中文｜English
ISSN 1001-5256 (Print)
ISSN 2097-3497 (Online)
CN 22-1108/R
Menu
Volume 38 Issue 11
Nov.  2022
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
References
Article Navigation >  Journal of Clinical Hepatology  > 2022  >  38(11): 2558-2564

Selection of treatment regimens for pancreatic duct stones: A comparative analysis

DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.11.023
  • 1.

    Department of Gastroenterology, Gongli Hospital Affiliated to Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200135, China

  • 2.

    Department of Medical Ultrasonics, Chizhou Second Hospital, Chizhou, Anhui 247100, China

Research funding:

Shanghai Pudong New Area Health and Family Planning Commission Key Subspecialty Program (PWZy2020-05);

Medical Discipline Construction Project of Pudong Health Commiittee of Shanghai (PWYgf2021-08)

More Information
  • Corresponding author: SHI Yihai, zhuanyongabc@yeah.net(ORCID: 0000-0001-8489-4811)
  • Received Date: 2022-04-11
  • Accepted Date: 2022-05-12
  • Published Date: 2022-11-20
    Abstract
  •   Objective  To investigate the clinical efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of pancreatic duct stones (PDS) by collecting related clinical data, to summarize the experience in selecting treatment regimens for PDS, and to further explore feasible treatment regimens that could maximize and optimize the benefits of PDS patients.  Methods  A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 131 PDS patients who were treated in Gongli Hospital Affiliated to Naval Medical University from June 2014 to December 2018, and according to the surgical procedure, they were divided into ERCP group with 69 patients, laparoscopy group with 32 patients, and laparotomy group with 30 patients. Related indices were monitored before and after treatment, and surgical outcome was compared between the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group. The independent samples t-test was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data between two groups; a one-way analysis of variance was used for comparison between multiple groups, and the least significant difference t-test or the SNK-q test was used for further comparison between two groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data with skewed distribution between two groups, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used for comparison between multiple groups. An repeated measures analysis of variance and the Friedman test were used for comparison of related indices before and after surgery, and the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups.  Results  Among the 131 PDS patients, there were 40 patients with type Ⅰ PDS, 76 with type Ⅱ PDS, and 15 with type Ⅲ PDS. There was no significant difference in the distribution of main surgical methods between the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group (χ2=1.93, P > 0.05). There were significant differences between the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group in the dynamic changes of white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance after surgery (F=24.68, χ2=227.66, F=45.37, F=106.71, all P < 0.05). Compared with the laparotomy group, the laparoscopy group had significantly shorter time of operation, significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, significantly shorter time to first flatus after surgery, a significantly lower frequency of use of pain-relieving drugs, shorter time to extraction of abdominal drainage tube, lower incidence rates of short-term postoperative complications, and a significantly shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (t=-4.80, t=-9.43, Z=-6.78, t=-11.59, Z=-6.77, χ2=9.24, t=-3.60, all P < 0.05). The incidence rate of short-term postoperative complications was 24.64% in the ERCP group, 28.13% in the laparoscopy group, and 66.67% in the laparotomy group, with a significant difference between groups (χ2=17.12, P < 0.05), and the ERCP group and the laparoscopy group had a significantly lower incidence rate of short-term postoperative complications than the laparotomy group (χ2=15.78 and 9.24, P < 0.05 and P=0.02). The treatment response rate was 91.30% in the ERCP group, 93.75% in the laparoscopy group, and 73.33% in the laparotomy group, with a significant difference between the three groups (χ2=7.70, P=0.02), and the ERCP group and the laparoscopy group had a significantly better response rate than the laparotomy group (χ2=5.56 and 4.77, P=0.02 and 0.03).  Conclusion  ERCP is the preferred method for minimally invasive treatment of some patients with type Ⅰ/Ⅱ PDS and is safe and effective with few serious complications. Surgical operation is an important method for the treatment of complex PDS, but with complicated techniques and difficult operation. Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy has the advantages of small trauma, few serious complications, and high abdominal pain remission rate and can significantly shorten the time of operation, reduce intraoperative blood loss, and shorten the length of postoperative hospital stay. Therefore, laparoscopy should be the preferred regimen for the treatment of complex PDS.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
    • References(16)
  • [1]
    XU ZR, WANG HZ, YANG ZQ, et al. Risk factors analysis of pancreatic ductal stones combined with malignant tumor beside stones[J]. Chin J Dig Surg, 2018, 17(12): 1204-1208. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2018.12.011.

