Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 12  No. 02 ( 2022 ), Article ID: 49004 , 9 pages
10.12677/ACM.2022.122213

胆总管结石复发危险因素研究进展

王可驹1,孙 航2,吴传新1*

1重庆医科大学附属第二医院肝胆外科,重庆

2重庆医科大学附属第二医院病毒性肝炎研究所,重庆

收稿日期:2022年1月23日;录用日期:2022年2月14日;发布日期:2022年2月25日

摘 要

胆总管结石是我国的一种常见良性疾病,可导致患者出现梗阻性黄疸、胆管炎、胰腺炎甚至胆管癌等并发症。目前胆总管结石的治疗方法主要包括内镜逆行胰胆管造影术和腹腔镜胆总管探查术,虽然结石清除率可高达95%,但其术后复发率约为4%~24%。本文就手术相关的因素、胆道解剖结构、结石的特质、性别年龄等方面对胆总管结石复发的危险因素进行深入探讨。

关键词

胆总管结石,复发,危险因素

Advances in Risk Factors for Recurrence of Choledocholithiasis

Keju Wang1, Hang Sun2, Chuanxin Wu1*

1Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing

2Institute of Viral Hepatitis, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing

Received: Jan. 23rd, 2022; accepted: Feb. 14th, 2022; published: Feb. 25th, 2022

ABSTRACT

Choledocholithiasis is a common benign disease in China, which can lead to complications such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, pancreatitis and even cholangiocarcinoma. At present, the treatment of choledocholithiasis mainly includes endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic or open bile duct exploration. Although the stone clearance rate can be as high as 95%, the postoperative recurrence rate is about 4%~24%. This study makes an in-depth discussion on the risk factors of choledocholithiasis recurrence from the aspects of operation-related factors, biliary anatomical structure, characteristics of stones, sex and age, etc.

Keywords:Choledocholithiasis, Recurrence, Risk Factors

Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

胆结石是世界各地的一种常见病,其患病率在不同的国家有所不同。在美国,胆结石的发病率约为15%,其中10%~15%的患者同时伴有胆总管结石。而中国、日本和韩国等亚洲国家原发性胆总管结石的发病率远高于西方国家 [1]。胆总管结石的发病机制目前尚不明确,可能与性别、年龄、胆总管直径、结石大小及手术方式等多种因素相关 [2]。现如今,随着医疗水平和仪器设备的快速发展,以及人们生活水平的改善与生活方式的改变,导致胆总管结石的发病率和检出率越来越高,成为了威胁人类健康的一大困扰。经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, ERCP)和腹腔镜胆总管探查术(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, LCBDE)作为目前胆总管结石的一线治疗方案,已经被广泛运用于临床,使得在胆总管结石的治疗过程中可以用最小的创伤取得最大的疗效。但结石的复发仍是难以避免的问题,有报道称ERCP取石术后有约9.2%的复发率,而LCBDE术后胆总管结石复发率为13.5% [3] [4]。同时胆总管结石所导致的化脓性胆管炎、胰腺炎、胆道穿孔等并发症,仍是困扰外科医生的重要的问题 [5]。探寻胆总管结石复发的危险因素的重要性由此凸显。

2. 与手术相关的因素

目前,胆总管结石的主要治疗方式包括ERCP和LCBDE。ERCP为治疗胆总管结石提供了一种侵入性较小的途径,常通过内镜下括约肌切开术(endoscopic sphincterotomy, EST)、内镜下乳头球囊扩张术(endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, EPBD)等方式治疗胆总管结石。腹腔镜下胆总管探查术的创伤更大,术后恢复期更长,但其避免了ERCP在胰腺炎方面的风险。

1) 内镜下治疗胆总管结石ERCP具有操作简单、创伤小、并发症少等优点,是目前治疗胆总管结石的首选方法。但一些研究认为首次入院行ERCP的次数与结石复发有一定的联系,因为清除结石所需要ERCP的次数越多意味着结石数量越多或者取石的难度更大。同时,多次的ERCP会对胆道造成更大的损伤,可能增加结石复发的风险 [6]。对于核磁共振等检查提示结石较大和困难结石的患者以及首次通过ERCP取石失败的患者,更应该考虑行腹腔镜下胆总管探查术,从而避免多次ERCP对胆道的损伤造成结石复发及其他并发症。

