腹腔镜胆总管探查与t管引流的疗效和安全性:荟萃分析。

IF 1.8 4区 计算机科学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/7300519
Xianhua Ma, Shengbin Cai
{"title":"腹腔镜胆总管探查与t管引流的疗效和安全性:荟萃分析。","authors":"Xianhua Ma,&nbsp;Shengbin Cai","doi":"10.1155/2023/7300519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sometimes, after choledochotomy, the common bile duct is closed with T-tube drainage for several weeks to prevent postoperative complications such as biliary fistula and stricture. But there has been controversy over the advantages of primary suture versus T-tube drainage. The purpose of our meta-analysis in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is to appraise the efficacy and safety of T-tube drainage and primary suture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The literatures were searched by Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, and EMBASE between the year January 1, 2001 and February 28, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies with 1,549 patients (827 vs. 722) were included in our study. The primary suture group had significant lesser operative time (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.001), hospital expenses (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.001), intraoperative bleeding (<i>P</i>=0.001), and postoperative complications (<i>P</i>=0.006) than the T-tube drainage group. In postoperative bleeding (<i>P</i>=0.289), bile leakage (<i>P</i>=0.326), and bile duct stricture (<i>P</i>=0.750), there was no statistical difference. In the primary suture group, using single-arm synthesis, the bile leakage rate and the bile duct stricture rate were 0.07 vs. 0.04 and 0.00 vs. 0.00 in interrupted suture and continuous suture groups. The bile duct stricture rate was same in both groups, and the bile leakage rate was lower in the interrupted suture group. But the difference was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The primary suture group had several advantages, including lesser operative time, postoperative complications, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay, and hospital expenses. In bile leakage and bile duct stricture, the difference between the two groups was not significant. In the primary suture group, interrupted suture and continuous suture groups had similar bile leakage rate and bile duct stricture rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":8029,"journal":{"name":"Applied Bionics and Biomechanics","volume":"2023 ","pages":"7300519"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9929208/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Outcome and Safety in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Primary Suture versus T-Tube Drainage: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xianhua Ma,&nbsp;Shengbin Cai\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/7300519\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sometimes, after choledochotomy, the common bile duct is closed with T-tube drainage for several weeks to prevent postoperative complications such as biliary fistula and stricture. But there has been controversy over the advantages of primary suture versus T-tube drainage. The purpose of our meta-analysis in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is to appraise the efficacy and safety of T-tube drainage and primary suture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The literatures were searched by Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, and EMBASE between the year January 1, 2001 and February 28, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies with 1,549 patients (827 vs. 722) were included in our study. The primary suture group had significant lesser operative time (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.001), hospital expenses (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.001), intraoperative bleeding (<i>P</i>=0.001), and postoperative complications (<i>P</i>=0.006) than the T-tube drainage group. In postoperative bleeding (<i>P</i>=0.289), bile leakage (<i>P</i>=0.326), and bile duct stricture (<i>P</i>=0.750), there was no statistical difference. In the primary suture group, using single-arm synthesis, the bile leakage rate and the bile duct stricture rate were 0.07 vs. 0.04 and 0.00 vs. 0.00 in interrupted suture and continuous suture groups. The bile duct stricture rate was same in both groups, and the bile leakage rate was lower in the interrupted suture group. But the difference was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The primary suture group had several advantages, including lesser operative time, postoperative complications, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay, and hospital expenses. In bile leakage and bile duct stricture, the difference between the two groups was not significant. In the primary suture group, interrupted suture and continuous suture groups had similar bile leakage rate and bile duct stricture rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Bionics and Biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"2023 \",\"pages\":\"7300519\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9929208/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Bionics and Biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7300519\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Bionics and Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7300519","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有时胆总管切开术后,用t管封闭胆总管数周,以防止术后胆瘘、狭窄等并发症的发生。但关于首次缝合与t管引流的优势一直存在争议。我们的荟萃分析的目的是评价t管引流和一期缝合在腹腔镜胆总管探查中的有效性和安全性。方法:检索Web of Science、PubMed、Cochrane Library、OVID和EMBASE数据库2001年1月1日至2021年2月28日的文献。meta分析采用Stata 12。结果:我们的研究纳入了14项研究,共1549例患者(827对722)。一次缝合组手术时间(P≤0.001)、术后住院时间(P≤0.001)、住院费用(P≤0.001)、术中出血(P=0.001)、术后并发症(P=0.006)均显著少于t管引流组。在术后出血(P=0.289)、胆漏(P=0.326)、胆管狭窄(P=0.750)方面,两组比较差异无统计学意义。一期缝合组采用单臂合成,胆漏率和胆管狭窄率分别为0.07比0.04,中断缝合组和连续缝合组分别为0.00比0.00。两组胆管狭窄率相同,中断缝合组胆漏率较低。但差异并不显著。结论:一期缝合组具有手术时间短、术后并发症少、术中出血少、住院时间短、住院费用少等优点。在胆漏和胆管狭窄方面,两组比较差异无统计学意义。在一次缝合组中,中断缝合组和连续缝合组的胆漏率和胆管狭窄率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
The Outcome and Safety in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Primary Suture versus T-Tube Drainage: A Meta-Analysis.

Background: Sometimes, after choledochotomy, the common bile duct is closed with T-tube drainage for several weeks to prevent postoperative complications such as biliary fistula and stricture. But there has been controversy over the advantages of primary suture versus T-tube drainage. The purpose of our meta-analysis in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is to appraise the efficacy and safety of T-tube drainage and primary suture.

Methods: The literatures were searched by Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, and EMBASE between the year January 1, 2001 and February 28, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.

Results: Fourteen studies with 1,549 patients (827 vs. 722) were included in our study. The primary suture group had significant lesser operative time (P ≤ 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (P ≤ 0.001), hospital expenses (P ≤ 0.001), intraoperative bleeding (P=0.001), and postoperative complications (P=0.006) than the T-tube drainage group. In postoperative bleeding (P=0.289), bile leakage (P=0.326), and bile duct stricture (P=0.750), there was no statistical difference. In the primary suture group, using single-arm synthesis, the bile leakage rate and the bile duct stricture rate were 0.07 vs. 0.04 and 0.00 vs. 0.00 in interrupted suture and continuous suture groups. The bile duct stricture rate was same in both groups, and the bile leakage rate was lower in the interrupted suture group. But the difference was not significant.

Conclusion: The primary suture group had several advantages, including lesser operative time, postoperative complications, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay, and hospital expenses. In bile leakage and bile duct stricture, the difference between the two groups was not significant. In the primary suture group, interrupted suture and continuous suture groups had similar bile leakage rate and bile duct stricture rate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Bionics and Biomechanics
Applied Bionics and Biomechanics ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-ROBOTICS
自引率
4.50%
发文量
338
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Applied Bionics and Biomechanics publishes papers that seek to understand the mechanics of biological systems, or that use the functions of living organisms as inspiration for the design new devices. Such systems may be used as artificial replacements, or aids, for their original biological purpose, or be used in a different setting altogether.
期刊最新文献
Design and Control of an Upper Limb Bionic Exoskeleton Rehabilitation Device Based on Tensegrity Structure. The Effect of Different Degrees of Ankle Dorsiflexion Restriction on the Biomechanics of the Lower Extremity in Stop-Jumping. Evaluation of Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Novel Replica-Like Instruments in Static Test Model. UCH-L1 Inhibitor Alleviates Nerve Damage Caused by Moyamoya Disease. Influence of Critical Shoulder Angle and Rotator Cuff Tear Type on Load-Induced Glenohumeral Biomechanics: A Sawbone Simulator Study.
×
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