文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术与开腹胆总管切开取石术治疗胆总管结石的疗效比较:一项系统评价与Meta分析

Comparison of the efficacy of LTCBDE and LCBDE for common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Zheng Bin, Lu Yixin, Li Erqi, Bai Ziyu, Zhang Kaiqian, Li Jian

机构信息

Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University, Chengde, Hebei Province, China.

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University, Chengde, Hebei Province, China.

出版信息

Front Surg. 2025 Jan 8;11:1412334. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1412334. eCollection 2024.


DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1412334
PMID:39845028
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11750767/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The choice of surgical methods for common bile duct stones (CBDS) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). METHODS: Relevant literature published before March 30, 2023 in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane was searched to screen studies comparing LTCBDE and LCBDE. RevMan 5.4 was used for meta-analysis of fixed-effects and random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 3065 patients in the LTCBDE group and 2,453 patients in the LCBDE group. CBDS clearance was 95.4% (2,682/2,812) in LTCBDE group and 94.7% (1,810/1,911) in LCBDE group (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.36, 2.48,  < 0.0001;  = 0%,  = 0.56). In LTCBDE group, operative time(MD = -34.60, 95% CI: -46.05, -23, 15,  < 0.00001  = 96%,  < 0.00001), postoperative hospital stay (MD = -2.92, 95% CI: -3.62, -2.21,  < 0.00001;  = 92%,  < 0.00001), postoperative complications (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.38, 0.58,  < 0.0001;  = 26%,  = 0.15), residual stone(OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.66,  < 0.0001;  = 0%,  = 0.56), bile leak (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.55,  < 0.00001;  = 0%, = 0.52), mortality (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.88,  = 0.04;  = 0%,  = 0.71) and recurrent stones(OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.74,  = 0.007;  = 5%,  = 0.38) were better than LCBDE group. There was no difference in pancreatitis (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.52, 2.16.  = 0.86;  = 0%,  = 0.98) and biliary stricture(OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.09,  = 0.07;  = 0%,  = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: LTCBDE is safe, efficient, and of great clinical significance, and is worth promoting to some patients.

摘要

背景:胆总管结石(CBDS)手术方法的选择存在争议。本研究旨在比较腹腔镜经胆囊管胆总管探查术(LTCBDE)和腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)的安全性和有效性。 方法:检索2023年3月30日前在PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和Cochrane上发表的相关文献,以筛选比较LTCBDE和LCBDE的研究。使用RevMan 5.4对固定效应和随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。 结果:共有21项研究符合纳入标准,其中LTCBDE组3065例患者,LCBDE组2453例患者。LTCBDE组胆总管结石清除率为95.4%(2682/2812),LCBDE组为94.7%(1810/1911)(OR:1.84,95%CI:1.36,2.48,<0.0001;I² = 0%,P = 0.56)。LTCBDE组在手术时间(MD = -34.60,95%CI:-46.05,-23.15,<0.00001;I² = 96%,P <0.00001)、术后住院时间(MD = -2.92,95%CI:-3.62,-2.21,<0.00001;I² = 92%,P <0.00001)、术后并发症(OR:0.47,95%CI:0.38,0.58,<0.0001;I² = 26%,P = 0.15)、残余结石(OR:0.48,95%CI:0.34,0.66,<0.0001;I² = 0%,P = 0.56)、胆漏(OR:0.37,95%CI:0.25,0.55,<0.00001;I² = 0%,P = 0.52)、死亡率(OR:0.10,95%CI:0.01,0.88,P = 0.04;I² = 0%,P = 0.71)和复发性结石(OR:0.34,95%CI:0.15,0.74,P = 0.007;I² = 5%,P = 0.38)方面均优于LCBDE组。胰腺炎(OR:1.06,95%CI:0.52,2.16,P = 0.86;I² = 0%,P = 0.98)和胆管狭窄(OR:0.30,95%CI:0.08,1.09,P = 0.07;I² = 0%,P = 0.57)方面两组无差异。 结论:LTCBDE安全、有效,具有重要临床意义,值得向部分患者推广。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/3a0e33269976/fsurg-11-1412334-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/eec9ed7f5faf/fsurg-11-1412334-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/c0308a2033e4/fsurg-11-1412334-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/458b7a70e64c/fsurg-11-1412334-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/56cf31a917aa/fsurg-11-1412334-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/3a0e33269976/fsurg-11-1412334-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/eec9ed7f5faf/fsurg-11-1412334-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/c0308a2033e4/fsurg-11-1412334-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/458b7a70e64c/fsurg-11-1412334-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/56cf31a917aa/fsurg-11-1412334-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/16eb/11750767/3a0e33269976/fsurg-11-1412334-g005.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Comparison of the efficacy of LTCBDE and LCBDE for common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Front Surg. 2025-1-8

[2]
Transcystic versus traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: its advantages and a meta-analysis.

Surg Endosc. 2018-6-25

[3]
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-12-12

[4]
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-9-3

[5]
Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years' experience of a single institution.

Surg Endosc. 2022-7

[6]
Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration in patients with a nondilated common bile duct.

Ann Palliat Med. 2021-12

[7]
The effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration in treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.

Updates Surg. 2025-4

[8]
Comparison of emergent versus elective laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for patients with or without nonsevere acute cholangitis complicated with common bile duct stones.

J Surg Res. 2013-12-10

[9]
Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy.

PLoS One. 2016-9-26

[10]
Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, safety and economy of ERCP and LTCBDE in the treatment of common bile duct stones.

Front Physiol. 2022-8-25

引用本文的文献

[1]
Reclaim the duct! Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the acute care surgeon.

Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2025-4-14

本文引用的文献

[1]
Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration versus transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2023-8

[2]
Primary suture for patients of bile duct stones after laparoscopic biliary tract exploration: a retrospective cohort study.

Updates Surg. 2023-6

[3]
Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, safety and economy of ERCP and LTCBDE in the treatment of common bile duct stones.

Front Physiol. 2022-8-25

[4]
Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Reduces Further Recurrence in Patients With Recurrent Common Bile Duct Stones: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Am J Gastroenterol. 2022-5-1

[5]
Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years' experience of a single institution.

Surg Endosc. 2022-7

[6]
Medium and long-term complications difference between laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic sphincterotomy against choledocholithiasis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Medicine (Baltimore). 2021-1-22

[7]
Conventional Surgical Management of Bile Duct Stones: A Service Model and Outcomes of 1318 Laparoscopic Explorations.

Ann Surg. 2022-11-1

[8]
Primary Two-Layered Closure of the Common Bile Duct Reduces Postoperative Bile Leakage After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.

J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021-11

[9]
Lessons learnt from the first 200 unselected consecutive cases of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct stones at a district general hospital.

Surg Endosc. 2021-11

[10]
Biliary Stricture After Necrotizing Pancreatitis: An Underappreciated Challenge.

Ann Surg. 2022-7-1

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索