Suppr超能文献

胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的两阶段与单阶段管理。

Two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.

机构信息

Department of Bile Duct Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.

出版信息

World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jun 28;18(24):3156-66. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156.

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.

METHODS

Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011, were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures, number of procedures per patient, length of hospital stay, total operative time, hospitalization charges, patient acceptance and quality of life scores.

RESULTS

Seven eligible RCTs [five trials (n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); two trials (n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE], composed of 787 patients in total, were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios (RR) = -0.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.24 to 0.04, P = 0.17], postoperative morbidity (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 2.19, 95% CI: 0.33 to 14.67, P = 0.42), conversion to other procedures (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.70, P = 0.39), length of hospital stay (MD = 0.99, 95% CI: -1.59 to 3.57, P = 0.45), total operative time (MD = 12.14, 95% CI: -1.83 to 26.10, P = 0.09). Two-stage (LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage (LC + LCBDE) management.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures. However, patient's condition, operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.

摘要

目的

评估两阶段与单阶段治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的安全性和有效性。

方法

检索了 4 个数据库,包括 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册数据库和科学引文索引,以确定所有随机对照试验(RCT)。由两位独立评审员从研究中提取数据。主要结局指标为胆总管结石清除率、术后发病率和死亡率。次要结局指标为转为其他手术、每位患者的手术次数、住院时间、总手术时间、住院费用、患者接受度和生活质量评分。

结果

纳入了 7 项 RCT(5 项试验,n = 621,比较术前内镜逆行胰胆管造影术/内镜括约肌切开术+腹腔镜胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术+腹腔镜胆总管探查术;2 项试验,n = 166,比较术后内镜逆行胰胆管造影术/内镜括约肌切开术+腹腔镜胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术+腹腔镜胆总管探查术),共 787 例患者,最终进行了分析。荟萃分析显示,两组胆总管结石清除率[风险比(RR)=-0.10,95%置信区间(CI):-0.24 至 0.04,P = 0.17]、术后发病率(RR = 0.79,95% CI:0.58 至 1.10,P = 0.16)、死亡率(RR = 2.19,95% CI:0.33 至 14.67,P = 0.42)、转为其他手术(RR = 1.21,95% CI:0.54 至 2.70,P = 0.39)、住院时间(MD = 0.99,95% CI:-1.59 至 3.57,P = 0.45)、总手术时间(MD = 12.14,95% CI:-1.83 至 26.10,P = 0.09)差异均无统计学意义。两阶段(LC+ERCP/EST)治疗明显比单阶段(LC+LCBDE)治疗需要更多的手术次数。

结论

单阶段治疗与两阶段治疗等效,但需要的手术次数更少。然而,在做出治疗决策时,应考虑患者的病情、术者的专业技能和当地资源。

相似文献

1
Two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.
World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jun 28;18(24):3156-66. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156.
2
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 12;2013(12):CD003327. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003327.pub4.
3
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 3(9):CD003327. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003327.pub3.
6
Meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-staged management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.
J Minim Access Surg. 2020 Jul-Sep;16(3):206-214. doi: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_146_18.
7
A meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;39(5):584-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2015.02.002. Epub 2015 Apr 27.

引用本文的文献

2
Robotic assisted common bile duct exploration for management of complex gallstone disease.
Int J Surg. 2024 Oct 1;110(10):6418-6425. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001817.
3
Comparison of 1-stage and 2-stage Managements for Common Bile Duct Stones and Gallstones (CBDS): A Retrospective Study.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2025 Mar 1;59(3):269-275. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000002009.
6
Early Management of Severe Biliary Infection in the Era of the Tokyo Guidelines.
J Clin Med. 2023 Jul 16;12(14):4711. doi: 10.3390/jcm12144711.
8
Upfront Laparoscopic Management of Common Bile Duct Stones: What Are the Risk Factors of Failure?
J Gastrointest Surg. 2023 Sep;27(9):1846-1854. doi: 10.1007/s11605-023-05687-9. Epub 2023 Apr 27.

本文引用的文献

1
Managing concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era: a systematic review.
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2011 May;4(2):53-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5910.2011.00073.x. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
2
Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011 Jan;396(1):53-62. doi: 10.1007/s00423-010-0660-z. Epub 2010 Jun 27.
4
Prospective randomized trial of LC+LCBDE vs ERCP/S+LC for common bile duct stone disease.
Arch Surg. 2010 Jan;145(1):28-33. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.226.
6
Single-step treatment of gall bladder and bile duct stones: a combined endoscopic-laparoscopic technique.
Int J Surg. 2009 Aug;7(4):338-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2009.05.005. Epub 2009 May 27.
7
Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):31-40. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2008.5.
8
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.
Ann Surg. 2008 Apr;247(4):674-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181612c85.
9
Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1781-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01279.x. Epub 2007 May 17.
10
Optimizing choledocholithiasis management: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Arch Surg. 2007 Jan;142(1):43-8; discussion 49. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.142.1.43.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验