Comparative Effectiveness of Different Cystic Duct Ligation Techniques in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Christos Athanasiou, Ahmed Radwan, Saeed Qureshi, Aditya Kanwar, Vasilis Kosmoliaptsis, Somaiah Aroori
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Different Cystic Duct Ligation Techniques in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Christos Athanasiou, Ahmed Radwan, Saeed Qureshi, Aditya Kanwar, Vasilis Kosmoliaptsis, Somaiah Aroori","doi":"10.1089/lap.2024.0295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures. Several techniques of ligating the cystic duct have been compared in randomized trials, but data on comparative effectiveness are missing. Our aim was to systematically review the literature and, if appropriate, synthesize the available evidence. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized studies comparing different ligation techniques of the cystic duct in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Network meta-analysis synthesized evidence from all available techniques. Techniques compared were metal (MC), absorbable (AC), or polymer clips (PC), suture ligation (SL), and ultrasonic shears (US). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twenty-three randomized studies with 2851 patients were included in our study. A well-connected network was formed for bile leak and a star-shaped network for operative time, with MC as the common comparator. No difference was found when SL, AC, US, or PC were compared for bile leak. Operative time was statistically significantly reduced when US were compared to MC (mean difference [MD] = -14.32 [-19.37, -9.28]), SL MD = -20.16 (-10.84, -29.47), and AC MD = -18.32 (-1.25, -35.39). The remaining techniques had similar operative times. PC had the highest probability of being the best technique <i>P</i> = 41.8, and SL had the highest probability <i>P</i> = 46.1 of being the second best for bile leak. US had a 98.1% chance of being the best technique for operative time. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Given that all techniques demonstrate similar efficacy, the decision should be based on cost, familiarity with the technique, and environmental factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"31-35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2024.0295","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures. Several techniques of ligating the cystic duct have been compared in randomized trials, but data on comparative effectiveness are missing. Our aim was to systematically review the literature and, if appropriate, synthesize the available evidence. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized studies comparing different ligation techniques of the cystic duct in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Network meta-analysis synthesized evidence from all available techniques. Techniques compared were metal (MC), absorbable (AC), or polymer clips (PC), suture ligation (SL), and ultrasonic shears (US). Results: Twenty-three randomized studies with 2851 patients were included in our study. A well-connected network was formed for bile leak and a star-shaped network for operative time, with MC as the common comparator. No difference was found when SL, AC, US, or PC were compared for bile leak. Operative time was statistically significantly reduced when US were compared to MC (mean difference [MD] = -14.32 [-19.37, -9.28]), SL MD = -20.16 (-10.84, -29.47), and AC MD = -18.32 (-1.25, -35.39). The remaining techniques had similar operative times. PC had the highest probability of being the best technique P = 41.8, and SL had the highest probability P = 46.1 of being the second best for bile leak. US had a 98.1% chance of being the best technique for operative time. Conclusions: Given that all techniques demonstrate similar efficacy, the decision should be based on cost, familiarity with the technique, and environmental factors.

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中不同胆囊管结扎技术的效果比较:系统回顾与网络荟萃分析》。
背景:腹腔镜胆囊切除术是最常见的外科手术之一:腹腔镜胆囊切除术是最常见的外科手术之一。在随机试验中对几种结扎胆囊管的技术进行了比较,但缺乏有关比较效果的数据。我们的目的是系统地回顾文献,并在适当的情况下综合现有的证据。研究方法对 PubMed、Scopus、Ovid 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统检索,以确定比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术中不同结扎胆囊管技术的随机研究。网络荟萃分析综合了所有可用技术的证据。比较的技术包括金属夹(MC)、可吸收夹(AC)或聚合物夹(PC)、缝合结扎(SL)和超声波剪(US)。结果:我们的研究纳入了 23 项随机研究,共 2851 名患者。以 MC 为共同参照物,针对胆漏形成了一个连接良好的网络,针对手术时间形成了一个星形网络。在胆漏方面,比较 SL、AC、US 或 PC 时未发现差异。US与MC(平均差[MD] = -14.32 [-19.37, -9.28])、SL MD = -20.16 (-10.84, -29.47)、AC MD = -18.32 (-1.25, -35.39)相比,手术时间明显缩短。其余技术的手术时间相似。PC技术成为最佳技术的概率最高,P=41.8;SL技术成为胆漏第二最佳技术的概率最高,P=46.1。就手术时间而言,US 成为最佳技术的概率为 98.1%。结论:鉴于所有技术都显示出相似的疗效,因此应根据成本、对技术的熟悉程度和环境因素来决定。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
×
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