Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜胆总管探查术时可否用一期缝合技术替代 T 管引流?一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Can T-tube drainage be replaced by primary suture technique in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.

Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.

出版信息

Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020 Dec;405(8):1209-1217. doi: 10.1007/s00423-020-02000-z. Epub 2020 Oct 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered the best treatment and has the advantages of being minimally invasive for common bile duct (CBD) stones, the choice of T-tube drainage (TTD) or primary duct closure (PDC) after LCBDE is still controversial. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare the superiority of PDC versus TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

All potential studies which compare the surgical effects between PDC with TTD were electronically searched for in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library databases up to November 2019. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

In total, six randomized controlled trials with 604 patients (307 in the PDC group and 297 in the TTD group) were included in the current meta-analysis. As compared with the TTD group, the pooled data showed that PDC group had shorter operating time (WMD = -24.30; 95% CI = -27.02 to -21.59; p < 0.00001; I = 0%; p < 0.88), less medical expenditure (WMD = -2255.73; 95% CI = -3330.59 to -1180.86; p < 0.0001; I = 96%; p < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (OR = -2.88; 95% CI = -3.22 to -2.54; p < 0.00001; I = 60%; p < 0.03), and lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.78; p = 0.77; I = 0%; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning bile leakage (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.53; p = 0.42; I = 0%; p = 0.90) and retained stones (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.36 to 2.52; p < 0.93; I = 0%; p < 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with PDC should be performed as a priority alternative compared with TTD for choledocholithiasis.

摘要

背景

虽然腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)被认为是治疗胆总管(CBD)结石的最佳方法,具有微创优势,但 LCBDE 后选择 T 管引流(TTD)还是直接胆管缝合(PDC)仍存在争议。因此,本研究旨在比较 PDC 与 TTD 在 LCBDE 治疗胆总管结石中的优势。

方法

通过电子检索 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,检索截至 2019 年 11 月比较 PDC 与 TTD 手术效果的所有潜在研究。使用 RevMan 5.3 软件进行数据合成和统计分析。

结果

共有 6 项随机对照试验(RCT)纳入了 604 例患者(PDC 组 307 例,TTD 组 297 例),纳入本 meta 分析。与 TTD 组相比,PDC 组的手术时间更短(WMD=-24.30;95%CI=-27.02 至-21.59;p<0.00001;I=0%;p<0.88),医疗费用更少(WMD=-2255.73;95%CI=-3330.59 至-1180.86;p<0.0001;I=96%;p<0.00001),术后住院时间更短(OR=-2.88;95%CI=-3.22 至-2.54;p<0.00001;I=60%;p<0.03),术后并发症发生率更低(OR=0.49;95%CI=0.31 至 0.78;p=0.77;I=0%;p=0.003)。两组在胆漏(OR=0.74;95%CI=0.36 至 1.53;p=0.42;I=0%;p=0.90)和残余结石(OR=0.96;95%CI=0.36 至 2.52;p<0.93;I=0%;p<0.66)方面无显著差异。

结论

与 TTD 相比,LCBDE 联合 PDC 应作为治疗胆总管结石的首选方法。

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