Can laparoscopic common bile duct exploration be performed without any drainage? A propensity score-matched study.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques Pub Date : 2024-11-07 eCollection Date: 2024-12-27 DOI:10.20452/wiitm.2024.17909
Chufa Zheng, Weifeng Wang, Qiquan Peng, Yunheng Peng, Xiaozhong Wang
{"title":"Can laparoscopic common bile duct exploration be performed without any drainage? A propensity score-matched study.","authors":"Chufa Zheng, Weifeng Wang, Qiquan Peng, Yunheng Peng, Xiaozhong Wang","doi":"10.20452/wiitm.2024.17909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered a safe and effective method for treating choledocholithiasis, the absence of any biliary or abdominal drainage during surgery remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This paper aims to investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE without drainage, particularly abdominal drainage.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis included 499 patients who underwent LCBDE with primary closure of the common bile duct and without any kind of biliary drainage during surgery. In 322 individuals, the surgery involved routine abdominal drainage (drainage group), whereas in 177 cases, no abdominal drainage was performed (nondrainage group). Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were compared, followed by propensity score matching (PSM) to balance confounding factors. We compared effect indicators and complication rates between both groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, each group included 124 patients. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of overall and individual complication rates, except for a lower incidence of hyperamylasemia in the nondrainage group. The surgery time, duration of postoperative antibiotic use, and the total and postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the nondrainage group. Similarly, the total hospitalization cost and postoperative usage of analgesics and antispasmodics were also considerably lower in the nondrainage group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nondrainage LCBDE is associated with shorter recovery time and better patient outcomes, as compared with procedures involving abdominal drainage. In suitable cases, this approach is completely safe and feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":49361,"journal":{"name":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","volume":"19 4","pages":"427-435"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11927541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20452/wiitm.2024.17909","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered a safe and effective method for treating choledocholithiasis, the absence of any biliary or abdominal drainage during surgery remains controversial.

Aim: This paper aims to investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE without drainage, particularly abdominal drainage.

Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis included 499 patients who underwent LCBDE with primary closure of the common bile duct and without any kind of biliary drainage during surgery. In 322 individuals, the surgery involved routine abdominal drainage (drainage group), whereas in 177 cases, no abdominal drainage was performed (nondrainage group). Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were compared, followed by propensity score matching (PSM) to balance confounding factors. We compared effect indicators and complication rates between both groups.

Results: After PSM, each group included 124 patients. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of overall and individual complication rates, except for a lower incidence of hyperamylasemia in the nondrainage group. The surgery time, duration of postoperative antibiotic use, and the total and postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the nondrainage group. Similarly, the total hospitalization cost and postoperative usage of analgesics and antispasmodics were also considerably lower in the nondrainage group.

Conclusions: Nondrainage LCBDE is associated with shorter recovery time and better patient outcomes, as compared with procedures involving abdominal drainage. In suitable cases, this approach is completely safe and feasible.

导言:尽管腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LCBDE)被认为是治疗胆总管结石的一种安全有效的方法,但在手术过程中不进行任何胆道或腹腔引流仍存在争议。目的:本文旨在研究LCBDE不引流(尤其是腹腔引流)的可行性和安全性:这项回顾性分析纳入了 499 例接受低胆固醇胆囊切除术(LCBDE)的患者,这些患者在手术过程中进行了胆总管原发性闭合,但未进行任何形式的胆道引流。其中 322 例患者的手术涉及常规腹腔引流(引流组),177 例患者未进行腹腔引流(非引流组)。我们比较了两组患者的基线特征,然后进行倾向评分匹配(PSM)以平衡混杂因素。我们比较了两组的效果指标和并发症发生率:结果:经过倾向评分匹配后,两组各包括 124 名患者。除了不引流组的高淀粉血症发生率较低外,两组在总体和单个并发症发生率方面没有明显差异。无引流组的手术时间、术后使用抗生素的时间以及总住院时间和术后住院时间明显较短。同样,无引流组的住院总费用以及术后镇痛药和解痉药的使用量也大大降低:结论:与腹腔引流手术相比,无引流低密度腹腔结肠切除术的恢复时间更短,患者的预后更好。在合适的病例中,这种方法完全安全可行。
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
2.80
自引率
23.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques serves as a forum for exchange of multidisciplinary experiences in fields such as: surgery, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, neurosurgery, ENT surgery, cardiac surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology, as well as other branches of medicine dealing with miniinvasive techniques.
×
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