Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary closure (PC) and T-tube drainage (TD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Methods The randomized controlled trials of PC and TD after LCBDE were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2015. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using ReviewerManager 5.2 software. Results Both of the two groups had no postoperative deaths within 30 days. The operative time and hospital stay of PC gourp were shorter than TD group statistically〔OR=–24.76, 95CI (–29.21, –20.31),P<0.000 01〕and〔OR=–2.68, 95%CI (–3.69, –1.67),P<0.000 01〕. The reoperative rate of PC group was lower than that of TD group, and the difference was statistically significant〔OR=0.20, 95%CI (0.05, 0.81),P=0.02〕. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the occurrence of postoperative severe complications〔OR=0.54, 95%CI (0.26, 1.12),P=0.10〕. Conclusions Compared with the TD group, the operative time and hospitalization time are shorer in PC group, and complication rate is similar, but the cost of treatment of the TD group is higher than PC group, so after LCBDE a primary closure of common bile duct is safe and effective method.
Objective To explore clinical effect of primary suture following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in treatment of patients aged over 70 years old with common bile duct (CBD) stones. Methods The clinical data of 62 patients aged over 70 years old with CBD stones underwent the LCBDE from January 2013 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients underwent the T tube drainage (T tube drainage group) and 32 patients underwent the primary suture (primary suture group) following the LCBDE. The intraoperative and postoperative statuses of these two groups were compared. Results There were no significant differences in the gender, age, body mass index, preoperative comorbidities and ASA classification, number and maximum diameter of CBD stone, and diameter of CBD between the two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the operative time, hospitalization cost, rates of total postoperative complications and readmission between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the T tube drainage group, the amount of intraoperative bleeding was less (P<0.05) and the postoperative hospital stay was shorter (P<0.05) in the primary suture group. Conclusion Primary suture is safe and feasible following LCBDE for patients aged over 70 years old with CBD stones in case of strict indications and proficiency intraoperation and it is more beneficial to recovery of patient.
ObjectiveTo investigate safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) without preoperative prophylactic gastrointestinal decompression.MethodsA prospective study was conducted on the patients with choledocholithiasis and cholecystolithiasis scheduled to undergo LCBDE plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in this hospital from January 2016 to December 2017. All the patients were randomly divided into a gastrointestinal decompression group and a non-gastrointestinal decompression group by the same researcher according to the random number table method. The general conditions, intraoperative status and postoperative status of patients in the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 286 patients were enrolled in this study, including 120 in the non-gastrointestinal decompression group and 166 in the gastrointestinal decompression group. There were no significant differences in the general data such as the age, gender, smoking history, drinking history, preoperative complications, results of preoperative laboratory examination, and preoperative anesthesia score between the two groups (P>0.050). The time of oral feeding in the non-gastrointestinal decompression group was significantly earlier than that in the gastrointestinal decompression group (t=2.181, P=0.030). There were no significant differences in the bleeding volume, operative time, anal ventilation time, total hospitalization time, and postoperative hospitalization time between the two groups (P>0.050). The incidences of nausea/vomiting and poor appetite in the non-gastrointestinal decompression were significantly lower than those in the gastrointestinal decompression group (χ2=5.098, P=0.024; χ2=4.905, P=0.027). There were no significant differences in the incidences of other complications between the two groups (P>0.050).ConclusionFrom results of this study, prophylactic gastrointestinal decompression should not be recommended for patients undergoing LCBDE.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with LC plus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with concomitant cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis by using meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library、EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Science and Technology Academic Journal, Chinese Journal Full-text Database and Wanfang database to identify relevant articles from their inception to 31 October 2018. A meta-analysis was carried out using the RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 13 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, 747 cases received LC+LCBDE and 761 cases underwent LC+ERCP. The meta-analysis results showed that no significant difference between the LC+LCBDE group and the LC+ERCP group in terms of common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate [RR=0.99, 95%CI (0.95, 1.02), P=0.87] and overall complications [RR=0.94, 95%CI (0.72, 1.22), P=0.64]. The LC+LCBDE group had higher rate of postoperative bile leakage rate [RR=3.87, 95%CI (2.01, 7.42), P<0.000 1] than that LC+ERCP group. However, the LC+LCBDE group had lower rate of postoperative pancreatitis [RR=0.28, 95%CI (0.14, 0.55), P=0.002] than that LC+ERCP group.ConclusionsBoth LC+LCBDE and LC+ERCP are equivalent in CBD stone clearance rate and overall complications, LC+LCBDE is associated with a higher postoperative bile leakage rate and lower rate of postoperative pancreatitis, appropriate treatment should be selected according to the individual patient’s condition.