EST是通过内镜治疗胆总管结石的标准术式,但乳头切开不仅会导致出血、穿孔等并发症,还可能损伤十二指肠括约肌的功能,从而导致术后出现胰腺炎、胆管炎、乳头狭窄等并发症,引起胆总管结石的复发。在对接受EST患者的长期随访中发现,EST手术本身可能是胆总管结石复发的独立危险因素 [5] [7] [8] [9]。一项包括了1088例患者的临床研究发现,中切口的EST术后结石复发率低于小切口EST [10]。EPBD是内镜下治疗胆总管结石的另一种选择。与EST相比,接受EPBD治疗的患者可以在术后短时间内恢复一定的乳头肌功能,术后并发症也更少出现 [11] [12]。研究发现,接受EPBD的患者相比于接受EST的患者术后结石复发率明显更低,远期预后也更好,这可能和其保留了部分括约肌功能有关 [9] [10]。一些学者认为,小切口的EST + EPBD和单独的EST相比有相同的疗效,但其结石复发率更低 [5] [13]。内镜大球囊扩张术(Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation, EPLBD),拥有和EST相似的治疗效果,适用于较大的胆总管结石,可减少了手术时间及机械碎石的概率,降低结石的复发率 [14] [15]。但EPBLD + EST对胆总管结石复发的影响目前尚有争议,Paspatis等认为EPBLD + EST可能与胆总管结石取石后的低复发率相关,而胆总管扩张程度越大结石复发的风险也越高 [16]。而Liu等则认为EPBLD + EST与单独的EST手术在治疗效果和结石复发方面并没有明显的差异 [17],Kim等的长期随访研究中也发现了与之相同的结果 [18]。

当结石较大或者嵌顿,无法通过ERCP取出的时候,可以行机械碎石术,但这会增加手术时间,同时在机械碎石后可能导致结石残留从而增加复发的风险,一项回顾性研究报告称,除了结石成分、数量和大小等不可改变的危险因素外,机械碎石是唯一可改变的危险因素 [19]。在碎石术后经胆管盐水冲洗,可有效清除碎石后残留物,减少胆道结石复发 [20] [21]。

经内镜取石后结石的复发主要与十二指肠乳头功能受损、胆汁淤积、术后胆管炎等并发症、结石残留等因素有关。对此,胆道引流可能是有效的应对措施,其包括鼻胆管引流术及胆道支架植入术。鼻胆管引流目前在临床上已取得了广泛的应用,不仅可以预防术后胆管炎、胰腺炎等并发症,同时可以排出残留结石减少结石复发 [22] [23]。此外,Wang等的研究表明,在超声造影引导下经鼻胆管注射造影剂,有助于术后清晰观察胆总管残留结石,为预防结石复发提供有利信息 [24]。胆道支架置入术是另一种胆道引流的方法,其可促进胆汁酸排泄、减轻水肿、预防炎症和有助于残石通过,降低了结石复发率并且减少了并发症的发生。Choi等认为对于结石较大且多发的患者,预防性放置胆道支架是安全有效的治疗方法 [25]。但Deng的研究发现,支架放入时间过长不仅可能导致胆盐沉积和粘附在支架上,还会影响胆道动力学导致胆汁淤积、细菌的繁殖,从而促进结石的复发 [26]。并且植入的支架可能出现移位、脱落等意外情况,故其在临床上的运用相对较少。

