目的 探讨腹腔镜下修补医源性结肠穿孔的可行性和手术技巧。方法 回顾性分析我院2007年 10月至2009年12月期间腹腔镜下修补医源性结肠穿孔手术6例患者的临床资料，其中诊断性肠镜检查结肠穿孔2例，治疗性肠镜结肠穿孔4例。结果 6例患者均顺利完成腹腔镜下手术, 无中转开腹。3例患者全腹腔镜下完成结肠穿孔修补，2例因破口较大在腹腔镜辅助下完成结肠穿孔修补，1例乙状结肠癌患者肠镜检查结肠穿孔后同时行腹腔镜下乙状结肠癌根治手术，术后未发生吻合口漏、残余感染等并发症。结论 腹腔镜下修补医源性结肠穿孔安全、可靠，临床效果肯定。
Objective To investigate whether the outlet of the femoral tunnel will cause iatrogenic injury to the medial collateral ligament (MCL) during posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) and estimate the safe angle of femoral tunnel placement. MethodsThirteen formaldehyde-soaked human knee joint specimens were used, 8 from men and 5 from women; the donors’ age ranged from 49 to 71 years, with an average of 61 years. First, the medial part of the femur was carefully dissected to clearly expose the region of the MCL course and attachment on the femoral medial aspect and to outline the anterior margin of the region with a marked line. The marked line divided the medial femoral condyle into an area with an MCL course and a bare bone area which is regarded relatively safe for no MCL course. Then, the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was cut to identify the femoral attachment of the PCL. After the knee joint was fixed at a 120° flexion angle, the process of femoral tunnel preparation for the PCL single-bundle reconstruction was simulated. The inside-out technique was used to drill the femoral tunnel from the PCL femoral footprint inside the knee joint with an orientation to exit the medial condyle of the femur, and the combination angle of the two planes, the axial plane and the coronal plane, was adapted to the process of drilling femoral tunnels at different orientations. The following 15 angle combinations were used in the study: 0°/30°, 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/30°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, 30°/30°, 30°/45°, 30°/60°, 45°/30°, 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, 60°/60° (axial/coronal). The positional relationship between the femoral tunnel outlet on the femoral medial condyle and the marked line was used to verify whether the tunnel drilling angle was a risk factor for MCL injury or not, and whether the shortest distance between the femoral exit center and the marked line was affected by the various angle combinations. Furthermore, the safe orientation of the femoral tunnel placement would estimated. ResultsWhen creating the femoral tunnel for PCLR, there was a risk of damage to the MCL caused by the tunnel outlet, and the incidence was from 0 to 100%; when the drilling angle of the axial plane was 0° and 15°, the incidence of MCL damage was from 69.23% to 100%. There was a significant difference in the incidence of MCL damage among femoral tunnels of 15 angle combinations (χ2=148.195, P<0.001). By comparison between groups, it was found that when drilling femoral tunnels at 5 combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal), the shortest distances between the tunnel exit and the marked line were significantly different than 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, and 30°/30° (axial/coronal) (P<0.05). Additionally, after comparing the median of the shortest distance with other groups, the outlets generated by these 5 angles were farther from the marked line and the posterior MCL. ConclusionThe creation of the femoral tunnel in PCLR can cause iatrogenic MCL injury, and the risk is affected by the tunnel angle. To reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury, angle combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal) are recommended for preparing the femoral tunnel in PCLR.
ObjectiveTo analyze the reasons for Non-iatrogenic Complaint in general hospital inpatients and its preventive measures. MethodsWe analyzed 338 cases of non-iatrogenic complaint from January 2008 to December 2013 in two tertiary hospitals. ResultsComplaint for poor service attitude of medical personnel and poor communication between doctors/nurses and patients accounted for 86.1% and 62.4% respectively. Complaint for poor hospital management accounted for 46.2%. Non-iatrogenic complaint which appeared in the form of medical dispute complaint due to technical factors accounted for 20.1%. The first five departments being complained were Emergency Department, Pediatrics Department, Obstetrics Department, Osteology Department, Cardiology Department, respectively. Among all complaint, the proportion of complaint from emergency patients exceeded that from nonemergency patients. The proportion of complaint from patients whose duration of hospitalization exceeded two weeks were much more than that from patients whose duration of hospitalization was less than two weeks. The proportion of complaint from patients whoes frequency of hospitalization within one year was more than two times exceeded that from patients whose frequency of hospitalization within one year was less than two times. The proportion of complaint from patients who earned their high school diploma exceeded that from patients who droped out of their high school. The proportion of complaint from town patients exceeded that from rural patients. The proportion of complaint from patients under 45 years old was more than that from patients ≥ 45. ConclusionMore weight and strengthen should be placed on doctor-patient communication in clinical practice. Humane medical service deserve special emphasis and the patientcentered service idea should also be established, so that non-iatrogenic complaint may be reduced.
In order to investigate the causes, diagnosis, treatment, outcome and prevention of iatrogenic nerve injury in the neck, 8 cases with iatrogenic nerve injuries were analyzed. Among them, 5 cases were accessory nerve injury, 3 cases were brachial plexus injury. All of the cases were treated by surgical methods, including neurolysis, repair by direct suture, nerve graft and transposition. After 1-3 years follow up the effect was excellent in 2 cases who were accessory nerve injury, good in 5 cases, and poor in 1 case who was brachial plexus injury. It was concluded that high responsibility of surgeons and careful manipulation during operation were the key to prevention of nerve injuries.
Object To evaluate the significance of double common bile duct （DCBD） in hepatobiliary surgery. Metheds The data of diagnosis and treatment of two patients with DCBD in our hospital between Jul. to Dec. 2010 were analyzed retrospective， and the related literatures were reviewed. Results The right hepatic bile duct of DCBD due to mistaking it for cystic duct in 1 case was accidental injuried during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Another example，the DCBD was confirmed by intraoperative exploration and choledochoscopic examination， at the same time with chole-dochal cyst， anomalous pancreaticobiliary ductal junction （APBDJ）， primary hepatolithus， and choledocholith， and then operation was performed. Two cases were typeⅤb of DCBD. A total of 32 English literatures were reviewed. Since the beginning of 1932 English literature had reported 100 cases of DCBD. The type Ⅱand typeⅢwere the most common type of DCBD， and the typeⅤonly 10 cases. There were 27 cases of DCBD in twenty-five Chinese articles from 1994 to 2012. The typeⅤwas the most common type of DCBD. The accessory common bile duct （ACBD） opening in the duod-enum， gastric， and pancreatic duct were the most common. The common complications included stone， APBDJ， choled-ochal cyst， tumor etc. Conclusions DCBD is a very rare anatomic variation of extrahepatic bile duct， often accompanied by calculus of bile duct and common bile duct cyst， APBDJ， and other biliary anatomy abnormality， and potentially carci-nogenic potential. The existence of DCBD may increase the risk of iatrogenic bile duct injury and complexity of biliary operation. In view of this， this abnormality of extrahepatic duct should be paid with close attention during operation.