摘 要 目的:探讨急性胆源性胰腺炎(ABP)患者行腹腔镜胆囊切除手术时机选择。
方法:选择2014年3月—2017年1月收治的96例ABP患者,其中47例在行腹腔镜胆囊切除术与胆总管探查术之前行保守治疗,49例直接行腹腔镜胆囊切除术与胆总管探查术(对照组)。比较两组患者的相关临床指标。
结果:与对照组比较,观察组的术后镇痛药使用例数(19例vs. 9例)、平均手术时间(1.9 h vs. 1.6 h)、平均术后胃肠蠕动恢复时间(2.6 d vs. 1.9 d)、术后切口感染例数(7例vs. 1例)、中转开腹手术例数(6例vs. 1例)、平均术后引流量(56.9 mL vs. 32.4 mL)与平均术后住院时间(6.2 d vs. 4.5 d)均明显减少,治疗总有效率(81.6% vs. 95.7%)明显升高(均P<0.05)。随访期9~39个月,两组均无ABP复发。结论:ABP先行积极保守治疗,待胰腺炎缓解后,再行腹腔镜胆囊切除,具有安全可行的特点,推荐临床应用。
关键词 胰腺炎;胰腺管;保守治疗;胆囊切除术,腹腔镜
急性胆源性胰腺炎(acute biliary pancreatitis,ABP)是常见的普通外科疾病,其发病率近年来不断攀升并成为急性胰腺炎的首要病因[1],胰胆管末端汇合并开口于十二指肠乳头,结石在经过Oddi括约肌可损害黏膜并引起十二指肠乳头水肿、狭窄,胰、胆管梗阻及胆、胰液逆流,致使胰腺导管内压力增高,胰腺组织则消化自身,导致ABP发生[2]。ABP具有发病急、进展快和病死率高的特点,若不及时治疗可在数天内发生多种严重全身并发症,严重者可死亡,病死率高达30%[3]。ABP多由胆管结石阻塞或十二指肠乳头炎性水肿造成胆汁、胰液的排出障碍引起,临床可表现为腹痛、恶心、呕吐、腹胀、黄疸和肠梗阻等。外科手术目前是治疗ABP主要有效方案。与传统开腹手术比,治疗往往首选腹腔镜微创手术,具有手术创伤小,并发症低及恢复快等优点[4-6]。但目前对术前先保守治疗还是尽早手术仍存在争论[7-8]。本研究对保守治疗是否存在风险进行探讨,为ABP的外科治疗时机选择提供参考,现将研究结果汇报如下。
经院伦理委员会同意,前瞻性收集2014年3月—2017年1月来我院进行治疗的96例经B超、CT或MRCP确诊的ABP患者,所有患者均接受腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术,将保守治疗的好处与风险一并告知患者,结合患者的意愿,按是否接受保守治疗分为未接受保守治疗的对照组49例和接受保守治疗的观察组47例。两组患者或家属均签署知情同意书。
存在右上腹部疼痛、恶性呕吐等消化道症状,经B超、CT或MRCP检查符合急性胆源性胰腺炎的诊断标准;血、尿淀粉酶显著增高,超过正常值的3倍;胆红素、谷丙转氨酶和谷草转氨酶水平增高;愿意配合治疗,签署知情同意书,资料完整。
入院时胆管炎致感染性休克须行急诊手术者;CT、MRCP及术中胆总管探查胆管内有阳性结石者;合并严重的心、肺、肝肾等重要脏器功能障碍或衰竭者;合并胃肠穿孔者;妊娠或哺乳期女性。
观察组确诊后立即给予禁食、胃肠减压、体液复苏、维持血容量、电解质平衡、使用抗生素以预防胰腺坏死合并感染、抑制胰腺分泌和静脉营养支持等,待患者的胰腺炎症状得到有效控制,体温恢复正常、腹部疼痛感消失、血尿淀粉酶恢复正常、肝肾功能基本正常、经CT检查腹腔无明显渗出,再行腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术;对照组入院后立即行腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术。手术时,全麻,仰卧位,气管插管,脐下切口建立气腹,取头高脚底右侧抬高位,再分别在剑突下、右锁骨中线肋缘下及右腋前线肋缘下取切口,置入腹腔镜、胆道镜,行腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查,术毕常规放置腹腔引流管。术后给予解痉、抗炎和抑酶抑酸治疗,严密观察患者腹腔引流管及腹部体征,术后2~3 d,引流液低于10 mL拔除腹腔引流管。