2) 内镜后的胆囊切除术目前对于在ERCP取石后是否行胆囊切除术这一点仍存在不同的意见,一些研究表明在ERCP后预防性的胆囊切除,可以降低结石的复发以及并发症,其原因可能是避免了胆囊结石引起的继发性胆总管结石。而对于继发性胆总管结石的患者,预防复发最好的办法就是在EPBD后接受胆囊切除术 [9] [27] [28] [29]。有学者认为在行EPBD后只要符合条件者,都应行预防性的胆囊切除术 [28]。一项日本的研究发现,在内镜治疗后行胆囊切除术的病人中,青年组的结石复发率明显降低,但高龄组患者的结石复发率并没有明显的改变 [30]。另一项来自韩国的研究也表明,年龄小于70的胆总管结石患者应行胆囊切除术,以减少结石的复发 [29]。而Kim等的研究发现,在内镜下取石后的胆囊切除术对减少结石复发并没有明显作用。所以他们认为胆总管结石未合并胆囊结石的患者,不建议在内镜取石后择期行胆囊切除术 [31]。

3) 腹腔镜下胆总管探查术LCBDE是治疗胆总管结石的另一主要手段,其对胆总管结石的治疗效果不亚于经内镜取石,并且大大地减少了胰腺炎的发生,但其术后胆漏的发生率更高 [32] [33]。一些研究表明,LCBDE治疗结石后的复发率要低于ERCP,这可能与LCBDE保留了括约肌功能有关 [33] [34]。但也有报道称既往有胆道外科手术病史的患者,在行内镜取石后复发的概率更高,其原因可能是胆道手术引起局部的粘连导致胆总管倾斜,从而影响胆道的功能,最终引起胆汁淤积而增加了复发的概率 [35] [36]。在Peng等的研究中也证实了这点,并且他们认为胆总管切开后缝合及手术操作中的损伤可能导致胆管狭窄从而引起结石的复发,同时缝线等异物也可能增加结石复发的风险 [2]。

T管引流术是LCBDE后经典的处理方式,其不仅可以缓解胆道压力、减少十二指肠乳头水肿,还有助于残石排出。同时,术后可以通过T管造影观察结石残留及胆道狭窄的情况,为预防结石复发提供了帮助。但在Zhu等最近的一项研究中发现,胆总管探查术后行一期缝合与T管引流术相比在结石残留、胆管狭窄、术后并发症等方面并没有明显差别。他们认为T管作为异物可能引起胆色素和胆盐的沉积。同时,护理不善会成为细菌进入胆道的通道。这些因素会导致结石的复发。相比之下,一期缝合或许可以降低复发率 [37]。

3. 与胆道相关的因素

胆道的情况与结石复发有着密不可分的联系,其中胆总管扩张、尖锐的胆总管成角、Oddi括约肌的功能障碍和壶腹周围憩室在一些研究中被认为是结石复发的独立危险因素。而胆囊管汇入胆管的位置也可能和结石复发有一定的联系,但在这一点上仍存在争议。

1) 胆总管直径胆总管扩张目前被认为是结石复发的独立危险因素。这可能和胆管扩张导致的胆汁淤积及胆道感染有关 [2] [16] [38]。但目前对胆管的直径和结石复发的具体关系尚有争议,有学者研究发现胆总管直径>15 mm是结石复发的独立危险因素 [2] [39]。而Park等则认为,胆总管直径>10 mm,就已经是胆总管结石复发的危险因素 [4]。在Paspatis等对106名患者的长期随访中发现,胆总管直径>19 mm为最准确的阈值,并且认为胆管的直径越大复发的概率也越大 [16]。

2) 胆总管成角胆总管成角是指胆总管在下降过程中,会向右倾斜一定的角度然后汇入十二指肠。过于尖锐的胆总管成角同样被认为是胆总管结石复发的独立危险因素,这可能是因为越小的胆总管走形角度越容易导致胆汁淤积,从而引起结石的复发 [40]。但在具体的角度上存在不同的看法,一些研究结果表明胆总管角度<145˚可增加胆总管结石的复发风险 [40] [41]。而在国内的一项研究中发现,胆总管成角<120˚便是结石复发的独立危险因素 [2]。

