Literature DB >> 23355158

Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones: system review and meta-analysis.

Bin Wang1, Zhenying Guo, Zhenjie Liu, Yuan Wang, Yi Si, Yuefeng Zhu, Mingjuan Jin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conducting preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (POES) versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES).
METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases for prospective, randomized, controlled trials related to safety and effectiveness of POES versus IOES. Relative risk ratios (RRs) were estimated with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. We considered the following outcomes: clearance rate, postprocedural complications, and hospital stay.
RESULTS: Five trials with 631 patients (318 with POES, 313 with IOES) were analyzed. Although the overall rates of common bile duct stone clearance were similar between POES and IOES (RR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.91-1.01; p = 0.13), the failure rate of common bile duct cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was significantly higher for IOES (RR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.23-5.26; p = 0.01). The pooled RR after POES for overall complication rates was similar to that for IOES (RR 1.56, 95 % CI 0.94-2.59; p = 0.09). However, compared with IOES, the RR risk of ERCP-related complications was significantly higher for POES (RR 2.27, 95 % CI 1.18-4.40, p = 0.01), especially in the patients at high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. There was no significant difference in morbidity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy or required subsequent open surgery between the two groups. In the subgroup analyses, the RR risks of post-ERCP pancreatitis were significantly higher for POES (RR 4.85, 95 % CI 1.41-16.66, p = 0.01), and mean hospital stay was longer in the POES group (RR 2.22, 95 % CI 1.98-246; p < 0.01). However, the rates of bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis, and gastric ulceration did not differ significantly between POES and IOES.
CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the stone clearance and overall complication rates, POES is equal to IOES in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones. However, IOES is associated with a reduced incidence of ERCP-related pancreatitis and results in a shorter hospital stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23355158     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2757-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  46 in total

1.  Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to remove common bile duct stones during routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not prolong hospitalization: a 2-year experience.

Authors:  L Enochsson; B Lindberg; F Swahn; U Arnelo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-02-02       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  S Ebner; J Rechner; S Beller; K Erhart; F M Riegler; G Szinicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-02-02       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

Authors:  D-F Hong; Y Xin; D-W Chen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Endoluminal surgery: past, present and future.

Authors:  J L Ponsky
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones.

Authors:  M Rhodes; L Sussman; L Cohen; M P Lewis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-01-17       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Randomised trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bileduct stones.

Authors:  J J Bergman; E A Rauws; P Fockens; A M van Berkel; P M Bossuyt; J G Tijssen; G N Tytgat; K Huibregtse
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-04-19       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  E Masci; A Mariani; S Curioni; P A Testoni
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Laparo-endoscopic "rendezvous": a new technique in the choledocholithiasis treatment.

Authors:  E Cavina; M Franceschi; F Sidoti; O Goletti; P Buccianti; M Chiarugi
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  1998 Sep-Oct

9.  Single-step treatment of gall bladder and bile duct stones: a combined endoscopic-laparoscopic technique.

Authors:  Abdel Hamid Ghazal; Magdy A Sorour; Mohamed El-Riwini; Hassan El-Bahrawy
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 6.071

10.  Analysis of the SAGES outcomes initiative cholecystectomy registry.

Authors:  V Velanovich; J M Morton; M McDonald; R Orlando; G Maupin; L W Traverso
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 3.453

View more
  17 in total

1.  Surgeons, ERCP, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: do we need a standard approach for common bile duct stones?

Authors:  Rebeccah B Baucom; Irene D Feurer; Julia S Shelton; Kristy Kummerow; Michael D Holzman; Benjamin K Poulose
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yunxiao Lyu; Yunxiao Cheng; Ting Li; Bin Cheng; Xin Jin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Modern approach to cholecysto-choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Lapo Bencini; Cinzia Tommasi; Roberto Manetti; Marco Farsi
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-02-16

4.  Single-stage vs. two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Guoqian Ding; Wang Cai; Mingfang Qin
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Transcystic or transductal stone extraction during single-stage treatment of choledochocystolithiasis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jan Siert K Reinders; Dirk J Gouma; Dirk T Ubbink; Bert van Ramshorst; Djamila Boerma
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis: a single series of 200 patients.

Authors:  Giuliano La Barba; Andrea Gardini; Elena Cavargini; Alessandro Casadei; Paolo Morgagni; Francesca Bazzocchi; Fabrizio D'Acapito; Davide Cavaliere; Roberta Curti; Domenico Tringali; Alessandro Cucchetti; Giorgio Ercolani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Current status of laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholelithiasis with concomitant choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Ioannis Baloyiannis; George Tzovaras
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-06-25

8.  Combined gastroscopic and choledochoscopic transabdominal nasobiliary drainage.

Authors:  Song-Mei Lou; Min Zhang; Zheng-Rong Wu; Gui-Xing Jiang; Hua Shen; Yi Dai; Yue-Long Liang; Li-Ping Cao; Guo-Ping Ding
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2019 Nov.       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 9.  Destiny for Rendezvous: Is Cholecysto/Choledocholithiasis Better Treated with Dual- or Single-Step Procedures?

Authors:  S Vaccari; M Minghetti; A Lauro; M I Bellini; A Ussia; S Khouzam; I R Marino; M Cervellera; V D'Andrea; V Tonini
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Early versus delayed laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stone-related nonsevere acute cholangitis.

Authors:  Bin Zhu; Dan Li; Yu Ren; Ying Li; Yan Wang; Kai Li; Buhe Amin; Ke Gong; Yiping Lu; Ming Song; Nengwei Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.