Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022
Meta-analysis of interrupted versus continuous suturing for Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and duct-to-duct choledochocholedochostomy.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Hajibandeh Shahin, Hajibandeh Shahab, Parente Alessandro, Bartlett David, Chatzizacharias Nikolaos, Dasari Bobby V M, Hartog Hermien, Perera M Thamara P R, Marudanayagam Ravi, Sutcliffe Robert P, Roberts Keith J, Isaac John R, Mirza Darius F
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare outcomes of interrupted (IS) and continuous (CS) suturing techniques for Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and duct-to-duct choledochocholedochostomy.
METHODS: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021286294). A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted (last search: 14th March 2022). All comparative studies reporting outcomes of IS and CS in hepaticojejunostomy and choledochocholedochostomy were included and their risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I tool. Overall biliary complications, bile leak, biliary stricture, cholangitis, liver abscess, and anastomosis time were the evaluated outcome parameters.
RESULTS: Ten comparative studies (2 prospective and 8 retrospective) were included which reported 1617 patients of whom 1186 patients underwent Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (IS: 789, CS: 397) and the remaining 431 patients underwent duct-to-duct choledochocholedochostomy (IS: 168, CS: 263). Although use of IS for hepaticojejunostomy was associated with significantly longer anastomosis time (MD: 14.15 min, p=0.0002) compared to CS, there was no significant difference in overall biliary complications (OR: 1.34, p=0.11), bile leak (OR: 1.64, p=0.14), biliary stricture (OR: 0.84, p=0.65), cholangitis (OR: 1.54, p=0.35), or liver abscess (OR: 0.58, p=0.40) between two groups. Similarly, use of IS for choledochocholedochostomy was associated with no significant difference in risk of overall biliary complications (OR: 0.92, p=0.90), bile leak (OR: 1.70, p=0.28), or biliary stricture (OR: 1.07, p=0.92) compared to CS.
CONCLUSIONS: Interrupted and continuous suturing techniques for Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy or duct-to-duct choledochocholedochostomy seem to have comparable clinical outcomes. The available evidence may be subject to confounding by indication with respect to diameter of bile duct. Future high-quality research is encouraged to report the outcomes with respect to duct diameter and suture material.
METHODS: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021286294). A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted (last search: 14th March 2022). All comparative studies reporting outcomes of IS and CS in hepaticojejunostomy and choledochocholedochostomy were included and their risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I tool. Overall biliary complications, bile leak, biliary stricture, cholangitis, liver abscess, and anastomosis time were the evaluated outcome parameters.
RESULTS: Ten comparative studies (2 prospective and 8 retrospective) were included which reported 1617 patients of whom 1186 patients underwent Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (IS: 789, CS: 397) and the remaining 431 patients underwent duct-to-duct choledochocholedochostomy (IS: 168, CS: 263). Although use of IS for hepaticojejunostomy was associated with significantly longer anastomosis time (MD: 14.15 min, p=0.0002) compared to CS, there was no significant difference in overall biliary complications (OR: 1.34, p=0.11), bile leak (OR: 1.64, p=0.14), biliary stricture (OR: 0.84, p=0.65), cholangitis (OR: 1.54, p=0.35), or liver abscess (OR: 0.58, p=0.40) between two groups. Similarly, use of IS for choledochocholedochostomy was associated with no significant difference in risk of overall biliary complications (OR: 0.92, p=0.90), bile leak (OR: 1.70, p=0.28), or biliary stricture (OR: 1.07, p=0.92) compared to CS.
CONCLUSIONS: Interrupted and continuous suturing techniques for Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy or duct-to-duct choledochocholedochostomy seem to have comparable clinical outcomes. The available evidence may be subject to confounding by indication with respect to diameter of bile duct. Future high-quality research is encouraged to report the outcomes with respect to duct diameter and suture material.