3) 胆囊管汇入位置胆囊管汇入胆管的位置可能和胆总管结石复发有一定的关系,但在这一点上仍没有达成共识。和胆总管扩张及胆总管成角一样,胆囊管汇入的位置过低可能导致胆汁淤积和反流,从而导致结石的复发风险增加。有学者认为,当胆囊管汇入胆管的位置位于肝门与肝胰壶腹之间的胆管远端1/3处时,结石复发的概率会增大,对于这类患者更应该仔细的随访 [6]。而Kao等研究结果显示,胆囊管低位汇入患者的壶腹周围憩室发生率更低以及胆汁细菌培养的阳性率更低,这可能和结石复发率更低有关 [42]。

4) Oddi括约肌就像一个开关,控制胆汁的排放,同时避免肠内容物反流。如果Oddi括约肌松弛可促进肠内容物反流入胆道,从而导致胆道微生物群落的改变,这可能是其导致结石复发率更高的原因 [43]。为降低结石复发,在治疗方式的选择及手术过程中应该尽量重视对Oddi括约肌的保护。但Tsai等却有不同的意见,他们的研究发现ERCP术后Oddi括约肌功能丧失者,结石复发的概率更低,这可能是由于保留功能的括约肌会阻碍残留结石的自然通过,从而引发结石的复发 [44]。

5) 壶腹周围憩室根据主乳头的位置,定义了三种类型的壶腹周围憩室,分别是:I型,乳头位于憩室深部;II型,乳头位于憩室内缘;III型,乳头位于憩室外。一些研究认为壶腹憩室是结石复发的又一个重要原因 [45] [46] [47],这可能是由于憩室干扰了胆汁流动引起胆汁淤积从而导致结石的形成,以及憩室内食物残渣的淤积和其可能影响括约肌的功能,导致菌落的改变、细菌感染胆管,最终造成结石的高复发 [2] [47] [48] [49] [50]。其中I型憩室则对结石的复发影响最为重要,这可能与憩室的大小及位置有关。因此,对存在I型憩室的患者更应该引起高度注意。

4. 与结石相关的因素

结石本身的性质同样也影响着结石复发的风险,原发结石的数量被认为是结石复发的独立危险因素,而结石的成分及结石的大小也可能和结石复发有一定的关联。

1) 结石的数量多发结石被认为是胆总管结石复发的独立危险因素,这可能由于多发的结石对十二指肠括约肌的机械压迫,导致其功能障碍从而引起肠道内容物反流及菌群的改变,最终造成结石的复发 [2]。目前的研究认为结石数量≥2是术后结石复发的独立危险因素 [2] [4]。

2) 结石的成分胆结石主要有胆固醇结石和胆色素结石组成。胆固醇结石的形成与肝脏中胆固醇的合成及代谢的限速酶有关。在Yoo等研究发现,一些患者的肝脏中胆固醇降解为胆汁酸的限速酶7a-羟化酶的浓度降低,所以他们认为胆固醇结石是结石复发的独立危险因素之一 [40]。胆总管内的胆色素结石主要为棕色色素结石,其通常被认为和细菌感染有关。有报道称,无论是复发组还是非复发组,棕色色素结石都比胆固醇结石多,是结石复发的危险因素 [39] [51]。

3) 结石的大小通常情况下,较大的结石会导致更大的胆管扩张及损伤胆管功能,容易引起胆汁淤积和细菌感染,从而导致结石的复发,同时较大的结石通常需要碎石,这可能会增加结石术后复发的风险。有研究发现,结石直径≥10 mm是复发的危险因素 [13] [26] [40] [52]。但仍存在一定的争议,Peng等认为直径≥10 mm的结石并不会增加结石复发的风险 [2]。

5. 其他

现有的研究显示,年龄大于65岁是胆总管结石复发的独立危险因素。其原因可能与老年人缺乏体力活动和油腻饮食、十二指肠乳头括约肌功能随年龄增长而下降、胆管壁张力和胆管动力不足、胆汁引流不良有关 [2] [26]。然而,Keizman等认为年龄不是结石的独立危险因素,但老年患者胆管扩张、壶腹周围憩室和既往手术史等危险因素发生的概率更大,所以随着年龄增长,结石复发的风险也就越大 [53]。女性比男性更容易发生胆结石,特别是年龄大于40岁、肥胖、多次生产的女性。一项涉及457名患者的回顾性分析发现,男性是胆总管结石复发的保护因素 [3]。

肝硬化是胆囊结石形成的重要危险因素,Tsai等的研究结果表示,肝硬化同时也是胆总管结石复发的一个重要因素,但其机制目前尚不明确,需要进一步探索 [54]。

6. 胆总管结石复发的预防

为了预防胆总管结石的复发,除了上述提到的通过选择合理的手术方式、胆道引流、胆道冲洗等方式外,还应该尽量避免损伤胆道及括约肌的功能。同时对可能存在胆汁淤积、胆道感染等危险因素的患者予以消炎利胆的药物也可以预防结石的复发。有研究称,熊去氧胆酸可以增加胆汁排泄、改善胆汁淤积及促进胆固醇结石的溶解,在治疗肝脏、胆道和消化系统的各种疾病方面具有有效性和安全性,是预防结石复发的一种策略 [55] [56]。在国内的一些研究中还发现,阿拉坦五味丸、柴芍四金汤等消炎利胆的中成药及中药不仅对预防胆总管结石的复发有一定作用,还能改善腹胀、腹痛等临床症状及各项生化指标 [57] [58]。

7. 总结

胆总管结石治疗后复发率较高,且复发机制尚未明确,目前的研究表明其复发可能和手术的方式、术中情况、胆总管直径及成角、Oddi括约肌的功能、壶腹周围憩室、结石数量和大小、结石的成分以及患者自身的情况等多种因素相关。但在这些危险因素中仍有很多因素存在极大的争议,还需要更多的临床研究去探讨。且目前的研究大多是回顾性研究,没有研究者的预先干预,研究结果难免存在偏倚。

明确胆总管结石复发的危险因素可以让临床医生在面对胆总管结石的患者时选择合理的治疗方案。并且对有胆总管结石复发危险因素的患者,可以通过预防性治疗、定期监测、早期诊治、早干预来降低结石的复发及减少并发症的发生。

基金项目

国家自然科学基金面上项目(81871608)。

文章引用

王可驹,孙 航,吴传新. 胆总管结石复发危险因素研究进展
Advances in Risk Factors for Recurrence of Choledocholithiasis[J]. 临床医学进展, 2022, 12(02): 1473-1481. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2022.122213

参考文献

  1. 1. Tazuma, S. (2006) Gallstone Disease: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Classification of Biliary Stones (Common Bile Duct and Intrahepatic). Best Practice & Research: Clinical Gastroenterology, 20, 1075-1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2006.05.009

  2. 2. Peng, L.J., Cheng, X.N. and Zhang, L. (2020) Risk Factors of Stone Recurrence after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones. Medicine (Baltimore), 99, e20412. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020412

  3. 3. Sbeit, W., Kadah, A., Simaan, M., et al. (2022) Predictors of Recurrent Bile Duct Stone after Clearance by Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Case-Control Study. Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International, 21, 50-55.

  4. 4. Park, S.Y., Hong, T.H., Lee, S.K., et al. (2019) Recurrence of Common Bile Duct Stones Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Multicenter Study. Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, 26, 578-582. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.675

  5. 5. Yasuda, I., Fujita, N., Maguchi, H., et al. (2014) Long-Term Outcomes after Endoscopic Sphincterotomy versus Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Bile Duct Stones. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 72, 1185-1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.07.006

  6. 6. Choi, S.J., Yoon, J.H., Koh, D.H., et al. (2021) Low Insertion of Cystic Duct Increases Risk for Common Bile Duct Stone Recurrence. Surgical Endoscopy, 6.

  7. 7. Baiu, I. and Visser, B. (2018) Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. JAMA, 320, 2050. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14481

  8. 8. Wang, F., Xu, B., Li, Q., et al. (2016) Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: One Single Center’s Experience. Medicine (Baltimore), 95, e5743. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005743

  9. 9. Doi, S., Yasuda, I., Mukai, T., et al. (2013) Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes after Endoscopic Sphincterotomy versus Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation: A Propensity Score-Based Cohort Analysis. Journal of Gastroenterology, 48, 1090-1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-012-0707-8

  10. 10. Takimoto, Y., Irisawa, A., Hoshi, K., et al. (2021) The Impact of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Incision Size on Common Bile Duct Stone Recurrence: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, 11.

