Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025
Continuous vs. interrupted suturing in hepaticojejunostomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Abdelsamad Ahmed, Mohammed Mohammed Khaled, Khalil Ibrahim, Wesh Zeyad M, Ahmed Omar A, Elsherif Ahmed, Alqedra Jawad J F, Mohamed Khaled Ashraf, Elmaghraby Eslam, Herzog Torsten, Gebauer Florian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) is a crucial reconstructive step in upper gastrointestinal (UGI), pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), and Hepaticobiliarypancreatic (HBP) surgeries. The optimal suturing technique remains debated, with conflicting evidence regarding operative efficiency, costs, and complications. This meta-analysis compares continuous and interrupted suturing to provide evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were anastomotic time and costs, while secondary outcomes included bile leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, cholangitis, hospital stay, and re-exploration rates. A random or fixed-effects model was applied based on heterogeneity. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized cohort studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and MINORS instrument as appropriate. Additionally, the quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out method.
RESULTS: Seven studies (1,159 patients) were included (continuous: 388, interrupted: 771). Continuous suturing significantly reduced anastomotic time (MD = -13.06 min, 95% CI: -17.37 to -8.75, P < 0.001) and costs (SMD = -4.89, 95% CI: -6.10 to -3.67, P < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed in bile leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, cholangitis, hospital stay, or re-exploration rates (P > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.
CONCLUSION: Continuous suturing reduces anastomotic time by ~ 13 min and costs by ~ $90 without increasing complications. While these differences may be statistically significant, their clinical relevance can vary depending on the surgical context. Surgical choice should consider surgeon expertise, institutional protocols, and patient factors. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate these findings.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were anastomotic time and costs, while secondary outcomes included bile leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, cholangitis, hospital stay, and re-exploration rates. A random or fixed-effects model was applied based on heterogeneity. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized cohort studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and MINORS instrument as appropriate. Additionally, the quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out method.
RESULTS: Seven studies (1,159 patients) were included (continuous: 388, interrupted: 771). Continuous suturing significantly reduced anastomotic time (MD = -13.06 min, 95% CI: -17.37 to -8.75, P < 0.001) and costs (SMD = -4.89, 95% CI: -6.10 to -3.67, P < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed in bile leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, cholangitis, hospital stay, or re-exploration rates (P > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.
CONCLUSION: Continuous suturing reduces anastomotic time by ~ 13 min and costs by ~ $90 without increasing complications. While these differences may be statistically significant, their clinical relevance can vary depending on the surgical context. Surgical choice should consider surgeon expertise, institutional protocols, and patient factors. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate these findings.