目的 探讨腹腔镜下联合胆道镜微创保胆取石术治疗胆囊结石的疗效。方法 解放军第452医院普外科2005年1月至2010年1月期间行腹腔镜保胆取石术治疗胆囊结石患者70例，与同期行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者对比，观察2组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、住院费用及术后饮食恢复时间。结果 在术中出血量及术后饮食恢复时间上，保胆取石组明显少于或短于胆囊切除组（P＜0.05）；在手术时间、术后住院时间及住院费用上2组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 相比胆囊切除术，腹腔镜联合胆道镜保胆取石术创伤较小且恢复较快，但是保胆取石术后结石的复发有待长期观察和研究。
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones>1 cm. MethodsWe electronically searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, WanFang, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP database (by the end of July 2015) to collect randomized controlled trials involving PCNL vs. URL for the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones> 1 cm. The quality of those trials were assessed. Data were extracted and analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsSix randomized controlled trials were finally obtained after screening. A total of 487 patients were included for a Meta-analysis. The results showed that, as compared with the control group (URL), the patients in the trial group (PCNL) had the following features: ① There was a remarkable improvement of stone clearance rate [RR=1.20, 95% CI (1.09, 1.33), P=0.000 3].② There was no statistical difference in postoperative fever rates, urinary tract perforation rates [RR=1.73, 95%CI (0.43, 7.00), P=0.45; RR=1.02, 95%CI (0.11, 9.37), P=0.99], but the incidence of hematuria was higher [RR=1.99, 95%CI (1.09, 3.62), P=0.03], and the mean operative duration was longer [WMD=30.03 minutes, 95%CI (10.04, 50.02) minuntes, P=0.003].③ The mean hospitalization stay was delayed by an average of 3.73 days [WMD=3.73 days, 95%CI (3.02, 4.44) days, P<0.000 01]. ConclusionPCNL is better than URL in the stone clearance rate, while patients in the PCNL group have to stay in the hospital much longer, and should bear longer mean operative duration.
目的 总结超选择性肾动脉栓塞治疗经皮肾镜取石术后严重出血的临床经验。 方法 回顾分析2009年10月－2012年11月行经皮肾镜取石术后发生严重出血的6例（2.74%）患者的临床资料和对其进行超选择性肾动脉栓塞术的血管造影表现和栓塞疗效。 结果 患者平均年龄67岁，经皮肾镜取石术后急性出血1例，迟发出血5例，均有体外冲击波碎石史或糖尿病、高血压病史。肾动脉造影显示损伤动脉为肾后下段动脉、肾下段动脉分支，表现为假性动脉瘤5例，动静脉瘘1例。使用弹簧圈或聚乙烯醇颗粒超选择性栓塞，栓塞后出血无一例复发。随访6个月，5例肾功能未见下降，1例受损。 结论 经皮肾镜术后严重出血与术中动脉损伤有关，采用超选择性肾动脉栓塞术能够达到迅速止血、尽可能保全患肾功能、有效挽救生命的诊疗效果。
Objective To evaluate the clinical application value of the tauro ursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) for preventing the relapse of lithiasis after the gallbladder-protected lithotomy. Methods Totally 80 cholecyslithiasis patients in Chengdu General Military Hospital who met the demand of lithotomy in protecting gallbladder were divided into two groups by random permutations, with 40 patients in each. The calculus was removed by using the percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy in order to preserve the well-functioning gallbladder. The patients in the trial group were given TUDCA after surgery for two years, whereas the patients in the control group received the same nursing and diet therapies without medication. The thickness of gallbladder wall and the contraction function of gallbladder were checked two years after surgery, the statistics of the recurrence rate of liary calculus symptoms and cholecyslithiasis were conducted, and the comparison between those two groups was performed. Results All the operations of gallbladder-protected lithotomy were successful. There was significant difference between those two groups two years after surgery in terms of the thickness of gallbladder wall and the contraction function of gallbladder (Plt;0.05). The relapse of lithiasis was remarkably decreased in the trial group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The application of TUDCA for patients with gallbladder-protected lithotomy can prevent the relapse of cholecyslithiasis.