  11. 11. Yasuda, I., Tomita, E., Enya, M., et al. (2001) Can Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation Really Preserve Sphincter of Oddi Function? Gut, 49, 686-691. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.49.5.686

  12. 12. Sato, H., Kodama, T., Takaaki, J., et al. (1997) Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilatation May Preserve Sphincter of Oddi Function after Common Bile Duct Stone Management: Evaluation from the Viewpoint of Endoscopic Manometry. Gut, 41, 541-544. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.41.4.541

  13. 13. Mu, H., Gao, J., Kong, Q., et al. (2015) Prognostic Factors and Postoperative Recurrence of Calculus Following Small-Incision Sphincterotomy with Papillary Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Intractable Choledocholithiasis: A 72-Month Follow-Up Study. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 60, 2144-2149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-015-3559-2

  14. 14. Jin, P.P., Cheng, J.F., Liu, D., et al. (2014) Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation vs Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Retrieval of Common Bile Duct Stones: A Meta-Analysis. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 20, 5548-5556. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i18.5548

  15. 15. Harada, R., Maguchi, H., Takahashi, K., et al. (2013) Large Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Recurrent Bile Duct Stones Prevents Short-Term Recurrence in Patients with Previous Endoscopic Sphincterotomy. Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, 20, 498-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-012-0579-6

  16. 16. Paspatis, G.A., Paraskeva, K., Vardas, E., et al. (2017) Long-Term Recurrence of Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation with Sphincterotomy: 4-Year Extended Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial. Surgical Endoscopy, 31, 650-655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5012-9

  17. 17. Liu, P., Lin, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2019) Comparison of Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation with and without a Prior Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for the Treatment of Patients with Large and/or Multiple Common Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 15, 91-101. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S182615

  18. 18. Kim, K.H., Rhu, J.H. and Kim, T.N. (2012) Recurrence of Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Combined with Limited Sphincterotomy: Long-Term Follow-Up Study. Gut Liver, 6, 107-112. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl.2012.6.1.107

  19. 19. Choe, J.W., Kim, S.Y., Lee, D.W., et al. (2020) Incidence and Risk Factors for Postoperative Common Bile Duct Stones in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Extraction and Subsequent Cholecystectomy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 93, 608-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.060

  20. 20. Endo, R., Satoh, A., Tanaka, Y., et al. (2020) Saline Solution Irrigation of the Bile Duct after Stone Removal Reduces the Recurrence of Common Bile Duct Stones. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 250, 173-179. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.250.173

  21. 21. Lu, Y., Wu, J.C., Liu, L., et al. (2014) Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes after Endoscopic Sphincterotomy versus Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Bile Duct Stones. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 26, 1367-1373. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000000218

  22. 22. Huang, Q., Shao, F., Wang, C., et al. (2018) Nasobiliary Drainage Can Reduce the Incidence of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis after Papillary Large Balloon Dilation plus Endoscopic Biliary Sphincterotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 53, 114-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2017.1391329

  23. 23. Sharma, B.C., Kumar, R., Agarwal, N., et al. (2005) Endoscopic Biliary Drainage by Nasobiliary Drain or by Stent Placement in Patients with Acute Cholangitis. Endoscopy, 37, 439-443. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-861054

  24. 24. Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Wang, K., et al. (2020) The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-Guided Contrast Injection via the Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage Duct in Diagnosing Residual Common Bile Duct Stones. BioMed Research International, 2020, Article ID: 3281241. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3281241

  25. 25. Choi, J.H., Lee, T.Y., Cheon, Y.K. (2021) Effect of Stent Placement on Stone Recurrence and Post-Procedural Cholangitis after Endoscopic Removal of Common Bile Duct Stones. The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 36, S27-S34. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2020.060

