Surgical endoscopy · 2018
Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with gallbladder stones with common bile duct stones: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with trial sequential analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Singh Anand Narayan, Kilambi Ragini
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The ideal management of common bile duct (CBD) stones associated with gall stones is a matter of debate. We planned a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing single-stage laparoscopic CBD exploration and cholecystectomy (LCBDE) with two-stage preoperative endoscopic stone extraction followed by cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC).
METHODS: We searched the Pubmed/Medline, Web of science, Science citation index, Google scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials electronic databases till June 2017 for all English language randomized trials comparing the two approaches. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program], Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014 and results were expressed as odds ratio for dichotomous variables and mean difference for continuous. p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed using TSA version 0.9.5.5 (Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, 2016). PROSPERO trial registration number is CRD42017074673.
RESULTS: A total of 11 trials were included in the analysis, with a total of 1513 patients (751-LCBDE; 762-ERCP + LC). LCBDE was found to have significantly lower rates of technical failure [OR 0.59, 95% CI (0.38, 0.93), p = 0.02] and shorter hospital stay [MD - 1.63, 95% CI (- 3.23, - 0.03), p = 0.05]. There was no significant difference in mortality [OR 0.37, 95% CI (0.09, 1.51), p = 0.17], morbidity [OR 0.97, 95% CI (0.70, 1.33), p = 0.84], cost [MD - 379.13, 95% CI (- 784.80, 111.2), p = 0.13] or recurrent/retained stones [OR 1.01, 95% CI (0.38, 2.73), p = 0.98]. TSA showed that although the Z-curve crossed the boundaries of conventional significance, the estimated information size is yet to be achieved.
CONCLUSIONS: Single-stage LCBDE is superior to ERCP + LC in terms of technical success and shorter hospital stay in good-risk patients with gallstones and CBD stones, where expertise, operative time and instruments are available.
METHODS: We searched the Pubmed/Medline, Web of science, Science citation index, Google scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials electronic databases till June 2017 for all English language randomized trials comparing the two approaches. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program], Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014 and results were expressed as odds ratio for dichotomous variables and mean difference for continuous. p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed using TSA version 0.9.5.5 (Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, 2016). PROSPERO trial registration number is CRD42017074673.
RESULTS: A total of 11 trials were included in the analysis, with a total of 1513 patients (751-LCBDE; 762-ERCP + LC). LCBDE was found to have significantly lower rates of technical failure [OR 0.59, 95% CI (0.38, 0.93), p = 0.02] and shorter hospital stay [MD - 1.63, 95% CI (- 3.23, - 0.03), p = 0.05]. There was no significant difference in mortality [OR 0.37, 95% CI (0.09, 1.51), p = 0.17], morbidity [OR 0.97, 95% CI (0.70, 1.33), p = 0.84], cost [MD - 379.13, 95% CI (- 784.80, 111.2), p = 0.13] or recurrent/retained stones [OR 1.01, 95% CI (0.38, 2.73), p = 0.98]. TSA showed that although the Z-curve crossed the boundaries of conventional significance, the estimated information size is yet to be achieved.
CONCLUSIONS: Single-stage LCBDE is superior to ERCP + LC in terms of technical success and shorter hospital stay in good-risk patients with gallstones and CBD stones, where expertise, operative time and instruments are available.