4.5 Review

Current trends in the management of Mirizzi Syndrome A review of literature

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 97, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009691

关键词

endoscopic; laparoscopic; Mirizzi Syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mirizzi Syndrome is a rare and challenging clinical entity to manage. However, recent advances in technology have provided surgeons with new options for more effective diagnosis and treatment of this condition. This paper reviews these new diagnostic modalities and treatment approaches for the management of Mirizzi Syndrome. An online search language was performed using PubMed and Web of Science for literature published in English between 2012 and 2017 using the search terms Mirizzi Syndrome and Mirizzi. In total, 16 case series and 11 case reports were identified and analyzed. The most frequently used diagnostic modalities were ultrasound, computed tomography (CT); magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography (MRCP); endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP). A combination of >= 2 diagnostic modalities was frequently used to detect Mirizzi Syndrome. Literature shows that the specific type of Mirizzi Syndrome determined the type of treatment chosen. Open surgery was the preferred option, although there are documented cases of the use of minimally-invasive techniques, even in advanced cases. Laparoscopic, endoscopic or robot-assisted surgery, used individually or in combination with lithotripsy, were all associated with a favorable outcome. As yet, there are no internationally-accepted guidelines for the management of Mirizzi Syndrome. Laparotomy is the preferred surgical technique of choice, although an increasing number of surgeons are beginning to opt for minimally-invasive techniques. The number of papers in the existing literature describing diagnostic and treatment procedures is relatively small at present, thus making it difficult to reasonably propose an evidence-based standard of care for Mirizzi Syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据