    徐正荣, 王槐志, 杨智清, 等. 胰管结石合并周围恶性肿瘤的危险因素分析[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2018, 17(12): 1204-1208. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2018.12.011.
    [2]
    DREWES AM, BOUWENSE SAW, CAMPBELL CM, et al. Guidelines for the understanding and management of pain in chronic pancreatitis[J]. Pancreatology, 2017, 17(5): 720-731. DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2017.07.006.
    [3]
    HU LH, LI ZS. Pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy[J]. J Hepatobiliary Surg, 2016, 24(6): 401-403. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4761.2016.06.001.

    胡良皞, 李兆申. 胰腺体外震波碎石技术[J]. 肝胆外科杂志, 2016, 24(6): 401-403. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4761.2016.06.001.
    [4]
    Special Committee on Chronic Pancreatitis, Pancreatic Disease Specialized Committee, Chinese Medical Doctor Association. Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis(2018, Guangzhou)[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2019, 35(1): 45-51. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.008.

    中国医师协会胰腺病专业委员会慢性胰腺炎专委会. 慢性胰腺炎诊治指南(2018, 广州)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2019, 35(1): 45-51. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.008.
    [5]
    BASSI C, MARCHEGIANI G, DERVENIS C, et al. The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After[J]. Surgery, 2017, 161(3): 584-591. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.11.014.
    [6]
    WAN L, ZHAO Q, CHEN J, et al. Expert consensus on the application of pain evaluation questionnaires in China(2020)[J]. Chin J Painol, 2020, 16(3): 177-187. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101379-20190915-00075.

    万丽, 赵晴, 陈军, 等. 疼痛评估量表应用的中国专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中华疼痛学杂志, 2020, 16(3): 177-187. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101379-20190915-00075.
    [7]
    CHEN MF, WU JS, TIAN BZ, et al. Classification and surgical management of pancreatic duct stones[J]. Chin J Dig Surg, 2010, 9(5): 348-349. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2010.05.010.

    陈梅福, 吴金术, 田秉障, 等. 胰管结石的分型和治疗[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2010, 9(5): 348-349. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-9752.2010.05.010.
    [8]
    WANG LW, LI ZS, LI SD, et al. A multi-center survey on chronic pancreatitis in China[J]. Chin J Pancreatol, 2007, 7(1): 1-5. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-1935.2007.01.001.

    王洛伟, 李兆申, 李淑德, 等. 慢性胰腺炎全国多中心流行病学调查[J]. 胰腺病学, 2007, 7(1): 1-5. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-1935.2007.01.001.
    [9]
    YOU YL, GONG JP. Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct stone[J]. Int J Surg, 2021, 48(6): 405-410. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115396-20210607-00208.

    游宇来, 龚建平. 胰管结石的诊疗现状[J]. 国际外科学杂志, 2021, 48(6): 405-410. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115396-20210607-00208.
    [10]
    ISSA Y, BRUNO MJ, BAKKER OJ, et al. Treatment options for chronic pancreatitis[J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2014, 11(9): 556-564. DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.74.
    [11]
    AN DJ, AN L, ZHANG C, et al. Clinical analysis of 76 cases of chronic pancreatitis complicated with pancreatic duct stones. [J]. Chin J Pancreatol, 2018, 18(4): 267-270. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-1935.2018.04.014.

    安东均, 安琳, 张成, 等. 慢性胰腺炎胰管结石76例临床分析[J]. 中华胰腺病杂志, 2018, 18(4): 267-270. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-1935.2018.04.014.
    [12]
    ERCP Group, Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopology, Biliopancreatic Group, Chinese Association of Gastroenterologist and Hepatologis, National Clinical Research Centerfor Digestive Diseases. Chinese Guidelines for ERCP(2018)[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2018, 34(12): 2537-2554. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.12.009.

    中华医学会消化内镜学分会ERCP学组, 中国医师协会消化医师分会胆胰学组, 国家消化系统疾病临床医学研究中心. 中国经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术指南(2018版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2018, 34(12): 2537-2554. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.12.009.
    [13]
    RÖSCH T, DANIEL S, SCHOLZ M, et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: a multicenter study of 1000 patients with long-term follow-up[J]. Endoscopy, 2002, 34(10): 765-771. DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-34256.
    [14]
    YIN ZY, LIU Q, LI XM, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography for pancreatic duct stones[J/CD]. Chin J Hepat Surg(Electronic Edition), 2020, 9(5): 466-470. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2020.05.016.

