不同肠袢标识方法在单气囊小肠镜辅助内镜下逆行胰胆管造影术中的应用研究

Comparative study of different intestinal loop labeling methods under the aid of single balloon enteroscopy for ERCP

摘要:

比较不同肠袢标识方法在单气囊小肠镜辅助内镜下逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）的对比应用效果。方法  选取该院消化内科2015年6月-2017年5月36例单气囊小肠镜辅助下ERCP的患者，根据入院时间随机分为A、B、C 3组，A组用钛夹标识已检查肠袢的方法确认输入袢、B组用亚甲蓝标识已检查肠袢的方法确认输入袢、C组为对照组，比较3组患者手术操作时间（记录手术开始时间、到达输入袢的乳头或者Roux-en-Y胆道吻合部位时间）、并发症发生率和手术成功率。结果  手术操作时间A组为42.17 min，C组为59.83 min，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P <0.01），A组与B组，及B组和C组，两两比较差异无统计学意义（P >0.05）；并发症发生率、手术成功率，3组两两比较差异均无统计学意义（P >0.05）。结论  在单气囊小肠镜辅助下ERCP的手术操作时间，用钛夹标识肠袢方法具有明显的优势。

Abstract:

Abstract: Objective To compare the effect of different intestinal loop labeling methods under single balloon enteroscopy for ERCP. Method From June 2015 to May 2017, 36 cases of single balloon enteroscopy assisted ERCP patients, according to the study period divided into A, B, C three groups, In group A, the afferent loops were confirmed by titanium clips, labeled intestinal loops, and the B group was identified by methylene blue labeling and intestinal loops, and the C group was the control group, the operation time of the 3 groups was recorded (the starting time of operation, the time of reaching the nipple of the input loop or the time of the Roux-en-Y biliary anastomosis), the incidence of complications and the success rate of operation. Results The operation time was 42.17 min in group A and 59.83 min in group C, and there was significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.01),There was no statistically significant difference between group A and group B, group B and group C (P > 0.05), the complication rate and the operation success rate were not statistically different between the three groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion The operation time of the input loop at the time of ERCP assisted by single balloon enteroscopy has a clear advantage over the examination of the intestinal loop with a titanium clip.