Literature DB >> 28976804

Comparative Study of Three Bile Duct Closure Methods Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis.

Pablo Parra-Membrives1,2, Darío Martínez-Baena2, José Lorente-Herce2, Granada Jiménez-Riera2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are three choledochotomy closure methods available following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: T-tube insertion, antegrade stenting, and primary choledochorrhaphy. We reviewed the experience of 12 years at our center searching for the optimal closure technique.
METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 146 patients that underwent one of the three closure methods from February 2004 to March 2016. Hospital stay, need for readmission, incidence of early and long-term complications, and biliary leakage development and their clinical impact were determined for each technique.
RESULTS: Hospital stay was more prolonged, and need for readmission was higher in the T-tube group. Nine patients of the T-tube group (17.3%), 5 patients (8.6%) of the antegrade stenting group, and 1 patient of the primary suture group (2.8%) developed Dindo-Clavien ≥3 complications (P = .076). The incidence of biliary leakage was 3.8%, 8.6%, and 16.7% for the T-tube group, antegrade stenting group, and primary suture group, respectively. There was no grade C biliary fistula in the primary suture group, and all grade B leaks in these patients were only due to prolonged duration. The T-tube removal caused adverse events in 21.1% of the patients, and complications directly related with stents occurred in 9.6%.
CONCLUSION: Antegrade stents or T-tube insertion do not provide any added value for choledochotomy closure but are charged with specific morbidity. On the contrary, despite biliary leaks being more frequent after primary suture, they are of little clinical consequence and may be managed on an outpatient basis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  T-tube; antegrade stenting; closure methods; common bile duct stones; laparoscopic common bile duct exploration; primary suture

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28976804     DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0433

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A        ISSN: 1092-6429            Impact factor:   1.878


  6 in total

Review 1.  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

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

Authors:  Taifeng Zhu; Haoming Lin; Jian Sun; Chao Liu; Rui Zhang
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 3.066

3.  Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years' experience of a single institution.

Authors:  Tong Guo; Lu Wang; Peng Xie; Zhiwei Zhang; Xiaorui Huang; Yahong Yu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 3.453

4.  T-Tube Use After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.

Authors:  Cuinan Jiang; Xiuhao Zhao; Shi Cheng
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

5.  Meta-analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  M Bekheit; R Smith; G Ramsay; F Soggiu; M Ghazanfar; I Ahmed
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2019-01-23

6.  Comparative study of three common bile duct closure techniques after choledocholithotomy: safety and efficacy.

Authors:  Mohammed Ahmed Omar; Alaa Ahmed Redwan; Marwa Nasrelden Alansary
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 2.895

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.