4.6 Article

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

Journal

JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE B
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages 985-1001

Publisher

ZHEJIANG UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B2100523

Keywords

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration; Primary duct closure; T-tube drainage; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81972262, 81972255, 81772597, 81801999, 81702904]
  2. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2020A1515010117, 2018A030313645]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [18ykpy22]
  4. Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Molecular Mechanism and Translational Medicine of Guangzhou Bureau of Science and Information Technology [[2013]163]
  5. Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Gene Regulation and Target Therapy of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes [KLB09001]
  6. Guangdong Science and Technology Department [2015B050501004, 2017B030314026]
  7. Shangrao Science and Technology Department, China [2020D001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the safety and effectiveness of primary duct closure (PDC) and T-tube drainage (TTD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), showing that PDC was superior in terms of operation time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, and expenses. Both RCTs and cohort studies supported PDC as a safe and effective choice for patients with choledocholithiasis after transductal LCBDE.
Background and aims Laparoscopic 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. Methods Studies 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. Results A 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. Conclusions Based 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available