1.5.1 手术和术后情况 记录所有患者术后镇痛药使用情况、手术时间、术后胃肠蠕动恢复时间、术后切口感染、转开腹手术、术后引流量和术后至出院时间。
1.5.2 疗效评价标准 显效:腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查术后ABP临床症状完全消失,未出现并发症;有效:腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查术后ABP的临床症状有一定程度的消失,未出现并发症;无效:腹腔镜胆囊切除胆总管探查术后ABP的临床症状未消失且出现并发症。
1.5.3 随访情况 两组患者均接受随访,随访时间≥9个月。随访方式:复诊、电话、微信、短信和电子邮件等。随访终点:失访、患者死亡。记录两组术后随访期间复发ABP的情况。
所得数据采用SPSS 13.0统计软件进行统计学处理,以均数±标准差(±s)表示计量资料,组间比较采用方差分析,计数资料组间比较采用χ2检验,检验水准为α=0.05,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
两组入院时的性别比、体质量指数(BMI)、年龄、体温、发病至入院时间、白细胞计数、总胆红素、谷丙转氨酶、病理类型、合并症、吸烟和饮酒等一般情况均具有可比性(均P>0.05)(表1)。
表1 两组入院时的一般情况比较
Table 1 Comparison of the general conditions between the two groups at admission
注:1)无器官功能衰竭和局部并发症;2)出现持续性器官功能衰竭(>48 h)
Note: 1) No organ failure and local complications; 2) With sustained organ failure (>48 h)
资料 对照组(n=49) 观察组(n=47) t/χ2 P性别[n(%)]男29(59.2) 27(57.4) 0.030 0.863女20(40.8) 20(42.6)BMI(kg/m2,±s) 21.6±1.6 22.0±2.1 1.046 0.301年龄(岁,
±s) 45.9±7.6 46.2±9.1 0.784 0.437体温(℃,
±s) 38.5±1.2 38.7±1.9 0.615 0.542发病至入院时间(h,
±s) 16.3±7.9 17.9±6.8 1.062 0.294白细胞计数(109/L,
±s) 15.1±2.4 15.9±2.1 1.728 0.091总胆红素(μmol/L,
±s) 68.6±15.1 69.1±17.2 0.151 0.881谷丙转氨酶(U/L,
±s) 204.6±51.4 209.8±47.3 0.809 0.423病理类型[n(%)]轻型1)36(73.5) 39(83.0) 1.269 0.260重型 2) 13(26.5) 8(17.0)合并症[n(%)]0.000 0.000冠心病 15(30.6) 18(38.3) 0.628 0.428糖尿病 10(20.4) 13(27.7) 0.692 0.405其他 6(12.2) 4(8.5) 0.359 0.549吸烟[n(%)] 18(36.7) 15(31.9) 0.247 0.619饮酒[n(%)] 24(49.0) 20(42.6) 0.399 0.528
与对照组比较,观察组的术后镇痛药使用、手术时间、术后胃肠蠕动恢复时间、术后切口感染、转开腹手术、术后引流量和术后至出院时间均较少(P<0.05)(表2)。
表2 两组患者手术和术后情况比较
Table 2 Comparison of the surgical and postoperative variables between the two groups of patients
?
对照组的显效、有效、无效和总有效分别为24例(49.0%)、16例(32.7%)、9例(18.4%)和40例(81.6%),对照组分别为32例(68.1%)、13例(27.7%)、2例(4.3%)和45例(95.7%),与对照组比,观察组的总有效率(81.6% vs. 95.7%)明显增加(P<0.05)(表3)。
表3 两组患者疗效比较[n(%)]
Table 3 Comparison of the efficacies between the two groups of patients [n (%)]
两组患者均接受随访,无失访病例。两组随访时间均为9~39个月,两组均无ABP复发。
ABP发病时间对胆囊、Calot三角的组织病变程度影响巨大[9],治疗ABP能否成功的关键在于如何选择时机行腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术。大量报道关于腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术对ABP患者治疗的中转开腹率和并发症发生率有较大的差异,一个重要原因在于行腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查手术之前是否接受保守治疗。
一种观点认为早期手术极有必要[6,10-12]。胆囊壁在ABP发病48 h内只发生水肿,但充血不显著,Calot三角解剖结构清晰,容易剥离胆囊壁与周围组织,不会增加手术难度,因此腔镜微创手术可顺利完成。进一步研究显示,对于没有胆管炎或液体复苏需求的患者,无需等待腹痛消失或实验室检查结果恢复正常,入院后尽快行腹腔镜胆囊切除术,可显著缩短住院时间并减少住院费用。
另一种观点认为术前有必要进行保守治疗[13-16]。胆囊壁在患者发生ABP时会出现充血和水肿等病变,立即接受腔镜微创手术可增加术中出血风险,少数患者组织粘连明显,增加手术难度,再加上胆囊张力增高,夹持难度大,手术时间长,术后恢复慢,因而ABP早期行腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术可能是腔镜微创治疗的弊端。另外,ABP患者经历了胰腺炎的炎症刺激,全身状况较差,早期行手术,麻醉意外等风险增加。
本研究纳入的患者以是否接受保守治疗为分组标准,结果显示,与早期手术组比,保守治疗组的手术和术后情况均有明显改善,表现在术后镇痛药使用、手术时间、术后胃肠蠕动恢复时间、术后切口感染、转开腹手术、术后引流量和术后至出院时间显著减少,可见保守治疗对于ABP顺利完成腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术具有明显的优势。对保守治疗,也有一些治疗体会[17-21]:⑴ ABP发生早期阶段常出现积液,CT显示胰周液体积聚没有完整的囊壁,积液多在筋膜及腹膜,因为急性积液为无菌状态,即使不干预,机体也可自行吸收,急性胰周液体积聚≥4周,个别病例会发展为胰腺假性囊肿,不会构成重症。⑵ 保守治疗具有积极意义;胰酶抑制剂可直接抑制胰腺外分泌,可预防腔镜微创手术术后胰腺炎;H2受体拮抗剂通过抑制胃酸间接抑制胰腺分泌,同时预防应激性溃疡;蛋白酶抑制剂可广泛抑制与ABP进展相关的胰蛋白酶及磷脂酶A等活性及释放,稳定溶酶体膜并改善胰腺微循环,降低ABP并发症;保守治疗期间,当临床症状缓解,可经口进食,给予低脂半流或流食,可明显减少感染并发症发生率,降低病死率。⑶ 多因素Logistic回归分析显示白细胞计数是腔镜微创手术术中转开腹的影响因素,白细胞计数可直接反映胆囊及周围组织的炎症状况,如果ABP白细胞计数超过15×109/L则选择微创手术时应该谨慎,这也是未接受保守治疗直接手术患者转开腹手术例数较多的原因之一。⑷ 保守治疗的时间应≤2周,经验显示炎症导致的纤维素网膜粘连,因为形成相对较短,物理清扫比较容易,而病程到6周后再行手术,胆囊三角处可发生更多粘连与纤维化,难以清理,而且少数ABP患者在5~7周内容易发生病情反复。
需要强调一点,与轻度ABP比较,重度ABP因存在持续性功能衰竭,保守治疗的争议更激烈:一方认为[5,22]:直接手术的病死率、术后并发症和治愈率均明显低于保守治疗,原因在于重度ABP的胰腺坏死感染已基本停止,正常与坏死组织存在清新界限,从技术上可以一次性清除坏死组织,另一方认为[23],重度ABP的病情极容易恶化,不立即进行手术,容易导致脓血症或多器官功能衰竭综合征,严重者可致死。对此,笔者认为重度ABP患者接受保守治疗的收益大于直接手术,在保守治疗期间,患者多由炎症反应转入感染,选择碳氢霉烯类非典型β-内酰胺广谱抗生素预防胰腺感染,经过抗感染治疗,白细胞计数、总胆红素及谷丙转氨酶均有不同程度地降低,恢复到正常时,轻度ABP可进行手术,但重度ABP还需要病情稳定>2周才可确定腹腔感染情况处于可控状态,才能进行手术,而短于上述观察期,则手术很难将感染的坏死组织一次性清除,术后复发的几率较高。
但经保守治疗,ABP也存在腔镜手术中转开腹及不同程度的术后引流,原因在于一些特例及存在的问题[5,24-25]:⑴ 在手术过程中,当发现患者仍伴有严重的炎性反应,或胆囊三角存在粘连的现象,不易解剖胆囊三角时,不可强行继续腔镜手术,应转为开腹,以防止胆管血管等副损伤。⑵ 少数ABP患者病情反复,经过保守治疗后,症状明显改善,但胆囊壁炎症改善不明显,粘连严重,这类患者何时进行手术则是个较难的选择。⑶ 报道显示ABP的轻型及重型与手术顺利程度及术后引流量密切相关,如轻型ABP术后发生反复ABP及中转开腹的风险明显低于重型ABP,本研究纳入的轻型患者例数多于重型,因此未显出两种症型的预后差异,进一步的研究有必要扩大样本量,重点考察保守治疗对不同症型ABP的影响。⑷ 关于腹腔镜胆囊切除术是否有必要实施胆总管探查术的争论也比较大,部分学者认为,胆总管探查术没有必要,尤其对于胆道较细的患者,这类患者女性居多,女性皮下脂肪多,可明显延长住院日。本研究所有患者均行胆总管探查,原因在于,探查术适应证的优势在于腹腔镜手术时可进一步评估胆道的解剖状况,纳入患者均存在不同程度的胆管炎症也符合探查手术适应证,参考反对胆总管探查术的观点,经保守治疗后的患者的胆管炎症均能缓解,这类患者行胆总管探查术的必要性有待进一步考察。
综上所述,ABP可先行积极保守治疗,待胰腺炎症状缓解后,再行腹腔镜胆囊切除联合胆总管探查术,具有安全可行的特点,值得临床推广。
参考文献
[1]Dedemadi G, Nikolopoulos M, Kalaitzopoulos I, et al. Management of patients after recovering from acute severe biliary pancreatitis[J].World J Gastroenterol, 2016, 22(34): 7708–7717. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i34.7708.
