Interrupted suture vs continuous suture for primary closure of the common bile duct after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with choledocholithiasis.

PURPOSE: We performed the present study to compare the interrupted suture technique and the continuous suture technique after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Clinical data from patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into an interrupted suture group and a continuous suture group on the basis of the method used to suture the common bile duct. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative parameters of the interrupted suture group were compared with those of the continuous suture group.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the continuous suture group did not significantly differ from those of the interrupted suture group. Compared with the interrupted suture technique, the continuous suture technique was superior in terms of operation time (P = 0.006). The postoperative outcomes in the continuous group did not significantly differ from those in the interrupted group. Furthermore, we performed a subanalysis limited to LCBDE procedures performed by high-volume surgeons, revealing that it took less time to perform LCBDE with continuous primary suturing (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE, the continuous suture technique did not significantly differ from the interrupted suture technique in terms of postoperative complications; however, compared with the interrupted suture technique, the continuous suture technique was associated with a significantly shorter operation time. Thus, the continuous suture technique shows comparable safety and effectiveness for patients with choledocholithiasis who are undergoing LCBDE with a shorter operation time, which, however, should be verified by prospective RCT studies taking surgeon experience into consideration.