Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2025
Is Prophylactic Drainage Tube Placement Clinically Useful After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients With Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis? A Propensity Score-Matched Study: A Secondary Analysis of the CSGO-HBP-017.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Takaichi Shohei, Tomimaru Yoshito, Hashimoto Kazuhiko, Fukuchi Nariaki, Yokoyama Shigekazu, Mori Takuji, Tanemura Masahiro, Kobayashi Shogo, Fujii Makoto, Doki Yuichiro, Eguchi Hidetoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate whether prophylactic drainage tube (PD) is clinically useful after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients who undergo gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis (AC).
METHOD: Using data from our previous multicenter retrospective study exploring the optimal timing of LC after gallbladder drainage for AC, we performed a secondary analysis in which we compared surgical outcomes between patients who underwent gallbladder drainage and subsequent LC for AC with (n = 134) or without (n = 149) PD placement. The results of the comparison were verified by propensity score matching with 84 patients in each group.
RESULTS: The postoperative length of stay (LOS) in the hospital was significantly longer in patients with a PD than those without a PD, and we identified several significant differences in preoperative and intraoperative characteristics between the two groups. After propensity score matching, the LOS remained significantly longer in patients with PDs, but there were no differences in postoperative complications. Matched multivariate analysis identified PD placement as an independent predictor of a prolonged postoperative hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS: PD placement after LC in patients with gallbladder drainage for AC did not impact the postoperative outcome and could prolong the postoperative LOS.
METHOD: Using data from our previous multicenter retrospective study exploring the optimal timing of LC after gallbladder drainage for AC, we performed a secondary analysis in which we compared surgical outcomes between patients who underwent gallbladder drainage and subsequent LC for AC with (n = 134) or without (n = 149) PD placement. The results of the comparison were verified by propensity score matching with 84 patients in each group.
RESULTS: The postoperative length of stay (LOS) in the hospital was significantly longer in patients with a PD than those without a PD, and we identified several significant differences in preoperative and intraoperative characteristics between the two groups. After propensity score matching, the LOS remained significantly longer in patients with PDs, but there were no differences in postoperative complications. Matched multivariate analysis identified PD placement as an independent predictor of a prolonged postoperative hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS: PD placement after LC in patients with gallbladder drainage for AC did not impact the postoperative outcome and could prolong the postoperative LOS.