[2]Papapanagiotou A, Sgourakis G, Peristeraki S, et al. Potential Prediction of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis Outcome on Admission[J]. Pancreas, 2018, 47(4):454–458. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001026.
[3]Damani AA, Haider S, Bilal H, et al. Comparison of operative time and length of hospital stay in laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute verses chronic cholecystitis[J]. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 2015,27(1):102–104.
[4]Ciftci F, Anuk T. Acute biliary pancreatitis in cholecystectomised patients[J]. North Clin Istanb, 2017, 4(1):73–76. doi: 10.14744/nci.2017.08108.
[5]Kim SB, Kim TN, Chung HH, et al. Small Gallstone Size and Delayed Cholecystectomy Increase the Risk of Recurrent Pancreatobiliary Complications After Resolved Acute Biliary Pancreatitis[J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2017, 62(3):777–783. doi: 10.1007/s10620–016–4428–3.
[6]Räty S, Pulkkinen J, Nordback I, et al. Can Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Prevent Recurrent Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis?:A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial[J]. Ann Surg, 2015,262(5):736–741. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001469.
[7]Aksoy F, Demiral G, Ekinci Ö. Can the timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after biliarypancreatitis change the conversion rate to open surgery?[J]. Asian J Surg, 2017, pii: S1015–9584(16):30431–30436. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2017.02.001. [Epub ahead of print]
[8]Coutinho LMA, Bernardo WM, Rocha RS, et al. Early Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Versus Conservative Treatment in Patients With Acute Biliary Pancreatitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials[J]. Pancreas, 2018, 47(4):444–453. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001032.
[9]Sharma P, Aguilar R, Nader MA, et al. Weekend Effect in Acute Pancreatitis-Related Hospital Admissions in the United States: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample[J]. Pancreas, 2018,47(4):418–424. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001008.
[10]Gurusamy KS, Davidson C, Gluud C, et al. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis[J].Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, 30(6):CD005440. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005440.
[11]Lee HS, Chung MJ, Park JY, et al. Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is not superior to early ERCP in acutebiliary pancreatitis with biliary obstruction without cholangitis[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(2):e0190835. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190835.
[12]Zubia-Olaskoaga F, Maraví-Poma E, Urreta-Barallobre I, et al. Development and validation of a multivariate prediction model for patients with acute pancreatitis in Intensive Care Medicine[J]. Pancreatology, 2018, 18(2):161–167. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.01.008.
[13]Bouwense SA, Besselink MG, van Brunschot S, et al. Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial[J]. Trials,2012, 13(11):225. doi: 10.1186/1745–6215–13–225.
[14]Borreca D, Bona A, Bellomo MP, et al. Timing of cholecystectomy in acute biliary pancreatitis: is it still reasonable to wait?[J].Minerva Chir, 2016, 71(1):31–37.
[15]Cox MR, Budge JP, Eslick GD. Timing and nature of presentation of unsuspected retained common bile duct stones after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015,29(7):2033–2038. doi: 10.1007/s00464–014–3907-x.
[16]Asari S, Matsumoto I, Ajiki T, et al. Perioperative management for pancreatoduodenectomy following severe acute pancreatitis in patients with periampullary cancer: our experience with six consecutive cases[J]. Surg Today, 2015, 45(2):181–188. doi:10.1007/s00595–014–0900-x.
