实用肝脏病杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (4): 621-624.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2025.04.036

• 胆石症 • 上一篇    下一篇

ERCP治疗胆总管结石患者操作失败原因分析及补救治疗措施效果评价*

韩娜, 崔发强, 潘瑜   

  1. 710061 西安市 西安交通大学第一附属医院肝胆外科(韩娜,潘瑜);汉中市中心医院肝胆外科(崔发强)
  • 收稿日期:2024-10-31 出版日期:2025-07-10 发布日期:2025-07-14
  • 通讯作者: 崔发强,E-mail:cfq1984@163.com
  • 作者简介:韩娜,女,38岁,大学本科,主治医师。研究方向:肝胆外科诊治技术研究。E-mail:15309291905@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    *陕西省科技厅重点研发计划项目(编号:2022SF-606)

Failure reasons of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and rescue therapy in patients with common bile duct stones

Han Na, Cui Faqiang, Pan Yu   

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710061, Shaanxi Province, China
  • Received:2024-10-31 Online:2025-07-10 Published:2025-07-14

摘要: 目的 分析内镜下逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)治疗胆总管结石(CBDS)患者操作失败的原因,评价补救治疗措施的效果。方法 2020年1月~2023年6月我院住院治疗的CBDS患者254例,其中102例由初级医师组实施,另152例由熟练医师组实施ERCP术治疗。记录分析ERCP手术失败的原因,并采取外科手术、经皮肝穿刺胆管引流术(PTCD)、再次ERCP和内科保守等措施进行补救治疗。结果 两组年龄、性别、胆总管直径、结石大小和合并胆囊结石等情况比较无统计学差异(P>0.05);对于择期病例,熟练医师组手术成功率为82.2%,显著高于初级医师组的72.5%(P<0.05),而两组急诊手术成功率无显著性差异(8.6%对8.8%,P>0.05);本组实施ERCP治疗失败33例(13.0%),主要由于十二指肠乳头不可见,包括幽门狭窄和十二指肠狭窄,和虽然十二指肠乳头可见,但由于乳头旁憩室、乳头偏小、乳头水肿、乳头处占位和胆管狭窄等导致手术失败,两组医师手术失败原因比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);本组在ERCP失败病例中,7例(21.2%)进行再次ERCP,均由熟练医师实施,结果均成功。 9例(27.3%)进行外科手术,包括外科姑息手术6例(66.7%)和外科根治手术3例(33.3%)。 2例(6.1%)慢性胰腺炎并发胰腺假性囊肿,随访无再发胰腺假性囊肿形成。11例(33.3%)进行PTCD术缓解临床症状,其中1例在PTCD术后症状好转行外科手术治疗。4例(12.1%)选择内科保守治疗,其中2例(50.0%)慢性胰腺炎无再发黄疸和腹痛症状。结论 临床实施ERCP对医师的操作技术要求较高,提倡由熟练的临床医师操作。对于ERCP手术失败的病例,应该建立合适的补救预案,积极稳妥地进行后续治疗,以让患者最大限度地获益。

关键词: 胆总管结石, 内镜下逆行胰胆管造影术, 失败原因, 补救措施, 治疗

Abstract: Objective The aim of this study was to analyze failure reasons of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)and rescue therapy in patients with common bile duct stones(CBDS). Methods A total of 254 patients with CBDS were encountered in our hospitalbetween January 2020 and June 2023, and all underwent ERCP therapy. The operation was finished by attending surgeons in 102 cases, and by proficient surgeons in other 152 cases. Failure reasons was recorded, and remedial management measures included laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTCD), ERCP once again by proficient surgeions, or comprehensive internal therapy. Results There were no statistically significant differences as respect to ages, gender, common bile duct diameters, stone sizes and concomitant gallbladder stones between patients treated by attending or proficient surgeons (P>0.05); in patients with selective operation, successful rate of ERCP by proficient surgeons was 82.2%, much higher than 72.5%(P<0.05) by attending surgeons, while there was no significant difference as respect to successful rate of ERCP in patients with emergent operation by the two group surgeons (8.6% vs. 8.8%, P>0.05);ERCP failed in 33 cases (13.0%) in our series, the main reasons arising from invisible duodenal papilla, including pyloric stenosis and duodenal stenosis, and from visible duodenal papilla, including juxtapapillary diverticulum, small papilla, edema of papilla, space-occupying lesions in papilla and bile duct stenosis, and there was no significant difference respect to ERCP failure reasons between attending and proficient surgeons(P>0.05); of 33 patients with failed ERCP, ERCP was tried again by proficient surgeons and successful in 7 patients (21.2%),laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy performed in 9 cases (27.3%), including palliative operation in 6 cases (66.7%)and radical surgery in 3 cases(33.3%), 2 patients (6.1%) with chronic pancreatitis and pseudocyst of the pancreas recovered, PTCD was carried out in 11 cases (33.3%), clinical symptoms relieved, and one of them recovered after open surgery, and comprehensive internal supporting therapy was administered in 4 cases (12.1%), and jaundice and abdominal pain disappeared in two (50.0%)of them. Conclusion ERCP is a complicated operation, and should be performed by proficient surgeons. We vigorously recommend preparation of rescue plans for failed patients for improvement of clinical outcomes.

Key words: Common bile duct stones, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Reasons for failure, Remedial measures, Therapy