    尹振宇, 刘乾, 李晓梅, 等. ERCP治疗胰管结石[J/CD]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2020, 9(5): 466-470. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2020.05.016.
    [15]
    HE X, YOU J, JIN X, et al. Rational selection of surgical treatment for pancreatic duct stones[J]. J Clin Surg, 2018, 26(7): 29-30. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2018.07.017.

    何鑫, 游建, 金鑫, 等. 胰管结石外科治疗体会[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2018, 26(7): 29-30. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2018.07.017.
    [16]
    GU F, CHENG R, ZHANG ST. Use of ERCP combined with ESWL in the treatment of pancreatic duct stones[J]. Chin J Bases Clin Gen Surg, 2022, 29(2): 141-145. DOI: 10.7507/1007-9424.202201009.

    谷丰, 程芮, 张澍田. ERCP联合ESWL在胰管结石治疗中的应用[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2022, 29(2): 141-145. DOI: 10.7507/1007-9424.202201009.
    • Relative Articles

  • Relative Articles

    [1]Yangqing MA, Haina FAN, Xin SUN, Chenghai LIU. Role of Golgi protein 73(GP73) in diagnosis of chronic liver diseases[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2023, 39(8): 1999-2004. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2023.08.035
    [2]Hang ZHANG, Jinchun LIU. Role of serum Golgi protein 73 in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2023, 39(3): 657-662. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2023.03.028
    [3]Peiling YE, Hongyun JIA, Liang PENG. Mechanism of action of GP73 in the regulation of liver cancer: An analysis based on transcriptome sequencing[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2021, 37(8): 1861-1866. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.08.022
    [4]Luo WenPing, Ma Hong, Wang Yu. Advances in the application of transient elastography in noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2019, 35(3): 635-639. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.03.041
    [5]Zheng ShaoQiu, Wang QiZhi. Current status and prospects of research on noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2019, 35(1): 197-200. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.043
    [6]Zhang LiJun, Liu MingJun, Wang Shuai, Wang Lin, Wang RuKun, Hou HuaBin, Sun GuiRong, Zhang NaNa, Liu LinJie. Clinical value of Golgi protein 73 and hyaluronic acid in diagnosis of the progression of hepatitis B virus-related chronic liver diseases[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2018, 34(1): 63-67. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.01.013
    [7]Yao MingJie, Wang LeiJie, Guan GuiWen, Xi JingYuan, Liu ShuHong, Wen XiaJie, Zou Jun, Chen XiangMei, Jia JiDong, Zhao JingMin, Lu FengMin. Value of serum Golgi protein 73 in assisting the diagnosis of moderate or severe liver injury in patients with chronic hepatitis B[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2018, 34(4): 755-759. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.04.012
    [8]Zhao YunSheng, Zhang LiNa, Huo LiJing, Pei Liu, Li QiuPing, Li HongChen, Jin Liang. Clinical value of fucosylated Golgi protein 73 in differential diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2018, 34(8): 1707-1711. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.08.023
    [9]Lu FengMin. Serological diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma:challenges and opportunities[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2017, 33(7): 1262-1265. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2017.07.011
    [10]Yang ErNa, Cao WuKui. Research advances in noninvasive diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2017, 33(11): 2209-2213. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2017.11.035
    [11]Wei FengXian, Liu Zhao, Geng Jie, Su GuoHong, Chen Mo, Wang ManCai, Cao WeiJia, Zhang YouCheng. Research advances in association between Golgi protein 73 and liver diseases[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2017, 33(8): 1595-1598. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2017.08.040
    [12]Yang YiLiang, Cui YuanYuan, Hu Yue, Xu HongQin, Pan Yu. Role of the Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer in diagnosis of chronic liver diseases[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2016, 32(12): 2395-2398. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2016.12.036
    [13]Yang MingLei, Yao DingKang. Application of magnetic resonance elastography as a non-invasive technique for diagnosis of liver fibrosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2016, 32(3): 588-592. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2016.03.042
    [14]Zhao Wei. Clinical significance of plasma  and urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin levels in diagnosis of acute kindney injury  in patients with cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2015, 31(11): 1874-1877. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2015.11.025
    [15]Wu Qiong, Xu GuangHua. Recent research findings on non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2015, 31(2): 295-299. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2015.02.040
    [16]Liu XiuHong, Zhao YiMing, Li Ning, Jin BoXun, Yan HuiPing, Zhao YuanShun, Li Ang, Han Zhen, Zhang AiYing. Diagnostic values of plasma Golgi protein-73 and platelet count for different stages of HBV-related liver diseases[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2015, 31(9): 1469-1472. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2015.09.025
    [17]Zhang Qin, Dan HongLi, Xu Wei. Value of serum GP73,AFP,and AFP-L3 in diagnosis of liver cancer and recurrence monitoring after radiofrequency ablation[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2015, 31(2): 232-235. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2015.02.021
    [18]Cai JunJun, Han Tao. Diagnosis and treatment of acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2014, 30(12): 1352-1356. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2014.12.030
    [19]Gao HaiFeng. Value of combined detection of serum AFP and GP73 in early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2014, 30(7): 660-662. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2014.07.022
    [20]Zhu Chen, Sun YuanYuan, Jin Yan. Values of serum AFP, GGTⅡ and GP73 in diagnosis of primary hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2014, 30(10): 1064-1066. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2014.10.022
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(17)

