Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Oct 26, 2022; 10(30): 10931-10938
Published online Oct 26, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i30.10931
Published online Oct 26, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i30.10931
Table 1 Comparison of surgical conditions between the two groups
Groups | Treatment time (min) | Length of hospitalization (d) | One-time stone retrieval rate, n (%) |
Research Group (n = 47) | 97.64 ± 17.51 | 7.08 ± 1.82 | 46 (97.87) |
Control group (n = 47) | 119.62 ± 24.37 | 9.33 ± 2.29 | 45 (95.74) |
χ2/t value | 5.022 | 5.273 | 0.344 |
P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.556 |
Table 2 Comparison of recovery of gastrointestinal function between the two groups (mean ± SD, h)
Groups | Anal venting time | Time to start eating | Recovery time of bowel sounds | Defecation time |
Research Group (n = 47) | 25.02 ± 3.68 | 7.82 ± 3.44 | 16.56 ± 3.58 | 33.35 ± 6.07 |
Control group (n = 47) | 28.29 ± 4.11 | 9.62 ± 4.09 | 18.94 ± 4.29 | 36.96 ± 7.11 |
t value | 4.064 | 2.309 | 2.920 | 2.647 |
P value | 0.000 | 0.023 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
Table 3 Comparison of liver function index levels before and after surgery between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Groups | DBIL (umol/L) | TBIL (umol/L) | ALT (U/L) |
Pre-operative | |||
Research Group (n = 47) | 182.10 ± 82.33 | 258.62 ± 100.54 | 38.56 ± 7.18 |
Control group (n = 47) | 178.89 ± 79.59 | 261.45 ± 96.77 | 40.04 ± 6.69 |
t value | 0.198 | 0.139 | 1.034 |
P value | 0.844 | 0.890 | 0.304 |
1 d after surgery | |||
Research Group (n = 47) | 93.37 ± 40.02a | 156.98 ± 83.31a | 26.83 ± 6.65a |
Control group (n = 47) | 111.51 ± 36.33a | 191.03 ± 72.12a | 30.13 ± 7.92a |
t value | 2.301 | 2.118 | 2.188 |
P value | 0.024 | 0.037 | 0.031 |
Table 4 Comparison of stress response index levels before and after surgery between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Groups | ACTH (ng/ml) | COR (ng/ml) | A (nmol/L) | NE (nmol/L) |
Pre-operative | ||||
Research Group (n = 47) | 14.78 ± 2.28 | 126.67 ± 11.59 | 1.39 ± 0.15 | 3.68 ± 0.65 |
Control group (n = 47) | 15.36 ± 2.35 | 130.68 ± 12.01 | 1.42 ± 0.12 | 3.83 ± 0.72 |
t value | 1.214 | 1.647 | 1.071 | 1.060 |
P value | 0.228 | 0.103 | 0.287 | 0.292 |
1 d after surgery | ||||
Research Group (n = 47) | 6.19 ± 2.05a | 91.79 ± 10.44a | 0.71 ± 0.24a | 1.41 ± 0.51a |
Control group (n = 47) | 8.68 ± 3.88a | 105.32 ± 11.65a | 0.96 ± 0.37a | 2.21 ± 0.73a |
t value | 3.890 | 5.929 | 3.886 | 6.159 |
P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Comparison of complications between the two groups, n (%)
Groups | Hemorrhage | Biliary tract infection | Bile leak | Pancreatitis | Total incidence |
Research Group (n = 47) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.13) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (4.26) | 3 (6.38) |
Control group (n = 47) | 5 (10.64) | 3 (6.38) | 1 (2.13) | 1 (2.13) | 10 (21.28) |
χ2 value | 4.374 | ||||
P value | 0.036 |
- Citation: Niu H, Liu F, Tian YB. Clinical observation of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or common bile duct lithotripsy. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(30): 10931-10938
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i30/10931.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i30.10931