Full Text:   <1122>

Summary:  <596>

CLC number: 

On-line Access: 2021-12-14

Received: 2021-06-16

Revision Accepted: 2021-08-15

Crosschecked: 0000-00-00

Cited: 0

Clicked: 2188

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714

 ORCID:

Chao LIU

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6659-4372

Rui ZHANG

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3335-0931

-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B 2021 Vol.22 No.12 P.985-1001

http://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B2100523


Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis


Author(s):  Taifeng ZHU, Haoming LIN, Jian SUN, Chao LIU, Rui ZHANG

Affiliation(s):  Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation and Department of Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China

Corresponding email(s):   zhangr95@mail.sysu.edu.cn, liuchao3@mail.sysu.edu.cn

Key Words:  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, Primary duct closure, T-tube drainage, Meta-analysis


Taifeng ZHU, Haoming LIN, Jian SUN, Chao LIU, Rui ZHANG. Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 2021, 22(12): 985-1001.

@article{title="Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis",
author="Taifeng ZHU, Haoming LIN, Jian SUN, Chao LIU, Rui ZHANG",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science B",
volume="22",
number="12",
pages="985-1001",
year="2021",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/jzus.B2100523"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis
%A Taifeng ZHU
%A Haoming LIN
%A Jian SUN
%A Chao LIU
%A Rui ZHANG
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B
%V 22
%N 12
%P 985-1001
%@ 1673-1581
%D 2021
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.B2100523

TY - JOUR
T1 - Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis
A1 - Taifeng ZHU
A1 - Haoming LIN
A1 - Jian SUN
A1 - Chao LIU
A1 - Rui ZHANG
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science B
VL - 22
IS - 12
SP - 985
EP - 1001
%@ 1673-1581
Y1 - 2021
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.B2100523


Abstract: 
Background and aimslaparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones. However, the choice of primary duct closure (PDC) or t-tube drainage (TTD) technique after LCBDE is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of PDC and TTD after LCBDE.
MethodsStudies published before May 1, 2021 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to screen out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies to compare PDC with TTD. Meta-analyses of fixed effect and random effect models were performed using RevMan 5.3.
ResultsA total of 1865 patients were enrolled in six RCTs and ten cohort studies. Regarding RCTs, the PDC group was significantly better than the TTD group in terms of operation time, total postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses (all P<0.05). Based on cohort studies of the subgroup, the PDC group had shorter operation time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, less intraoperative blood loss, and limited total postoperative complications. Statistically, there were no significant differences in bile leakage, retained stones, stone recurrence, bile duct stricture, postoperative pancreatitis, other complications, or postoperative exhaust time between the TTD and PDC groups.
ConclusionsBased on the available evidence, compared with TTD, PDC is safe and effective, and can be used as the first choice after transductal LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis.

腹腔镜胆总管探查术后一期缝合与T管引流的meta分析

创新点:(1)本研究纳入了6项随机对照研究和10项队列研究(共1865例患者),并且将队列研究作为亚组单独分析,因此在扩大样本量的基础上控制了偏倚的风险;(2)考虑到事件发生率较高时比值比(OR)得出的效应值会被高估,本研究首先选择相对危险度(RR)比较二分类变量;(3)本研究排除了有胆道手术史的患者,减少了研究的异质性,因此获得了RR分布基本对称的贝格漏斗图,研究结果质量较高。
目的:腹腔镜胆总管探查术是一种安全有效的取石方法,然而术后胆管一期缝合或T管引流的选择仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较一期缝合和T管引流的安全性和有效性。
方法:本研究在PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane Library数据库中检索2021年5月1日前发表的文章,筛选出比较一期缝合与T管引流的随机对照研究和队列研究;使用Revman 5.3进行meta分析,并对队列研究进行了预先指定的亚组分析;采用Cochran’s Q检验和Higgins I2统计量评估研究之间的异质性。在纳入的研究中没有检测到显著的异质性(I2≤50%,P≥0.10)时,采用固定效应模型(Mantel-Haenszel法);当检测到显著的异质性(P<0.10或I2>50%)时,采用随机效应模型(DerSimonian和Laird法)。同时,使用贝格漏斗图衡量文章发表的偏倚,用RR和加权均数差(WMD)分别比较二分类变量和连续变量。
结论:相比T管引流,腹腔镜胆总管探查术后胆管一期缝合显著减少了手术时间、术中出血量、术后总并发症、术后住院时间和住院费用;在胆漏、结石残留、结石复发、胆管狭窄、术后胰腺炎、其他并发症和术后排气时间方面两者的效果则相当。因此,我们强烈建议有足够经验的外科医生首选一期缝合。