    1. 郭堑，农村立，韦秋芳. 慢性乙型肝炎肝纤维化患者血清Copeptin和PCT表达水平及其临床价值研究. 现代检验医学杂志. 2023(02): 112-117+189 .
    2. 李初谊，王俊科，李斌，温雪，魏晓静，于晓辉. 血浆置换对慢加急性肝衰竭辅助治疗的效果评价. 海南医学院学报. 2022(16): 1228-1231 .
    3. 王鑫，张国民，牛兴杰，李萍，张冰. 外周血CD14~+CD16~+单核细胞亚群在肝衰竭继发感染患者中的检测价值. 中国免疫学杂志. 2020(09): 1124-1127+1130 .
    4. 姜曼蕾，许飞，胡江玲，罗嘉裕，罗方云. IL-6、CRP、PCT和内毒素预判肝衰竭合并细菌感染风险中的临床价值. 中华医院感染学杂志. 2020(20): 3062-3065 .
    5. 张国民，王鑫，韩智炜，牛兴杰，刘志慧，崔凤梅. 降钙素原、白细胞介素6、sCD14、CD64检测在肝功能衰竭患者诊治中的临床研究. 中国现代医学杂志. 2019(03): 47-51 .
    6. 江艳霞，骆小燕，骆旭航，龚安安，孙爱华. 血清降钙素原在胆管炎危重度早期评估中的价值研究. 中国卫生检验杂志. 2019(04): 462-463+468 .
    7. 张国民，韩智炜，牛兴杰，刘志慧，王鑫. IL-6、CD14、CD64检测在感染所致肝衰竭患者中意义. 现代医学. 2019(02): 137-140 .
    8. 黄波，张炜. 喜炎平注射液联合还原型谷胱甘肽治疗重症烧伤后急性肝功能损伤临床研究. 创伤与急危重病医学. 2019(03): 156-159 .
    9. 杨丽霞，张伦理，赖玲玲，方铭. 腹水中肝素结合蛋白及降钙素原对肝硬化腹水伴自发性细菌性腹膜炎的诊断价值. 临床肝胆病杂志. 2019(06): 1266-1269 . 本站查看
    10. 李薇，任小丹，何谦，周荣幸. 血清降钙素原检测对胆道梗阻合并感染者的预测价值. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版). 2019(03): 245-249 .
    11. 张国民，韩智炜，牛兴杰，刘志慧，崔凤梅，王鑫. PCT、IL-6、CD14、CD64及TNF-α表达对肝衰竭合并医院感染患者预后的影响. 中华医院感染学杂志. 2019(16): 2450-2453 .
    12. 王鑫，张国民，牛兴杰，李萍，张冰. 肝衰竭继发感染患者外周血Toll样受体4及降钙素原、C反应蛋白变化情况分析. 现代消化及介入诊疗. 2019(10): 1084-1087+1094 .
    13. 石春霞，陈倩，王瑶，焦方舟，龚作炯. 肝功能衰竭并感染患者血清正五聚蛋白3和肝素结合蛋白及降钙素原水平变化. 中华实用诊断与治疗杂志. 2019(12): 1188-1190 .
    14. 顾静，王艳，陈丽，徐英，甘建和. HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者血清IL-32和IL-10水平变化及意义. 临床肝胆病杂志. 2018(04): 801-805 . 本站查看
    15. 王小芳，奉万盛，周红翠，邱咏佳. 血清降钙素原、白细胞计数、C-反应蛋白与细菌血培养联合检测在感染患者中的应用价值. 中国医药导报. 2018(19): 75-78 .
    16. 沈素晶，邓超，李霭文，谭俊青. 不同化学发光检测系统测定PCT结果的相关性分析. 实验与检验医学. 2018(06): 873-875+891 .
    17. 詹金美，林欢，孙家敏. 定量检测血清降钙素原在诊断肝衰竭患者腹腔感染细菌类型中的价值. 中外医疗. 2017(28): 34-36 .

