{"title":"腹腔镜胆囊切除术术中胆道造影:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Catherine Hall, Slesha Amatya, Ramesh Shanmugasundaram, Ngee-Soon Lau, Edwin Beenen, Sivakumar Gananadha","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2022.00093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>Routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains controversial. The primary outcomes of this meta-analysis were detection rates of choledocholithiasis, bile duct injuries (BDI), and missed stones in LCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted for the time period January 1, 1990 to July 31, 2022. Some studies reported LCs with conversion to open therefore subgroup analysis in BDI rates was performed for studies which included LCs with and without conversion to open. Studies including primary open cholecystectomies were excluded. I<sup>2</sup> statistics were used for heterogeneity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies involving 440659 patients were included. In studies comparing routine and selective IOC policies in LC, 61.1% of patients underwent routine IOC; 38.9% underwent selective IOC. In studies comparing IOC to no IOC in LC, 17.3% of patients had IOC; 82.7% did not. Between the selective and routine IOC groups there was no difference in choledocholithiasis detection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, p = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 - 2.04), no difference in the rate of missed stones (OR = 1.59, p = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.31 - 8.29), and no difference in BDI rates in selective compared to routine IOC (OR = 0.92, p = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.20 - 4.22). There was no difference in the BDI detection rates in LC with and without IOC (OR = 1.12, p = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.52 - 2.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date. There was no statistically significant difference in choledocholithiasis detection, missed stones, or BDI rates in the analyzed groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/89/2f/e2022.00093.PMC10009875.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intraoperative Cholangiography in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine Hall, Slesha Amatya, Ramesh Shanmugasundaram, Ngee-Soon Lau, Edwin Beenen, Sivakumar Gananadha\",\"doi\":\"10.4293/JSLS.2022.00093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>Routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains controversial. The primary outcomes of this meta-analysis were detection rates of choledocholithiasis, bile duct injuries (BDI), and missed stones in LCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted for the time period January 1, 1990 to July 31, 2022. Some studies reported LCs with conversion to open therefore subgroup analysis in BDI rates was performed for studies which included LCs with and without conversion to open. Studies including primary open cholecystectomies were excluded. I<sup>2</sup> statistics were used for heterogeneity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies involving 440659 patients were included. In studies comparing routine and selective IOC policies in LC, 61.1% of patients underwent routine IOC; 38.9% underwent selective IOC. In studies comparing IOC to no IOC in LC, 17.3% of patients had IOC; 82.7% did not. Between the selective and routine IOC groups there was no difference in choledocholithiasis detection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, p = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 - 2.04), no difference in the rate of missed stones (OR = 1.59, p = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.31 - 8.29), and no difference in BDI rates in selective compared to routine IOC (OR = 0.92, p = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.20 - 4.22). There was no difference in the BDI detection rates in LC with and without IOC (OR = 1.12, p = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.52 - 2.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date. There was no statistically significant difference in choledocholithiasis detection, missed stones, or BDI rates in the analyzed groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/89/2f/e2022.00093.PMC10009875.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2022.00093\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2022.00093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景/目的:腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的常规术中胆道造影(IOC)仍存在争议。该荟萃分析的主要结果是胆总管结石的检出率、胆管损伤(BDI)和lc中遗漏的结石。方法:系统检索1990年1月1日至2022年7月31日期间的文献。一些研究报告了转开的肝细胞,因此对包括转开和不转开的肝细胞的研究进行了BDI率的亚组分析。包括原发性胆囊切开切除术的研究被排除在外。异质性分析采用I2统计量。结果:纳入14项研究,共纳入440659例患者。在比较LC常规和选择性IOC政策的研究中,61.1%的患者接受了常规IOC;38.9%接受选择性IOC。在比较LC中IOC与无IOC的研究中,17.3%的患者有IOC;82.7%没有。选择性IOC组与常规IOC组胆总管结石检出率差异无统计学意义(优势比[OR] = 1.33, p = 0.20, 95%可信区间[CI] = 0.86 ~ 2.04),漏出结石率差异无统计学意义(OR = 1.59, p = 0.58;95% CI = 0.31 - 8.29),选择性IOC组与常规IOC组相比BDI发生率无差异(OR = 0.92, p = 0.92;95% ci = 0.20 - 4.22)。有无IOC的LC中BDI检出率差异无统计学意义(OR = 1.12, p = 0.77;95% ci = 0.52 - 2.38)。结论:这是迄今为止关于该主题最大的荟萃分析。在分析组中,胆总管结石的检出率、漏石率和BDI率没有统计学上的显著差异。
Intraoperative Cholangiography in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background/objectives: Routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains controversial. The primary outcomes of this meta-analysis were detection rates of choledocholithiasis, bile duct injuries (BDI), and missed stones in LCs.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for the time period January 1, 1990 to July 31, 2022. Some studies reported LCs with conversion to open therefore subgroup analysis in BDI rates was performed for studies which included LCs with and without conversion to open. Studies including primary open cholecystectomies were excluded. I2 statistics were used for heterogeneity analysis.
Results: Fourteen studies involving 440659 patients were included. In studies comparing routine and selective IOC policies in LC, 61.1% of patients underwent routine IOC; 38.9% underwent selective IOC. In studies comparing IOC to no IOC in LC, 17.3% of patients had IOC; 82.7% did not. Between the selective and routine IOC groups there was no difference in choledocholithiasis detection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, p = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 - 2.04), no difference in the rate of missed stones (OR = 1.59, p = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.31 - 8.29), and no difference in BDI rates in selective compared to routine IOC (OR = 0.92, p = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.20 - 4.22). There was no difference in the BDI detection rates in LC with and without IOC (OR = 1.12, p = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.52 - 2.38).
Conclusion: This is the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date. There was no statistically significant difference in choledocholithiasis detection, missed stones, or BDI rates in the analyzed groups.
期刊介绍:
JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.