  26. 26. Deng, F., Zhou, M., Liu, P.P., et al. (2019) Causes Associated with Recurrent Choledocholithiasis Following Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Large Sample Sized Retrospective Study. World Journal of Clinical Cases, 7, 1028-1037. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i9.1028

  27. 27. Cheng, C.T., Yeh, C.N., Chiang, K.C., et al. (2018) Effects of Cholecystectomy on Recurrent Biliary Complications after Endoscopic Treatment of Common Bile Duct Stone: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Surgical Endoscopy, 32, 1793-1801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5863-8

  28. 28. Nakai, Y., Isayama, H., Tsujino, T., et al. (2016) Cholecystectomy after Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Bile Duct Stones Reduced Late Biliary Complications: A Propensity Score-Based Cohort Analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, 30, 3014-3020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4592-0

  29. 29. Park, B.K., Seo, J.H., Jeon, H.H., et al. (2017) A Nationwide Population-Based Study of Common Bile Duct Stone Recurrence after Endoscopic Stone Removal in Korea. Journal of Gastroenterology, 53, 670-678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-017-1419-x

  30. 30. Yasui, T., Takahata, S., Kono, H., et al. (2012) Is Cholecystectomy Necessary after Endoscopic Treatment of Bile Duct Stones in Patients Older than 80 Years of Age? Journal of Gastroenterology, 47, 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-011-0461-3

  31. 31. Kim, M.H., Yeo, S.J., Jung, M.K., et al. (2016) The Impact of Gallbladder Status on Biliary Complications after the Endoscopic Removal of Choledocholithiasis. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 61, 1165-1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-015-3915-2

  32. 32. Gao, Y.C., Chen, J., Qin, Q., et al. (2017) Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Bile Duct Exploration versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Concomitant Gallstones and Common Bile Duct Stones: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Medicine (Baltimore), 96, e7925. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007925

  33. 33. Al-Habbal, Y., Reid, I., Tiang, T., et al. (2020) Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Choledochoscopic Bile Duct Exploration versus ERCP for Bile Duct Stones. Scientific Reports, 10, Article No. 14736. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71731-2

  34. 34. Tranter, S.E. and Thompson, M.H. (2002) Comparison of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy and Laparoscopic Exploration of the Common Bile Duct. British Journal of Surgery, 89, 1495-1504. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02291.x

  35. 35. Li, S., Su, B., Chen, P., et al. (2018) Risk Factors for Recurrence of Common Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Biliary Sphincterotomy. Journal of International Medical Research, 46, 2595-2605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518765605

  36. 36. Strnad, P., von Figura, G., Gruss, R., et al. (2013) Oblique Bile Duct Predisposes to the Recurrence of Bile Duct Stones. PLoS ONE, 8, e54601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054601

  37. 37. Zhu, T., Lin, H., Sun, J., et al. (2021) Primary Duct Closure versus T-Tube Drainage after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Zhejiang University: Science B, 22, 985-1001. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B2100523

  38. 38. Ueno, N., Ozawa, Y. and Aizawa, T. (2003) Prognostic Factors for Recurrence of Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Treatment by Sphincter Dilation. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 58, 336-340. https://doi.org/10.1067/S0016-5107(03)00004-X

  39. 39. Chae, M.K., Lee, S.H. and Joo, K.R. (2020) Assessment of the Possible Risk Factors for Primary Common Bile Duct Stone Recurrence after Cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy, 35, 6497-6504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08143-w

  40. 40. Yoo, E.S., Yoo, B.M., Kim, J.H., et al. (2018) Evaluation of Risk Factors for Recurrent Primary Common Bile Duct Stone in Patients with Cholecystectomy. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 53, 466-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2018.1438507

  41. 41. Ryu, S., Jo, I.H., Kim, S., et al. (2020) Clinical Impact of Common Bile Duct Angulation on the Recurrence of Common Bile Duct Stone: A Meta-Analysis and Review. Korean Journal of Gastroenterology, 76, 199-205. https://doi.org/10.4166/kjg.2020.76.4.199