    Other cited types(1)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-040510152025
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 3.5 %FULLTEXT: 3.5 %META: 92.1 %META: 92.1 %PDF: 4.4 %PDF: 4.4 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 5.2 %其他: 5.2 %其他: 0.3 %其他: 0.3 %North Chicago: 0.1 %North Chicago: 0.1 %Russian Federation: 0.1 %Russian Federation: 0.1 %[]: 0.7 %[]: 0.7 %三亚: 0.1 %三亚: 0.1 %三明: 0.1 %三明: 0.1 %上海: 2.4 %上海: 2.4 %东京: 0.1 %东京: 0.1 %东莞: 0.9 %东莞: 0.9 %中卫: 2.1 %中卫: 2.1 %临汾: 0.1 %临汾: 0.1 %丹东: 0.1 %丹东: 0.1 %乐山: 0.2 %乐山: 0.2 %伊卜省: 0.6 %伊卜省: 0.6 %伊春: 0.1 %伊春: 0.1 %佛山: 0.1 %佛山: 0.1 %佳木斯: 0.2 %佳木斯: 0.2 %信阳: 0.1 %信阳: 0.1 %六盘水: 0.1 %六盘水: 0.1 %兰州: 0.2 %兰州: 0.2 %北京: 19.1 %北京: 19.1 %北海: 0.2 %北海: 0.2 %南京: 0.8 %南京: 0.8 %南充: 0.1 %南充: 0.1 %南宁: 0.3 %南宁: 0.3 %南昌: 0.1 %南昌: 0.1 %厦门: 0.2 %厦门: 0.2 %台州: 0.1 %台州: 0.1 %合肥: 0.2 %合肥: 0.2 %吉林: 1.5 %吉林: 1.5 %呼和浩特: 0.1 %呼和浩特: 0.1 %哈尔滨: 0.3 %哈尔滨: 0.3 %哥伦布: 0.2 %哥伦布: 0.2 %商丘: 0.1 %商丘: 0.1 %四平: 0.1 %四平: 0.1 %大庆: 0.2 %大庆: 0.2 %大连: 0.1 %大连: 0.1 %天津: 1.0 %天津: 1.0 %太原: 0.3 %太原: 0.3 %威海: 0.1 %威海: 0.1 %宁波: 0.3 %宁波: 0.3 %安庆: 0.1 %安庆: 0.1 %安康: 0.1 %安康: 0.1 %宜昌: 0.6 %宜昌: 0.6 %宜春: 0.2 %宜春: 0.2 %宣城: 0.1 %宣城: 0.1 %巴音郭楞: 0.2 %巴音郭楞: 0.2 %常州: 0.2 %常州: 0.2 %常德: 0.1 %常德: 0.1 %广州: 0.3 %广州: 0.3 %廊坊: 0.2 %廊坊: 0.2 %延安: 0.1 %延安: 0.1 %张家口: 2.1 %张家口: 2.1 %德罕: 0.1 %德罕: 0.1 %德阳: 0.1 %德阳: 0.1 %成都: 1.1 %成都: 1.1 %扬州: 0.2 %扬州: 0.2 %新乡: 0.1 %新乡: 0.1 %日照: 0.1 %日照: 0.1 %昆明: 0.6 %昆明: 0.6 %昌吉: 0.5 %昌吉: 0.5 %晋中: 0.2 %晋中: 0.2 %普洱: 0.1 %普洱: 0.1 %朝阳: 0.1 %朝阳: 0.1 %来宾: 0.1 %来宾: 0.1 %杭州: 0.3 %杭州: 0.3 %柳州: 0.1 %柳州: 0.1 %桂林: 0.1 %桂林: 0.1 %武威: 0.1 %武威: 0.1 %武汉: 0.3 %武汉: 0.3 %江门: 0.1 %江门: 0.1 %沈阳: 0.3 %沈阳: 0.3 %洛阳: 0.1 %洛阳: 0.1 %济南: 0.3 %济南: 0.3 %海口: 0.3 %海口: 0.3 %淄博: 0.3 %淄博: 0.3 %淮南: 0.3 %淮南: 0.3 %淮安: 0.1 %淮安: 0.1 %深圳: 1.0 %深圳: 1.0 %温州: 0.1 %温州: 0.1 %湖州: 0.3 %湖州: 0.3 %湘潭: 0.1 %湘潭: 0.1 %滁州: 0.1 %滁州: 0.1 %漯河: 0.1 %漯河: 0.1 %潍坊: 0.2 %潍坊: 0.2 %潮州: 0.1 %潮州: 0.1 %烟台: 0.1 %烟台: 0.1 %玉林: 0.1 %玉林: 0.1 %白银: 0.1 %白银: 0.1 %益阳: 0.1 %益阳: 0.1 %盐城: 0.3 %盐城: 0.3 %石嘴山: 0.1 %石嘴山: 0.1 %石家庄: 