目的 探讨孤立肾肾结石经皮肾镜取石（PCNL）术并发感染性休克的护理。 方法 回顾性分析2010年3月－2012年10月5例孤立肾肾结石患者行PCNL术后并发感染性休克的临床资料，对患者术后出现的休克及时补足血容量，使用有效的抗生素，早期足量应用激素、血管活性药物，同时加强心理疏导、健康教育等护理措施。 结果 5例患者体温均在3 d内降至正常；血管活性药物平均使用时间为1.8 d （2～4 d）；1例因血氧饱和度＜80%，血压＜85/50 mm Hg（1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa）转往重症监护病房行呼吸机辅助呼吸2 d后呼吸循环功能改善；另1例同时出现少尿无尿，及时行血液透析，第4天尿量逐渐恢复；5例患者均痊愈出院。 结论 感染性休克是PCNL术后最危险的并发症之一，对其采取积极预防、及早发现、及时有效的治疗和护理等措施，可有效促进患者康复。
目的比较腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术（LC＋LCBDE）与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开取石联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术（EST＋LC）治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石的临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析45例行LC＋LCBDE及60例行EST＋LC患者的临床资料，观察2组在单次结石清除率、中转手术率、手术并发症、住院时间等指标方面的效果。 结果2组患者的基线资料相近，无手术死亡病例；2组术后并发症发生情况的差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；LC＋LCBDE组单次治疗成功率高于EST＋LC组，而住院时间及中转手术率则短于或低于EST＋LC组（P＜0.05）。 结论LC＋LCBDE是治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石患者安全有效的方法。
Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration （LC＋LCBDE） and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterectomy with LC（ERCP/EST＋LC） in treatment for cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Methods From January 2008 to July 2011， 127 patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis underwent either LC＋LCBDE（85 cases， LC＋LCBDE group） or ERCP/EST＋LC（42 cases， ERCP/EST＋LC group） were collected retrospectively. The clearance rate of calculus， hospital stay， hospitalization expenses， and the rate of postoperative complications were compared between two groups. Results Eighty-five patients were performed successfully in the LC＋LCBDE group， out of which 54 patients had primary closure of common bile duct （LC＋LCBDE primary closure group）， whereas in 28 patients common bile ducts were closed over T tube （LC＋LCBDE＋T tube group）. Forty-two patients were performed successfully in the ERCP/EST＋LC group. There were no differences in the clearance rate of calculus〔100%（82/82） versus 97.37%（37/38）， P=0.317〕 and postoperative complications rate 〔（4.71% （4/85） versus 4.76%（2/42）， P=1.000〕 between the LC＋LCBDE group and ERCP/EST＋LC group. The median （quartile） hospital stay in the LC＋LCBDE group was shorter than that in the ERCP/EST＋LC group 〔12 （6） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001〕. In the LC＋LCBDE primary closure group， both median （quartile）?hospital stay and median（quartile） hospitalization expenses were less than those of ERCP/EST＋LC〔hospital stay：11（5） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001；hospitalization expenses：27 054（8 452） yuan versus 31 595（11 743） yuan， P=0.005〕 . Conclusions In the management of patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis， both LC＋LCBDE and ERCP/EST＋LC are safe and effective. LC＋LCBDE， especially primary closure after LCBDE， is associated with significantly less costs as compared with ERCP/EST＋LC. Moreover， patients can be cured by LC＋LCBDE through one-stage treatment with the protection of the papilla function and no limits to the amount or size of the choledocholithiasis. The LC＋LCBDE is a preferable choice for the appropriate cases of cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis.
Objective To introduce the current status of clinical research on endoscopic cholecystolithotomy with reservation of gallbladder. Methods Literatures related to the basis, advantage, indication, contraindication, operative method and current controversy were reviewed and summarized. Results The objective evidences were afforded by postoperative complications of cholecystectomy for endoscopic cholecystolithotomy with reservation of gallbladder. The progress of endoscopic technique made it possible for reservation of gallbladder. The controversy in endoscopic cholecystolithotomy with reservation of gallbladder was focused on the choice of indications and operative procedure. Incorrect patient selection and undue pursuit of cholecystolithotomy with reservation of gallbladder would be completely opposite to the treatment of gallstone. Conclusion It is feasible for endoscopic cholecystolithotomy with reservation of gallbladder to remove completely stone and reserve gallbladder function, but further investigation and long-term follow up are required to delineate gallstone recurrence after operation.