[17]Karaköse O, Sabuncuo lu MZ, Benzin MF, et al. Development of acute cholecystitis following laparoscopic partial cholecystectomy[J]. Turk J Surg, 2015, 33(3):209–211. doi:10.5152/UCD.2015.3060.
[18]肖竣, 陈海川, 俞海波, 等. 胆囊结石伴急性胆源性胰腺炎的微创治疗[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2014, 14(5):399–401. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009–6604.2014.05.005.Xiao J, Chen HC, Yu HB, et al. Mini-invasive Therapy for Acute Biliary Pancreatitis Accompanying Gallstones[J]. Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery, 2014, 14(5):399–401. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009–6604.2014.05.005.
[19]易晓雷, 李旭辉, 苗雄鹰. 急性胆源性胰腺炎腹腔镜胆囊切除术的手术时机[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2010, 19(5):592–594.Yi XL, Li XH, Miao XY. Surgical timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acate biliary pancreatitis[J]. Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 2010, 19(5):592–594.
[20]朱永吉, 谢坤, 赵义军, 等. 急性胆源性胰腺炎胆道疾病的外科处理[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2016, 25(9):1324–1330. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2016.09.017.Zhu YJ, Xie K, Zhao YJ, et al. Surgical treatment of biliary duct diseases in acute biliary pancreatitis[J]. Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 2016, 25(9):1324–1330. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005–6947.2016.09.017.
[21]Windisch O, Raffoul T, Hansen C, et al. Acute pancreatitis :new aspects for the management[J]. Rev Med Suisse, 2017,13(567):1240–1246.
[22]Hollemans RA, Hallensleben NDL, Mager DJ, et al. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency following acute pancreatitis: Systematic review and study level meta-analysis[J]. Pancreatology, 2018, pii:S1424–3903(18)30033–4. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.02.009. [Epub ahead of print]
[23]Ji L, Lv JC, Song ZF, et al. Risk factors of infected pancreatic necrosis secondary to severe acute pancreatitis[J]. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2016, 15(4):428–433.
[24]Morató O, Poves I, Ilzarbe L, et al. Minimally invasive surgery in the era of step-up approach for treatment of severe acutepancreatitis[J]. Int J Surg, 2018, 51:164–169. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.017.
[25]Degrate L, Bernasconi DP, Meroni P, et al. Mild acute biliary pancreatitis: the timing of cholecystectomy should not exceed index admission[J]. Minerva Chir, 2017, 72(5):383–390. doi: 10.23736/S0026–4733.17.07356–4.
Study of timing for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis
Abstract Objective: To investigate the selection of timing for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP).
Methods: Ninety-six ABP patients admitted during March 2014 to January 2017 were enrolled. Of the patients,47 cases underwent conservative treatment before laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration (observation group), and 49 cases were subjected to laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration directly (control group). The main clinical variables between the two groups of patients were compared.
Results: In observation group compared with control group, the number of cases requiring postoperative analgesics (19 cases vs. 9 cases), average operative time (1.9 h vs.1.6 h), average time to postoperative recovery of peristalsis (2.6 d vs.1.9 d), number of cases with postoperative wound infection (7 cases vs.1 case), number of cases requiring open conversion (6 cases vs.1 case), average volume of postoperative drainage (56.9 mL vs.32.4 mL), and average length of postoperative hospital stay (6.2 d vs. 4.5 d) were reduced and overall treatment effective rate (81.6% vs. 95.7%) was increased significantly (all P<0.05). Follow-up was conducted for 9 to 39 months, and repeated ABP was noted.
Conclusion: For ABP, administering conservative treatment first until pancreatitis subsides prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible, and it is recommended to be used in clinical practice.
Key words Pancreatitis; Pancreatic Ducts; Conservative Treatment; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic
CLC number:R657.5
中图分类号:R657.5
doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2018.03.013
http://dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2018.03.013
Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 2018, 27(3):349-354.
收稿日期:2017-11-23;
修订日期:2018-02-15。
(本文编辑 姜晖)
本文引用格式:宋兴超, 吴磊, 路要武. 急性胆源性胰腺炎患者行腹腔镜胆囊切除手术时机选择探讨[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2018,27(3):349-354. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2018.03.013
Cite this article as: Song XC, Wu L, Lu YW. Study of timing for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis[J]. Chin J Gen Surg, 2018, 27(3):349-354. doi:10.3978/j.issn.1005-6947.2018.03.013