关键词:腹腔镜胆总管探查术;一期缝合;T管引流;Meta分析

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference

[1]Al-ArdahM, BarnettRE, MorrisS, et al., 2021. Lessons learnt from the first 200 unselected consecutive cases of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct stones at a district general hospital. Surg Endosc, 35:6268-6277.

[2]AmbreenM, ShaikhAR, JamalA, et al., 2009. Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after open choledochotomy. Asian J Surg, 32(1):21-25.

[3]ApalakisA, 1976. An experimental evaluation of the types of material used for bile duct drainage tubes. Br J Surg, 63(6):440-445.

[4]AudouyC, ThereauxJ, KansouG, et al., 2016. Primary closure versus biliary drainage after laparoscopic choledocotomy: results of a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 26(1):e32-e36.

[5]CaddyGR, ThamTCK, 2006. Symptoms, diagnosis and endoscopic management of common bile duct stones. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 20(6):1085-1101.

[6]CaiHH, SunDL, SunYM, et al., 2012. Primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy. World J Surg, 36(1):164-170.

[7]ChenCC, WuSD, TianY, et al., 2010. The fading role of T-tube in laparoscopic choledochotomy: primary choledochorrhaphy and over pigtail J and endonasobiliary drainage tubes. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A, 20(10):807-811.

[8]ChoiK, AmarasenaT, HughesA, et al., 2021. Management of bile duct stones at cholecystectomy: an Australian single-centre experience over 2 years. Surg Endosc, 35(3):1247-1253.

[9]DengY, TianHW, HeLJ, et al., 2020. Can T-tube drainage be replaced by primary suture technique in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 405(8):1209-1217.

[10]DongZT, WuGZ, LuoKL, et al., 2014. Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus T-tube. J Surg Res, 189(2):249-254.

[11]EggerM, SmithGD, SchneiderM, et al., 1997a. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109):629-634.

[12]EggerM, SmithGD, PhillipsAN, 1997b. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ, 315(7121):1533-1537.

[13]El-GeidieAAR, 2010. Is the use of T-tube necessary after laparoscopic choledochotomy? J Gastrointest Surg, 14(5):844-848.

[14]FangCZ, DongY, LiuS, et al., 2020. Laparoscopy for hepatolithiasis: biliary duct exploration with primary closure versus T-tube drainage. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A, 30(10):1102-1105.

[15]GuanHQ, JiangGB, MaoXJ, 2019. Primary duct closure combined with transcystic drainage versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy. ANZ J Surg, 89(7-8):885-888.

[16]HigginsJPT, GreenS, 2013. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. https://www.science-open.com/document? vid=539e5df3-6827-41af-87e4-11ee81754ccb

[17]HozoSP, DjulbegovicB, HozoI, 2005. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol, 5:13.

[18]HuaJ, MengHB, YaoL, et al., 2017. Five hundred consecutive laparoscopic common bile duct explorations: 5-year experience at a single institution. Surg Endosc, 31(9):‍3581-3589.

[19]JameelM, DarmasB, BakerAL, 2008. Trend towards primary closure following laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 90(1):29-35.

[20]JiangCN, ZhaoXH, ChengS, 2019. T-tube use after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. JSLS J Soc Laparoend Surg, 23(1):e2018.00077.

[21]JonesT, Al MusawiJ, NavaratneL, et al., 2019. Holmium laser lithotripsy improves the rate of successful transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 404(8):985-992.

[22]LeidaZ, PingB, ShuguangW, et al., 2008. A randomized comparison of primary closure and T-tube drainage of the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy. Surg Endosc, 22(7):1595-1600.

