82例急性胆源性胰腺炎应用内镜治疗 与传统方法的效果比较

Effect comparison of therapeutic endoscopy and traditional method in the 82 acute biliary pancreatitis patients

摘要:

目的 比较内镜治疗与传统方法治疗急性胆源性胰腺炎（ABP）的临床效果。方法 2011年5月~2013年7月就诊的82例急性胆源性胰腺炎患者，随机分为两组：内镜治疗组和对照组。分别给予内镜和传统方法治疗，观察组内不同严重程度患者的腹痛缓解时间、住院时间、血淀粉酶恢复正常时间、治愈率以及并发症率情况。结果 轻症急性胆源性胰腺炎患者经过内镜治疗的平均腹痛缓解时间（3.86±1.03）d、住院时间（11.56±3.68）d以及血淀粉酶恢复正常时间（4.67±1.88）d均低于对照组所用时间（t =4.577，5.461，3.659），差异具有显著性（P <0.01）。两组患者治愈率为100%。两组并发症率的差异无显著性。重症患者应用内镜治疗后腹痛缓解时间（5.26±1.47）d以及血淀粉酶恢复正常时间（6.38±2.01）d均少于对照组所用时间（9.35±2.68）及（11.14±3.25）d（t =5.314，4.940），差异均有显著性（P <0.01），但两组在住院时间、治愈率和并发症率差异无显著性（P >0.05）。结论 内镜介入治疗和传统方法治疗ABP的治愈率较为理想，但是内镜治疗更有助于患者术后的康复，缩短住院时间，节约费用。当患者具备内镜治疗的条件时，可以优先考虑应用内镜介入治疗。

Abstract:

【Objective】 To compare the clinical effect of endoscopic treatment or traditional method in treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis (acute biliary pancreatitis, ABP), and to provide data support for future clinical practice. 【Methods】 82 patients with acute biliary pancreatitis were collected in May 2011 to July 2013, and randomly divided into two groups. One group was given endoscopic treatment and the other was given traditional method treatment, the patients (at different severity degree) abdominal pain relief time, length of hospital stay, the time of blood amylase returned to normal, cure rate and complication rate were observed. 【Results】 Mild acute biliary pancreatitis after endoscopic treatment, the average abdominal pain relief time (3.86±1.03) d, length of hospital stay (11.56±3.68) d, and the time of blood amylase returned to normal (4.67±1.88) d were all lower than the control group (t =4.577, 5.461, 4.577), with significant difference (P <0.01). The cure rate was 100% in both groups. There was no significantly difference in the complication rate between both groups. Intensive acute biliary pancreatitis after endoscopic treatment,the abdominal pain relief after time (5.26±1.47) d, and the time of blood amylase returned to normal (6.38±2.01) d were less than the control group (9.35±2.68) d, (11.14±3.25) d, (t =5.314, 4.940), the differences were significant (P <0.01), but the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay, cure rate and complication rate had no statistical difference (P >0.05). 【Conclusion】 The cure rate of endoscopic interventional therapy and the traditional method for ABP is relatively ideal, but it is helpful for the recovery of patients with postoperative endoscopic treatment, shortening hospitalization time, saving the cost. When the conditions of the patients with endoscopic treatment are obtained , we should give priority to the application of endoscopic interventional treatment.