Objective To study the effectiveness of local excision of low rectal tumor by Mason operation. Methods Twenty-our patients with low rectal tumor underwent Mason operation from 1997-2002 and their information was collected and studied. Results o recurrence was observed in the follow-p period from 5 months to 6 years after operation.Conclusion Mason operation for resection of tumor in low segment of rectum has the advantages of easy manipulation, minimal invasiveness and good exposure in operation.
Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration （LC＋LCBDE） and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterectomy with LC（ERCP/EST＋LC） in treatment for cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Methods From January 2008 to July 2011， 127 patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis underwent either LC＋LCBDE（85 cases， LC＋LCBDE group） or ERCP/EST＋LC（42 cases， ERCP/EST＋LC group） were collected retrospectively. The clearance rate of calculus， hospital stay， hospitalization expenses， and the rate of postoperative complications were compared between two groups. Results Eighty-five patients were performed successfully in the LC＋LCBDE group， out of which 54 patients had primary closure of common bile duct （LC＋LCBDE primary closure group）， whereas in 28 patients common bile ducts were closed over T tube （LC＋LCBDE＋T tube group）. Forty-two patients were performed successfully in the ERCP/EST＋LC group. There were no differences in the clearance rate of calculus〔100%（82/82） versus 97.37%（37/38）， P=0.317〕 and postoperative complications rate 〔（4.71% （4/85） versus 4.76%（2/42）， P=1.000〕 between the LC＋LCBDE group and ERCP/EST＋LC group. The median （quartile） hospital stay in the LC＋LCBDE group was shorter than that in the ERCP/EST＋LC group 〔12 （6） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001〕. In the LC＋LCBDE primary closure group， both median （quartile）?hospital stay and median（quartile） hospitalization expenses were less than those of ERCP/EST＋LC〔hospital stay：11（5） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001；hospitalization expenses：27 054（8 452） yuan versus 31 595（11 743） yuan， P=0.005〕 . Conclusions In the management of patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis， both LC＋LCBDE and ERCP/EST＋LC are safe and effective. LC＋LCBDE， especially primary closure after LCBDE， is associated with significantly less costs as compared with ERCP/EST＋LC. Moreover， patients can be cured by LC＋LCBDE through one-stage treatment with the protection of the papilla function and no limits to the amount or size of the choledocholithiasis. The LC＋LCBDE is a preferable choice for the appropriate cases of cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis.