实用肝脏病杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (1): 133-136.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2024.01.034

• 胆石症 • 上一篇    下一篇

肝硬化合并急性胆囊炎患者手术风险评估*

王东君, 张春岩, 晁祥嵩, 李志, 王兴权   

  1. 154002 黑龙江省佳木斯市中心医院普外一科(王东君,张春岩,晁祥嵩);心内二科(李志);佳木斯大学附属第一医院普外科(王兴权)
  • 收稿日期:2023-06-14 出版日期:2024-01-10 发布日期:2024-01-04
  • 作者简介:王东君,男,40岁,医学硕士,主治医师。E-mail:Wangdongjun_2002@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    *黑龙江省卫生健康委科研项目(编号:2020-365)

Evaluation of surgical risk in patients with liver cirrhosis and acute cholecystitis by cholecystitis severity grading and MELD scores

Wang Dongjun, Zhang Chunyan, Chao Xiangsong, et al   

  1. Division One, Department of General Surgery, Central Hospital, Jiamusi 154002, Heilongjiang Province, China
  • Received:2023-06-14 Online:2024-01-10 Published:2024-01-04

摘要: 目的 探讨不同胆囊炎严重程度分级和不同终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分的肝硬化合并急性胆囊炎(AC)患者手术风险。方法 2021年2月~2022年12月我院诊治的92例肝硬化合并AC患者,均行腹腔镜下胆囊切除手术(LC)治疗。术前采用《东京指南(2018年)》评估胆囊炎严重程度,其中Ⅰ级55例,Ⅱ级/Ⅲ级37例。常规计算MELD评分,其中低危组64例,中高危组28例。应用Logistic回归分析影响手术风险的因素。结果 各组中转开腹率比较,差异无显著性统计学意义(P>0.05);Ⅱ级/Ⅲ级患者手术时间为(88.8±11.8)min,显著长于Ⅰ级患者【(77.1±10.4)min,P<0.05】,术中出血量和腹腔引流量分别为(91.4±18.7)mL和(339.7±40.7)mL,显著大于Ⅰ级患者【分别为(79.5±12.2)mL和(285.9±36.4)mL,P<0.05】,而低危与中高危MELD评分患者手术指标比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05);Ⅱ级/Ⅲ级患者术后感染、出血和胆漏等并发症发生率为27.0%,显著高于Ⅰ级患者的7.3%(P<0.05),中高危MELD患者术后并发症发生率为28.6%,显著高于低危患者的9.4%(P<0.05);以中转开腹以及术后发生并发症为手术风险组(n=18),结果风险组胆囊炎Ⅱ级/Ⅲ级和MELD评分为中高危比例分别为61.1%和55.6%,显著高于非风险组的35.1%和24.3%(P<0.05);Logistic多因素回归分析显示胆囊炎Ⅱ级/Ⅲ级和MELD评分为中高危是肝硬化合并AC患者LC手术高风险的独立危险因素(P<0.05)。结论 术前评估胆囊炎严重程度分级和MELD评分可以帮助临床医生评估LC手术治疗肝硬化合并AC患者的风险而给予应有的重视和处理。

关键词: 急性胆囊炎, 肝硬化, 腹腔镜下胆囊切除术, 胆囊炎分级, 终末期肝病模型, 治疗

Abstract: Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the evaluation of surgical risk in patients with liver cirrhosis and acute cholecystitis (AC) by cholecystitis severity grading and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores. Methods 92 patients with LC and AC were enrolled in our hospital between February 2021 and December 2022, and all patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Before operation, the AC severity was evaluated according to Tokyo Guidelines (2018), including grade I in 55 cases and grade II/III in 37 cases, and the MELD scores were calculated, including low risk (≤14) in 64 cases and moderately/high risk (>15) in 28 cases. The surgical risk was evaluated by multivariate Logistic regression analysis. Results The rates of conversion to laparotomy during LC were not significantly different among groups(P>0.05); the operation time in patients with cholecystitis grade Ⅱ/Ⅲ was (88.8±11.8)min, much longer than [(77.1±10.4)min, P<0.05], and intra-operational blood loss and peritoneal drainage were (91.4±18.7)mL and (339.7±40.7)mL, both significantly greater than [(79.5±12.2)mL and (285.9±36.4)mL, respectively, P<0.05] in patients with grade Ⅰ, while there were no significant differences as respect to these surgical parameters between patients grouped on MELD scores(P>0.05); the incidence of post-operational complications, such as infection, bleeding and bile leakage in patients with grade Ⅱ/Ⅲ was 27.0%, much higher than 7.3%(P<0.05) in patients with grade Ⅰ, and that was 28.6% in patients with high risk MELD scores, much higher than 9.4%(P<0.05) in patients with low risk MELD scores; the patients were then further divided into with (n=18)and without (n=74) surgical risk groups based on surgical complications, and the percentages of cholecystitis grade Ⅱ/Ⅲ and the high MELD scores in patients with surgical risk were 61.1% and 55.6%, both significantly higher than 35.1% and 24.3%(P<0.05) in those without surgical risk; the multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that the cholecystitis grading and poor MELD scores were the independent risk factors for LC operation in cirrhotics with AC (P<0.05). Conclusion The surgeons should take the cholecystitis severity grading and MELD scores into consideration before LC operation in patients with liver cirrhosis and AC, and deal with appropriately.

Key words: Acute cholecystitis, Liver cirrhosis, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Cholecystitis severity grading, Model for end-stage liver disease, Therapy