Search

Background: Gallstones are the cause of a majority of biliary tract discomfort. Although many community-based studies have addressed the risk factors for gallstone disease (GSD), little is known about GSD prevalence and risk factors in Chinese populations., Methods: From January 2014 to January 2015, participants (N = 2,068,523) were recruited by Meinian Onehealth Healthcare Co., Ltd. They received a physical examination, and GSD was determined by ultrasound., Results: The prevalence of GSD was 8.1%. Risks of GSD were similar between males and females in all age groups. Risk factors for gallstones include body mass index, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and physical activity, as well as biological factors such as age, sex, and elevated blood lipid levels. Serum lipid levels of GSD were statistically different from controls in total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (H-DL), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), and apolipoprotein B (APOB). Furthermore, TC > 5.00 mmol/L, TG > 1.39 mmol/L, HDL < 1.19 mmol/L, LDL > 3.04 mmol/L, and APOB > 0.97 mmol/L were risk factors for gallstones., Conclusions: Serum lipid levels are associated with GSD. TC, TG, LDL, and APOB are risk factors, while HDL is a protective factor.

Background: This study was designed to investigate whether 3D laparoscopic common bile duct (LCBDE) could improve surgical outcomes in choledocholithiasis patients compared with 2D LCBDE. Method: Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to balance the bias in baseline characteristic between two groups. Results: 213 patients underwent 3D LCBDE and 212 patients receiving 2D LCBDE were enrolled in this study. The operation time and blood loss in 3D group were significantly less than that in 2D group. After propensity score matching, a total of 114 paired cases were selected from the two groups. The operation time and blood loss in 3D group remain significantly lower than in 2D group. In the end, the subgroup analysis based on abdominal adhesion level was performed and it was observed that for patients with adhesion level 1 and level 2, 3D surgery could obviously decrease the operation time and intraoperative blood loss. Conclusions: 3D LCBDE would significantly reduce operation time, blood loss, and conversion rate to laparotomy in choledocholithiasis patients versus 2D LCBDE. For patients with abdominal adhesions level 1 and level 2, 3D LCBDE could provide better surgical outcomes than 2D LCBDE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This article compared the clinicopathological differences between the cystic duct carcinoma and type I/II perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. • This article compared the efficacy of routine imaging examinations to distinguish between the cystic duct carcinoma and type I/II perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. • This article suggested NLR and GS as new indicators for the differential diagnosis of the cystic duct carcinoma and type I/II perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A history of abdominal biliary tract surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), and there are very few reports about laparoscopic procedures in patients with a history of abdominal biliary tract surgery.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 227 consecutive patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations at our institution between December 2013 and June 2019. A total of 110 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE, and 117 consecutive patients underwent open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE). Patient demographics and perioperative variables were compared between the two groups.Results: The LCBDE group performed significantly better than the OCBDE group with respect to estimated blood loss [30 (5-700) vs. 50 (10-1800) ml; p = 0.041], remnant common bile duct (CBD) stones (17 vs. 28%; p = 0.050), postoperative hospital stay [7 (3-78) vs. 8.5 (4.5-74) days; p = 0.041], and time to oral intake [2.5 (1-7) vs. 3 (2-24) days; p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences in the operation time [170 (60-480) vs. 180 (41-330) minutes; p = 0.067]. A total of 19 patients (17%) in the LCBDE group were converted to open surgery. According to Clavien's classification of complications, the LCBDE group had significantly fewer postoperative complications than the OCBDE group (40 vs. 57; p = 0.045). There was no mortality in either group. Multiple previous operations (≥ 2 times), a history of open surgery, and previous biliary tract surgery (including bile duct or gallbladder + bile duct other than cholecystectomy alone) were risk factors for postoperative adhesion (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000, respectively).Conclusion: LCBDE is ultimately the least invasive, safest, and the most effective treatment option for patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations and is especially suitable for those with a history of cholecystectomy, few previous operations (< 2 times), or a history of laparoscopic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely promoted in recent years as a safe and effective treatment for choledocholithiasis. However, there are no standard guidelines for the treatment of patients who have concomitant hepatolithiasis of the left liver and abdominal adhesions. The aim of the current research was to compare the outcomes of open versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with left hepatectomy (OCBDH vs. LCBDH) in patients with choledocholithiasis concomitant with left-sided hepatolithiasis, and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis in patients with abdominal adhesions.Methods: Between October 2012 and October 2015, a total of 321 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis underwent surgical treatment. LCBDE was performed in 107 patients, and open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE) was performed in 111 patients. Further, 31 patients and 72 patients underwent LCBDH and OCBDH, respectively. A total of 133 patients who underwent LCBDE or OCBDE had abdominal adhesions, which were classified as mild, moderate, or severe according to an abdominal adhesion scoring system, which was validated in the LCBDE group and OCBDE group. The perioperative results were reviewed and analyzed retrospectively.Results: In the mild adhesion group, blood loss, postoperative recovery in the LCBDE group was lesser than those in the OCBDE group. In the moderate adhesion group, the postoperative recovery was significantly shorter in the LCBDE group than in the OCBDE group. In the severe adhesion group, the operation time and blood loss in the LCBDE group were higher than those in the OCBDE group. The postoperative recovery was significantly better in the LCBDH group than in the OCBDH group.Conclusion: LCBDH can obviously improve recovery and shorten the hospitalization period. Further, LCBDE is safe and feasible for patients of choledocholithiasis with mild and moderate abdominal adhesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]