Liwei Pang1, Yan Zhang1, Yuwen Wang2, Jing Kong3. 1. Department of Biliary and Minimally Invasive Surgery, China Medical University Shengjing Hospital Shenyang, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China. 2. Department of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital of Shenyang, No.85 Heping South Street, Shenyang, 110006, Liaoning, China. 3. Department of Biliary and Minimally Invasive Surgery, China Medical University Shengjing Hospital Shenyang, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China. kongjing1998@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best approach for treating common bile duct stones remains a matter of debate. Traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) can cause adverse events such as stenosis of the bile duct. Moreover, with advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) is gradually rising. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term clinical benefits of LTCBDE and LCBDE through matched cases. METHODS: Web of science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2007 and December 2017 that compared LTCBDE and LCBDE without a restriction of languages. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies matched the selection criteria, including 1561 cases of LTCBDE and 1500 cases of LCBDE. There was no obvious difference in stone clearance (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84-2.47; P = 0.18). However, LTCBDE had a shorter operative time (MD - 17.72, 95% CI - 19.42 to - 16.02; P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (MD - 2.20, 95% CI - 2.32 to - 2.08; P < 0.00001). Besides, the LTCBDE group showed significantly better results for blood loss (MD - 7.61, 95% CI - 8.85 to - 6.37; P < 0.00001) and postoperative complications (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.41; P < 0.00001). In addition, LTCBDE was more cost efficient (MD - 2.51, 95% CI - 2.72 to - 2.30; P < 0.00001). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of operative time (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 97.56:117.81 min), hospital stay (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 5.22:8.91 days), hospital expenses (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 8646.121:11848.31 RMB), blood loss (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 29.3:52.0 ml), the rate of CBD stone clearance (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 92.8:95.0%), and postoperative complications (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 6.7:14.6%) in both groups to obtain more convincing results. CONCLUSIONS: The stone clearance of LTCBDE was equal to that of LCBDE, and LTCBDE demonstrated a shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and other advantages. Thus, the surgical procedure of laparoscopic transcystic choledochotomy is feasible and safe.
BACKGROUND: The best approach for treating common bile duct stones remains a matter of debate. Traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) can cause adverse events such as stenosis of the bile duct. Moreover, with advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) is gradually rising. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term clinical benefits of LTCBDE and LCBDE through matched cases. METHODS: Web of science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2007 and December 2017 that compared LTCBDE and LCBDE without a restriction of languages. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies matched the selection criteria, including 1561 cases of LTCBDE and 1500 cases of LCBDE. There was no obvious difference in stone clearance (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84-2.47; P = 0.18). However, LTCBDE had a shorter operative time (MD - 17.72, 95% CI - 19.42 to - 16.02; P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (MD - 2.20, 95% CI - 2.32 to - 2.08; P < 0.00001). Besides, the LTCBDE group showed significantly better results for blood loss (MD - 7.61, 95% CI - 8.85 to - 6.37; P < 0.00001) and postoperative complications (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.41; P < 0.00001). In addition, LTCBDE was more cost efficient (MD - 2.51, 95% CI - 2.72 to - 2.30; P < 0.00001). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of operative time (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 97.56:117.81 min), hospital stay (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 5.22:8.91 days), hospital expenses (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 8646.121:11848.31 RMB), blood loss (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 29.3:52.0 ml), the rate of CBD stone clearance (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 92.8:95.0%), and postoperative complications (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 6.7:14.6%) in both groups to obtain more convincing results. CONCLUSIONS: The stone clearance of LTCBDE was equal to that of LCBDE, and LTCBDE demonstrated a shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and other advantages. Thus, the surgical procedure of laparoscopic transcystic choledochotomy is feasible and safe.
Authors: James O Brewer; Lalin Navaratne; Stephen W Marchington; David Martínez Cecilia; Jose Quiñones Sampedro; Luis Muñoz Bellvis; Alberto Martínez Isla Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.445