0.3 %石家庄: 0.3 %福州: 0.3 %福州: 0.3 %秦皇岛: 0.1 %秦皇岛: 0.1 %绍兴: 0.3 %绍兴: 0.3 %美国伊利诺斯芝加哥: 0.1 %美国伊利诺斯芝加哥: 0.1 %聊城: 0.1 %聊城: 0.1 %芒廷维尤: 20.4 %芒廷维尤: 20.4 %芝加哥: 0.5 %芝加哥: 0.5 %苏州: 1.2 %苏州: 1.2 %荆州: 0.1 %荆州: 0.1 %莆田: 0.2 %莆田: 0.2 %莫斯科: 1.0 %莫斯科: 1.0 %衡水: 0.3 %衡水: 0.3 %衡阳: 0.1 %衡阳: 0.1 %西宁: 15.7 %西宁: 15.7 %西安: 0.3 %西安: 0.3 %诺沃克: 0.1 %诺沃克: 0.1 %贵阳: 0.1 %贵阳: 0.1 %辽源: 0.1 %辽源: 0.1 %连云港: 0.3 %连云港: 0.3 %通化: 0.1 %通化: 0.1 %邯郸: 0.1 %邯郸: 0.1 %郑州: 1.0 %郑州: 1.0 %重庆: 0.6 %重庆: 0.6 %铁岭: 0.1 %铁岭: 0.1 %银川: 0.3 %银川: 0.3 %锦州: 0.2 %锦州: 0.2 %长春: 1.1 %长春: 1.1 %长沙: 2.9 %长沙: 2.9 %长治: 0.1 %长治: 0.1 %雅安: 0.1 %雅安: 0.1 %青岛: 0.6 %青岛: 0.6 %鞍山: 0.1 %鞍山: 0.1 %黄冈: 0.2 %黄冈: 0.2 %黔东南: 0.2 %黔东南: 0.2 %龙岩: 0.1 %龙岩: 0.1 %其他其他North ChicagoRussian Federation[]三亚三明上海东京东莞中卫临汾丹东乐山伊卜省伊春佛山佳木斯信阳六盘水兰州北京北海南京南充南宁南昌厦门台州合肥吉林呼和浩特哈尔滨哥伦布商丘四平大庆大连天津太原威海宁波安庆安康宜昌宜春宣城巴音郭楞常州常德广州廊坊延安张家口德罕德阳成都扬州新乡日照昆明昌吉晋中普洱朝阳来宾杭州柳州桂林武威武汉江门沈阳洛阳济南海口淄博淮南淮安深圳温州湖州湘潭滁州漯河潍坊潮州烟台玉林白银益阳盐城石嘴山石家庄福州秦皇岛绍兴美国伊利诺斯芝加哥聊城芒廷维尤芝加哥苏州荆州莆田莫斯科衡水衡阳西宁西安诺沃克贵阳辽源连云港通化邯郸郑州重庆铁岭银川锦州长春长沙长治雅安青岛鞍山黄冈黔东南龙岩

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Tables(5)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article views (483) PDF downloads(77) Cited by(18)
    Proportional views
    Related
        

    The first journal specializing in hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases in China

    Supervisor：Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China

    Sponsor：Jilin University

    Academic Support: Chinese Society of Hepatology，Chinese Medical Association

    Address: 461 Xinjiang Road, Changchun

    Submit：0431-88782044

    Peer review：0431-88783542

    Email：lcgdb@vip.163.com

    About Journal

    Submission Guideline

    Journal Online

    Hepatobiliary College

    Guidelines

    YesterdayIP[1659]YesterdayPV[2864]TodayIP[631]TodayPV[1058]Online[51]

    Website Design © 2020 Editorial Board of Journal of Clinical Hepatology 吉ICP备10000617号-1 Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd  

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return