Comparison of primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a propensity score matching analysis.

Xiangmei Chen, Jianming Liu, Pingguo Liu, Qinliang Fang, Yu Xiong, Fuqing Chen, Jianyin Zhou
{"title":"Comparison of primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a propensity score matching analysis.","authors":"Xiangmei Chen, Jianming Liu, Pingguo Liu, Qinliang Fang, Yu Xiong, Fuqing Chen, Jianyin Zhou","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-11610-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective method for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. However, there is still controversy in clinical practice over whether primary duct closure (PDC) or T-tube drainage (TTD) should be selected after choledochotomy. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the two methods of closing the common bile duct in order to identify the safer and more effective approach.</p><p><strong>Approach and results: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 745 patients who underwent LCBDE at the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Xiamen University, between January 2017 and December 2021. Using propensity score matching (PSM), 433 patients were selected and divided into two groups: the primary duct closure group (PDC group, 287 patients) and the T-tube drainage group (TTD group, 146 patients). The study compared preoperative baseline characteristics, Intraoperative conditions, and postoperative conditions between the two groups. The results showed that the PDC group had significantly shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss compared to the TTD group, along with a lower incidence of postoperative infections. Despite no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative hospital stay, bile leakage, biliary stricture, residual stones, postoperative bleeding, and recurrence, the overall performance of the PDC group was superior to that of the TTD group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study concluded that primary duct closure (PDC) after LCBDE is safer and more effective than T-tube drainage (TTD), without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-11610-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective method for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. However, there is still controversy in clinical practice over whether primary duct closure (PDC) or T-tube drainage (TTD) should be selected after choledochotomy. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the two methods of closing the common bile duct in order to identify the safer and more effective approach.

Approach and results: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 745 patients who underwent LCBDE at the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Xiamen University, between January 2017 and December 2021. Using propensity score matching (PSM), 433 patients were selected and divided into two groups: the primary duct closure group (PDC group, 287 patients) and the T-tube drainage group (TTD group, 146 patients). The study compared preoperative baseline characteristics, Intraoperative conditions, and postoperative conditions between the two groups. The results showed that the PDC group had significantly shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss compared to the TTD group, along with a lower incidence of postoperative infections. Despite no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative hospital stay, bile leakage, biliary stricture, residual stones, postoperative bleeding, and recurrence, the overall performance of the PDC group was superior to that of the TTD group.

Conclusion: The study concluded that primary duct closure (PDC) after LCBDE is safer and more effective than T-tube drainage (TTD), without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
期刊最新文献
Impact of surgical timing on postoperative quality of life in acute cholecystitis: a comparative analysis of early, intermediate, and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Meta-analysis of changes in skeletal muscle mass within 1 year after bariatric surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes: the Mayo Clinic experience. Commentary on "Multisociety research collaboration: timing of cholecystectomy following cholecystostomy drainage for acute cholecystitis". Comparison of primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a propensity score matching analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1