  42. 42. Kao, J.T., Kuo, C.M., Chiu, Y.C., et al. (2011) Congenital Anomaly of Low Insertion of Cystic Duct: Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Findings and Clinical Significance. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 45, 626-629. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e31821bf824

  43. 43. Zhang, Q., Ye, M., Su, W., et al. (2020) Sphincter of Oddi Laxity Alters Bile Duct Microbiota and Contributes to the Recurrence of Choledocholithiasis. Annals of Translational Medicine, 8, 1383. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3295

  44. 44. Tsai, T.J., Lin, C.K., Lai, K.H., et al. (2018) Does Preserved Sphincter of Oddi Function Prevent Common Bile Duct Stones Recurrence in Patients after Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation? Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 81, 311-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2018.01.007

  45. 45. Kato, S., Chinen, K., Shinoura, S., et al. (2017) Predictors for Bile Duct Stone Recurrence after Endoscopic Extraction for Naïve Major Duodenal Papilla: A Cohort Study. PLoS ONE, 12, e180536. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180536

  46. 46. Sun, Z., Bo, W., Jiang, P., et al. (2016) Different Types of Periampullary Duodenal Diverticula Are Associated with Occurrence and Recurrence of Bile Duct Stones: A Case-Control Study from a Chinese Center. Gastroenterology Research and Practice, 2016, Article ID: 9381759. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9381759

  47. 47. Kim, C.W., Chang, J.H., Kim, J.H., et al. (2013) Size and Type of Periampullary Duodenal Diverticula Are Associated with Bile Duct Diameter and Recurrence of Bile Duct Stones. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 28, 893-898. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.12184

  48. 48. van Nieuwkoop, C., Boere, I., Rosekrans, P.A., et al. (2002) Recurrent Bacterial Cholangitis Due to a Juxtapapillary Diverticulum. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 14, 189-190. https://doi.org/10.1097/00042737-200202000-00014

  49. 49. Ozogul, B., Ozturk, G., Kisaoglu, A., et al. (2014) The Clinical Importance of Different Localizations of the Papilla Associated with Juxtapapillary Duodenal Diverticula. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 57, 337-341. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.021113

  50. 50. Kubota, Y., Yamaguchi, T., Tani, K., et al. (1993) Anatomical Variation of Pancreatobiliary Ducts in Biliary Stone Diseases. Abdominal Imaging, 18, 145-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198052

  51. 51. Sugiyama, M. and Atomi, Y. (2002) Risk Factors Predictive of Late Complications after Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Bile Duct Stones: Long-Term (More than 10 Years) Follow-Up Study. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 97, 2763-2767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07019.x

  52. 52. Tsai, T.J., Lai, K.H., Lin, C.K., et al. (2015) Role of Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation in Patients with Recurrent Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Sphincterotomy. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 78, 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2014.08.004

  53. 53. Keizman, D., Ish, S.M. and Konikoff, F.M. (2006) Recurrent Symptomatic Common Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Stone Extraction in Elderly Patients. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 64, 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.01.022

  54. 54. Tsai, T.J., Lai, K.H., Lin, C.K., et al. (2012) The Relationship between Gallbladder Status and Recurrent Biliary Complications in Patients with Choledocholithiasis Following Endoscopic Treatment. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 75, 560-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2012.08.003

  55. 55. Yamamoto, R., Tazuma, S., Kanno, K., et al. (2016) Ursodeoxycholic Acid after Bile Duct Stone Removal and Risk Factors for Recurrence: A Randomized Trial. Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, 23, 132-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.316

  56. 56. Chen, X., Yan, X.R. and Zhang, L.P. (2018) Ursodeoxycholic Acid after Common Bile Duct Stones Removal for Prevention of Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Medicine (Baltimore), 97, e13086. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013086

  57. 57. 陶鸣浩, 陆喜荣, 戴彦苗, 等. 柴芍四金汤预防ERCP术后胆总管结石复发的临床观察[J]. 南京中医药大学学报, 2019, 35(1): 36-38.

  58. 58. 梁全. 阿拉坦五味丸在双镜联合保胆取石术后预防结石复发的临床研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古医科大学, 2021.

  59. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单