Dataset Information

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The ideal treatment for choledocholithiasis should be simple, readily available, reliable, minimally invasive and cost-effective for patients. We performed this study to compare the benefits and drawbacks of different laparoscopic approaches (transcystic and choledochotomy) for removal of common bile duct stones.

Methods

A systematic search was implemented for relevant literature using Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and Wanfang databases. Both the fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for this study.

Results

The meta-analysis included 18 trials involving 2,782 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct exploration (LCCBDE) (n = 1,222) and laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) (n = 1,560) regarding stone clearance (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.07; P = 0.11), conversion to other procedures (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21-1.79; P = 0.38), total morbidity (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.92-2.96; P = 0.09), operative time (MD 12.34, 95% CI -0.10-24.78; P = 0.05), and blood loss (MD 1.95, 95% CI -9.56-13.46; P = 0.74). However, the LTCBDE group showed significantly better results for biliary morbidity (OR 4.25, 95% CI 2.30-7.85; P<0.001), hospital stay (MD 2.52, 95% CI 1.29-3.75; P<0.001), and hospital expenses (MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.37; P<0.001) than the LCCBDE group.

Conclusions

LTCBDE is safer than LCCBDE, and is the ideal treatment for common bile duct stones.

SUBMITTER: Feng Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5036868 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy.

Feng Qian Q Huang Yong Y Wang Kai K Yuan Rongfa R Xiong Xiaoli X Wu Linquan L

PloS one 20160926 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>The ideal treatment for choledocholithiasis should be simple, readily available, reliable, minimally invasive and cost-effective for patients. We performed this study to compare the benefits and drawbacks of different laparoscopic approaches (transcystic and choledochotomy) for removal of common bile duct stones.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search was implemented for relevant literature using Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and Wanfang databases. Both the fixed-effects and ...[more]

PMID: 27668730

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:A history of abdominal biliary tract surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), and there are very few reports about laparoscopic procedures in patients with a history of abdominal biliary tract surgery. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 227 consecutive patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations at our institution between December 2013 and June 2019. A total of 110 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE, and 117 consecutive patients underwent open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE). Patient demographics and perioperative variables were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:The LCBDE group performed significantly better than the OCBDE group with respect to estimated blood loss [30 (5-700) vs. 50 (10-1800) ml; p?=?0.041], remnant common bile duct (CBD) stones (17 vs. 28%; p?=?0.050), postoperative hospital stay [7 (3-78) vs. 8.5 (4.5-74) days; p?=?0.041], and time to oral intake [2.5 (1-7) vs. 3 (2-24) days; p?=?0.015]. There were no significant differences in the operation time [170 (60-480) vs. 180 (41-330) minutes; p?=?0.067]. A total of 19 patients (17%) in the LCBDE group were converted to open surgery. According to Clavien's classification of complications, the LCBDE group had significantly fewer postoperative complications than the OCBDE group (40 vs. 57; p?=?0.045). There was no mortality in either group. Multiple previous operations (??2 times), a history of open surgery, and previous biliary tract surgery (including bile duct or gallbladder?+?bile duct other than cholecystectomy alone) were risk factors for postoperative adhesion (p?=?0.000, p?=?0.000, and p?=?0.000, respectively). CONCLUSION:LCBDE is ultimately the least invasive, safest, and the most effective treatment option for patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations and is especially suitable for those with a history of cholecystectomy, few previous operations (<?2 times), or a history of laparoscopic surgery.

Project description:Male Sprague-Dawley rats weighing 250-300 g were purchased from Japan SLC Co. (Shizuoka, Japan). The animals were housed under a daily controlled 12-h light and 12-h dark cycle at 23 °C with free access to rat chow (Japan SLC Co.) and water for 1 week prior to the experiments. Rats were laparotomized under ether anesthesia in each experiment, and the common bile duct of each rat was ligated between the liver hilus and small intestine. Control animals underwent a sham operation with exposure but without ligation of the common bile duct. After the CBDL or sham operation, animals were allowed access to food and water ad libitum. Groups of three rats were sacrificed under ether anesthesia at 1, 3 and 12 hr after the CBDL or sham operation. At the time of sacrifice, the right lateral liver lobe was removed and flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80 °C. Total RNA isolated from frozen livers using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen Co., Carlsbad, CA) was mixed to minimize variation among animals. Poly(A) RNA was purified using Oligotex-dT30 (Takara Shuzo Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. Fluorescence-labeled probes were prepared by reverse transcription using a superscript II reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen Co.) and cyanine-3- and cyanine-5-dUTP (Perkin-Elmer Inc., Wellesley, MA). Poly(A) RNAs derived from rats that has undergone CBDL and from those that has undergone a sham operation were labeled with cyanine-3 and cyanine-5, respectively, and vise varsa. Fluorescence-labeled probes were purified using a MinElute PCR Products Purification Kit (Quiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany) in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. Each purified probe was suspended in hybridization buffer containing 1.6 mg/mL poly(A) (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) and yeast tRNA (Roche Diagnostics), 0.67 mg/mL herring sperm, 16% 20 x SSC and 0.3% SDS and applied to a cDNA microarray containing 1,800 rat genes on a slide glass (Asahi Technoglass Co., Tokyo, Japan). Three house-keeping genes (GAPDH, HPRT and b-actin) and rat unrelated traits (Lambda DNA) were also spotted on the slide as internal positive and negative controls, respectively. Hybridization was carried out twice to eliminate any dye bias. In one experiment, duplicate slides were hybridized with probes derived from CBDL and control rats that had been labeld with cyanine-3 and cyanine-5, respectively. In a replicate experiment, other duplicate slides were hybridized with probes derived from CBDL rats and control rats that had been labeled with cyanine-5 and cyanine-3, respectively (color swap). Then, the slides were cover-slipped and incubated in a sealed chamber (Asahi Technoglass Co.) for 16 hrs under a humidified (65 °C) condition. After being washed in low-stringency buffer (2 x SSC and 0.1% SDS), high-stringency buffer (0.2 x SSC and 0.1% SDS) and 0.2 x SSC and then rinsing with 99.5% ethanol, the slide was dried by centrifugation at low speed and used for scanning. Fluorescence was scanned by using a ScanArray 4000 (Packard BioChip Technologies, Billerica, MA) and quantified by using QuantArray Software (Packard BioChip Technologies, Billerica, MA). Keywords: time-course

Dataset Information

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure