Critical view of safety approach vs. infundibular technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which one is safer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Bahaa I Aburayya, Ahmad K Al-Hayk, Ahmad A Toubasi, Abubaker Ali, Awni D Shahait
{"title":"Critical view of safety approach vs. infundibular technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which one is safer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Bahaa I Aburayya, Ahmad K Al-Hayk, Ahmad A Toubasi, Abubaker Ali, Awni D Shahait","doi":"10.1007/s13304-024-02029-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains the gold standard procedure for the management of benign gallbladder disease. Recognizing the need to mitigate complications, mainly bile duct injury (BDI), various techniques for ductal identification during LC have emerged, including the \"Critical View of Safety\" (CVS) and the infundibular technique (IT). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess and compare the outcomes of both techniques, with a primary focus on evaluating their impact on BDIs. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases. The search focused on the surgical technique, incidences of minor and major BDIs, operative time, conversion rate, and length of stay, among patients undergoing LC for benign gallbladder disease. Our initial search retrieved 264 studies. After screening the unique studies against our predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, only five met our criteria and were included. Additionally, a manual search identified eight more relevant studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 13. The total number of included patients was 4,837. Approximately two-thirds underwent LC using the CVS approach (61.1%), and 66.3% were female, with a mean age of 44.4 ± 11.2 years. The CVS approach was associated with a significant reduction in overall BDIs (RR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.71) and major BDIs (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.13-0.63). However, there were no significant differences in terms of minor BDIs, operative time, conversion rates, or length of stay. Our study demonstrated the superiority of the CVS approach in terms of reducing the incidence of overall and major BDIs compared to IT. However, our study revealed no other significant differences between the two techniques. Further research, including multicentric randomized controlled trials, will be necessary to further evaluate the efficacy of these techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-02029-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains the gold standard procedure for the management of benign gallbladder disease. Recognizing the need to mitigate complications, mainly bile duct injury (BDI), various techniques for ductal identification during LC have emerged, including the "Critical View of Safety" (CVS) and the infundibular technique (IT). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess and compare the outcomes of both techniques, with a primary focus on evaluating their impact on BDIs. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases. The search focused on the surgical technique, incidences of minor and major BDIs, operative time, conversion rate, and length of stay, among patients undergoing LC for benign gallbladder disease. Our initial search retrieved 264 studies. After screening the unique studies against our predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, only five met our criteria and were included. Additionally, a manual search identified eight more relevant studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 13. The total number of included patients was 4,837. Approximately two-thirds underwent LC using the CVS approach (61.1%), and 66.3% were female, with a mean age of 44.4 ± 11.2 years. The CVS approach was associated with a significant reduction in overall BDIs (RR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.71) and major BDIs (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.13-0.63). However, there were no significant differences in terms of minor BDIs, operative time, conversion rates, or length of stay. Our study demonstrated the superiority of the CVS approach in terms of reducing the incidence of overall and major BDIs compared to IT. However, our study revealed no other significant differences between the two techniques. Further research, including multicentric randomized controlled trials, will be necessary to further evaluate the efficacy of these techniques.

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中安全入路与腹股沟技术的批判性观点,哪一种更安全?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)仍然是治疗良性胆囊疾病的金标准手术。由于认识到需要减少并发症(主要是胆管损伤 (BDI)),在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中出现了各种胆管识别技术,包括 "安全关键视图"(CVS)和胆囊内技术(IT)。在本系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们对这两种技术的结果进行了评估和比较,主要重点是评估它们对 BDI 的影响。我们使用 PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库进行了全面搜索。搜索的重点是接受胆囊切除术治疗良性胆囊疾病的患者的手术技术、轻度和重度 BDI 的发生率、手术时间、转换率和住院时间。我们的初步搜索检索到 264 项研究。在根据我们预先设定的纳入/排除标准对这些独特的研究进行筛选后,只有五项符合我们的标准并被纳入。此外,人工搜索又发现了 8 项相关研究,使纳入的研究总数达到 13 项。纳入的患者总数为 4837 人。约三分之二的患者(61.1%)接受了CVS方法的LC治疗,66.3%为女性,平均年龄为(44.4 ± 11.2)岁。CVS方法可显著降低总体BDI(RR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.71)和主要BDI(RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.13-0.63)。但是,在次要 BDIs、手术时间、转换率或住院时间方面没有明显差异。我们的研究表明,在降低总体和主要 BDIs 发生率方面,CVS 方法优于 IT 方法。不过,我们的研究并未发现两种技术之间存在其他显著差异。有必要开展进一步研究,包括多中心随机对照试验,以进一步评估这些技术的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Updates in Surgery
Updates in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future. Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts. Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信