[23]LouSM, ZhangM, WuZR, et al., 2019. Combined gastroscopic and choledochoscopic transabdominal nasobiliary drainage. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B (Biomed & Biotechnol), 20(11):940-944.

[24]LygidakisNJ, 1983. Choledochotomy for biliary lithiasis: T-tube drainage or primary closure: effects on postoperative bacteremia and T-tube bile infection. Am J Surg, 146(2):254-256.

[25]LyuYX, ChengYX, LiT, et al., 2019. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc, 33(10):3275-3286.

[26]ManesG, PaspatisG, AabakkenL, et al., 2019. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy, 51(5):472-491.

[27]MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, et al., 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol, 62(10):1006-1012.

[28]NavaratneL, IslaAM, 2021. Transductal versus transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: an institutional review of over four hundred cases. Surg Endosc, 35(1):437-448.

[29]Parra-MembrivesP, Martínez-BaenaD, Lorente-HerceJ, et al., 2018. Comparative study of three bile duct closure methods following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A, 28(2):145-151.

[30]RienhoffWF, 1960. Primary closure of the common duct. Ann Surg, 151(2):255-260.

[31]ShakyaJPS, AgrawalN, KumarA, et al., 2017. Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledocholithotomy: a prospective randomized study. Int Surg J, 4(5):1762-1764.

[32]SugiyamaM, SuzukiY, AbeN, et al., 2004. Endoscopic retreatment of recurrent choledocholithiasis after sphincterotomy. Gut, 53(12):1856-1859.

[33]TestoniPA, MarianiA, AabakkenL, et al., 2016. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy, 48(7):657-683.

[34]VidaganyNE, del PozoCD, TomásNP, et al., 2016. Eleven years of primary closure of common bile duct after choledochotomy for choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc, 30(5):1975-1982.

[35]WenSQ, HuQH, WanM, et al., 2017. Appropriate patient selection is essential for the success of primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Dig Dis Sci, 62(5):1321-1326.

[36]WilliamsE, BeckinghamI, el SayedG, et al., 2017. Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut, 66(5):765-782.

[37]WilliamsEJ, GreenJ, BeckinghamI, et al., 2008. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut, 57(7):1004-1021.

[38]WillsVL, GibsonK, KarihalootC, et al., 2002. Complications of biliary T-tubes after choledochotomy. ANZ J Surg, 72(3):177-180.

[39]WuX, HuangZJ, ZhongJY, et al., 2019. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is safe for management of choledocholithiasis in elderly patients. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 18(6):557-561.

[40]WuXS, YangY, DongP, et al., 2012. Primary closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 397(6):909-916.

[41]XiaoLK, XiangJF, WuK, et al., 2018. The reasonable drainage option after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol, 42(6):564-569.

[42]YanY, ShaYH, YuanW, et al., 2021. One-stage versus two-stage management for acute cholecystitis associated with common bile duct stones: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc, online.

[43]YiHJ, HongG, MinSK, et al., 2015. Long-term outcome of primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with choledochoscopy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 25(3):250-253.

[44]ZhangHW, ChenYJ, WuCH, et al., 2014. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure for management of choledocholithiasis: a retrospective analysis and comparison with conventional T-tube drainage. Am Surg, 80(2):178-181.

[45]ZhangLD, BieP, ChenP, et al., 2004. Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage following laparoscopic choledochotomy. Chin J Surg, 42(9):520-523 (in Chinese).

[46]ZhangRC, LuoH, PanYL, et al., 2015. Rate of duodenal-biliary reflux increases in patients with recurrent common bile duct stones: evidence from barium meal examination. Gastrointest Endosc, 82(4):660-665.

[47]ZhangWJ, XuGF, HuangQ, et al., 2015. Treatment of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era. BMC Surg, 15:7.

[48]ZhouHJ, WangS, FanFX, et al., 2020. Primary closure with knotless barbed suture versus traditional T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a single-center medium-term experience. J Int Med Res, 48(1):300060519878087.

[49]ZhuJG, HanW, GuoW, et al., 2015. Learning curve and outcome of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg, 102(13):1691-1697.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Please provide your name, email address and a comment





Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2022 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE