...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Surgery >Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:腹腔镜胆总管结石的T管引流时代即将结束吗?系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of T-tube free (TTF) versus T-tube drainage (TTD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). BACKGROUND: LCBDE has been proven to be an effective and preferred treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and the appropriateness of T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct (CBD) stones is still under debate. METHODS: A systematic literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Springer-Link, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Postoperative complications were evaluated/graded according to the modified Clavien classification. Other variables extracted including primary closures of the CBDs and the associated assistant methods, T-tube types, and placement durations. Stratified and sensitivity analyses were performed both to explore heterogeneity between studies and to assess the effects of the study qualities. RESULTS: A total of 956 patients from 12 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio for postoperative complications and biliary-specific complications in TTF was found to be 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.91; P = 0.02], 0.62 (95% CI, 0.36-1.06; P = 0.08), respectively, when compared with TTD. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly decreased in the TTF group, with the pooled weighted mean differences being 18.84 minutes (95% CI, -27.01 to 10.67; P < 0.01) and 3.22 days (95% CI, -4.59 to 1.84; P < 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that among patients undergoing laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones, primary closure of the CBD alone is superior to TTD; however, there is no significant benefit in terms of primary duct closure with various internal or external drainage techniques. Further randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited to prove these findings.
机译:目的:本研究旨在比较腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)后无T管(TTF)与无T管引流(TTD)的疗效和安全性。背景:LCBDE已被证明是一种简单,有效的治疗胆总管结石的方法,腹腔镜胆总管切开术后胆总管结石的T管放置是否合适尚存在争议。方法:进行了系统的文献检索(PubMed,EMBASE,Science Citation Index,Springer-Link和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册)。根据改良的Clavien分类对术后并发症进行评估/分级。提取的其他变量包括CBD的主要封闭以及相关的辅助方法,T型管类型和放置时间。进行了分层和敏感性分析,以探索研究之间的异质性并评估研究质量的影响。结果:包括来自12个研究的956名患者。发现TTF术后并发症和胆道特异性并发症的合并比值比为0.59 [95%置信区间(CI),0.38-0.91;与TTD相比,分别为P = 0.02],0.62(95%CI,0.36-1.06; P = 0.08)。 TTF组的手术时间和住院时间显着减少,合并的加权平均差为18.84分钟(95%CI,-27.01至10.67; P <0.01)和3.22天(95%CI,-4.59至1.84; P <0.01)。结论:这项荟萃分析的结果表明,在接受腹腔镜胆总管切开术治疗胆总管结石的患者中,仅CBD的初次闭合优于TTD。但是,采用各种内部或外部排水技术进行的初级导管闭合并没有明显的好处。迫切需要进一步的随机对照试验来证明这些发现。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号