Literature DB >> 34312727

Comparison of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treating gallstones and common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Caining Lei1,2,3, Tingting Lu3,4,5, Wenwen Yang2,6, Man Yang7, Hongwei Tian2,8, Shaoming Song2,6, Shiyi Gong2, Jia Yang2, Wenjie Jiang9, Kehu Yang10,11, Tiankang Guo12,13,14.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones.
METHODS: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time.
RESULTS: Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common bile duct stones; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Gallstones; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34312727     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08648-y

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


  57 in total

1.  A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited.

Authors:  Chris Collins; Donal Maguire; Adrian Ireland; Edward Fitzgerald; Gerald C O'Sullivan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Comparison of one stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intra-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus two-stage pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of pre-operatively diagnosed patients with common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chester Tan; Omar Ocampo; Raymund Ong; Kim Shi Tan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  An Update on Technical Aspects of Cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Dominic E Sanford
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2019-02-10       Impact factor: 2.741

4.  Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.

Authors:  Gianpiero Manes; Gregorios Paspatis; Lars Aabakken; Andrea Anderloni; Marianna Arvanitakis; Philippe Ah-Soune; Marc Barthet; Dirk Domagk; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Jean-Francois Gigot; Istvan Hritz; George Karamanolis; Andrea Laghi; Alberto Mariani; Konstantina Paraskeva; Jürgen Pohl; Thierry Ponchon; Fredrik Swahn; Rinze W F Ter Steege; Andrea Tringali; Antonios Vezakis; Earl J Williams; Jeanin E van Hooft
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 10.093

Review 5.  Laparoendoscopic rendezvous reduces perioperative morbidity and risk of pancreatitis.

Authors:  Alberto Arezzo; Nereo Vettoretto; Federico Famiglietti; Lorenzo Moja; Mario Morino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater.

Authors:  K Kawai; Y Akasaka; K Murakami; M Tada; Y Koli
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yan Lin; Yan Su; Jun Yan; Xun Li
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Treatment for retained [corrected] common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the rendezvous technique.

Authors:  Giuseppe Borzellino; Luca Rodella; Edoardo Saladino; Filippo Catalano; Leonardo Politi; Annamaria Minicozzi; Claudio Cordiano
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-12

9.  The best approach to treat concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. Is ERCP still needed?

Authors:  Jesús García-Cano; Francisco Domper
Journal:  Rev Esp Enferm Dig       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.086

10.  Single-stage treatment with ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus two-stage treatment with ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy within six to eight weeks: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Bahtiyar Muhammedoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2019-05-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.