0.05, p less than 0.001, and p less than 0.0001, mortality and early and late morbidity, respectively). It is recommended that at least for a proportion of patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis who present with clinical and operative findings similar to those in this study, choledochoduodenostomy has to be considered the method of choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6846703     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(83)90111-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  10 in total

1.  Sump syndrome as a complication of choledochoduodenostomy.

Authors:  Motaz Qadan; Sharon Clarke; Ellen Morrow; George Triadafilopoulos; Brendan Visser
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Choledochoduodenostomy. Analysis of 71 cases followed for 5 to 15 years.

Authors:  A Escudero-Fabre; A Escallon; J Sack; N B Halpern; J S Aldrete
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 3.  Biliary concrements: the endoscopic approach.

Authors:  A R Rosseland; M Osnes
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1989 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Endoscopic sphincterotomy in the young patient: is there cause for concern?

Authors:  T C Tham; D L Carr-Locke; J S Collins
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 5.  Surgical treatments for patients with recurrent bile duct stones and Oddis sphincter laxity.

Authors:  Boxuan Zhou; Jinxiong Hu; Yuesi Zhong
Journal:  Intractable Rare Dis Res       Date:  2017-08

6.  Laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy as a reliable rescue procedure for complicated bile duct stones.

Authors:  Palanisamy Senthilnathan; Dhawal Sharma; Sandeep C Sabnis; S Srivatsan Gurumurthy; E Senthil Anand; V P Nalankilli; Natesan Anand Vijai; Palanivelu Praveen Raj; Ramakrishnan Parthasarathy; Subbaiah Rajapandian; Chinnusamy Palanivelu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Percutaneous removal of biliary stones.

Authors:  G Gandini; D Righi; D Regge; S Recchia; A Ferraris; G R Fronda
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  1990 Aug-Sep       Impact factor: 2.740

8.  Long-term prognosis after treatment of patients with choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Kazuhisa Uchiyama; Hironobu Onishi; Masaji Tani; Hiroyuki Kinoshita; Manabu Kawai; Masaki Ueno; Hiroki Yamaue
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Long term follow-up of patients with side to side choledochoduodenostomy and transduodenal sphincteroplasty.

Authors:  A R Baker; J P Neoptolemos; T Leese; D C James; D P Fossard
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 1.891

10.  Management of common bile duct stones: a ten-year experience at a tertiary care center.

Authors:  Sebastiano Lacitignola; Martino Minardi
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.