Minimally invasive surgical strategies for gallbladder stones with concomitant common bile duct stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Ziwen Liao, Xueyuan Zhu, Yahui Wang, Jiao'an Pang, Jun Fu, Jingxuan Wei, Yuan Yu
{"title":"Minimally invasive surgical strategies for gallbladder stones with concomitant common bile duct stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Ziwen Liao, Xueyuan Zhu, Yahui Wang, Jiao'an Pang, Jun Fu, Jingxuan Wei, Yuan Yu","doi":"10.1186/s12893-026-04003-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Approximately 10-20% of patients with gallstones present with concomitant common bile duct stones (CBDS). Although T-tube drainage (TTD) has traditionally been used after bile duct exploration, clinical practice is increasingly shifting toward T-tube-free minimally invasive strategies to enhance postoperative recovery. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of these approaches using a network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were analyzed in parallel using separate frequentist NMAs. Interventions included laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) + TTD, LC + LCBDE + primary suture (PS), LC + laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), and LC + endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed as either a single-stage or two-stage strategy. Treatment effects were expressed as risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), and mean differences (MDs), with treatment rankings estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two studies including 11,327 patients (19 RCTs and 33 cohort studies) were included. Parallel analyses demonstrated generally consistent findings between randomized and observational evidence. In the RCT network, T-tube-free strategies achieved comparable stone clearance and overall safety compared with TTD. LC + LTCBDE showed the highest SUCRA ranking probabilities for operative time (MD - 47.01 min; SUCRA 96.4%) and length of hospital stay (MD - 5.78 days; SUCRA 86.9%). LC + LCBDE + PS was also associated with shorter operative time (MD - 20.02 min; SUCRA 51.8%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 3.03 days; SUCRA 33.8%). Long-term outcomes and postoperative complication rates were generally comparable across strategies. Differences in SUCRA ranking probabilities were observed for postoperative pancreatitis-related outcomes, with LC + ERCP (two-stage) showing a lower ranking probability (SUCRA 15.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>T-tube-free minimally invasive strategies achieved stone clearance and overall perioperative safety broadly comparable to those of TTD in patients with gallbladder stones and concomitant common bile duct stones. LC + LTCBDE and LC + LCBDE + PS were associated with shorter operative time and hospital stay in some network comparisons. Overall, treatment selection should remain individualized according to biliary anatomy, stone burden, patient condition, and institutional expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13602641/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-026-04003-x","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

Background: Approximately 10-20% of patients with gallstones present with concomitant common bile duct stones (CBDS). Although T-tube drainage (TTD) has traditionally been used after bile duct exploration, clinical practice is increasingly shifting toward T-tube-free minimally invasive strategies to enhance postoperative recovery. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of these approaches using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were analyzed in parallel using separate frequentist NMAs. Interventions included laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) + TTD, LC + LCBDE + primary suture (PS), LC + laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), and LC + endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed as either a single-stage or two-stage strategy. Treatment effects were expressed as risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), and mean differences (MDs), with treatment rankings estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results: Fifty-two studies including 11,327 patients (19 RCTs and 33 cohort studies) were included. Parallel analyses demonstrated generally consistent findings between randomized and observational evidence. In the RCT network, T-tube-free strategies achieved comparable stone clearance and overall safety compared with TTD. LC + LTCBDE showed the highest SUCRA ranking probabilities for operative time (MD - 47.01 min; SUCRA 96.4%) and length of hospital stay (MD - 5.78 days; SUCRA 86.9%). LC + LCBDE + PS was also associated with shorter operative time (MD - 20.02 min; SUCRA 51.8%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 3.03 days; SUCRA 33.8%). Long-term outcomes and postoperative complication rates were generally comparable across strategies. Differences in SUCRA ranking probabilities were observed for postoperative pancreatitis-related outcomes, with LC + ERCP (two-stage) showing a lower ranking probability (SUCRA 15.8%).

Conclusions: T-tube-free minimally invasive strategies achieved stone clearance and overall perioperative safety broadly comparable to those of TTD in patients with gallbladder stones and concomitant common bile duct stones. LC + LTCBDE and LC + LCBDE + PS were associated with shorter operative time and hospital stay in some network comparisons. Overall, treatment selection should remain individualized according to biliary anatomy, stone burden, patient condition, and institutional expertise.

胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的微创手术策略:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。
背景:大约10-20%的胆结石患者伴有胆总管结石(CBDS)。虽然传统上在胆管探查后使用t管引流(TTD),但临床实践越来越多地转向无t管微创策略,以提高术后恢复。本研究使用网络荟萃分析(NMA)评估了这些方法的有效性和安全性。方法:检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和Cochrane Library自成立至2025年10月的文献。随机对照试验(rct)和队列研究使用单独的频率nma并行分析。干预措施包括腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC) +腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE) + TTD, LC + LCBDE +初级缝合(PS), LC +腹腔镜经囊胆总管探查(LTCBDE), LC +内镜逆行胆管造影术(ERCP),均为单期或两期策略。治疗效果用风险比(rr)、优势比(ORs)和平均差异(MDs)来表示,并使用累积排名曲线下的曲面(SUCRA)来估计治疗排名。结果:纳入52项研究,包括11,327例患者(19项随机对照试验和33项队列研究)。平行分析表明随机证据和观察证据之间的发现大体一致。在RCT网络中,与TTD相比,无t管策略获得了相当的结石清除和总体安全性。LC + LTCBDE的手术时间(MD - 47.01 min, SUCRA为96.4%)和住院时间(MD - 5.78天,SUCRA为86.9%)的SUCRA排序概率最高。LC + LCBDE + PS还与更短的手术时间(MD - 20.02 min, SUCRA为51.8%)和更短的住院时间(MD - 3.03天,SUCRA为33.8%)相关。不同策略的长期结果和术后并发症发生率大致相当。术后胰腺炎相关结果的SUCRA排序概率存在差异,LC + ERCP(两期)的排序概率较低(SUCRA为15.8%)。结论:无t管微创策略在胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的结石清除和整体围手术期安全性方面与TTD大致相当。在一些网络比较中,LC + LTCBDE和LC + LCBDE + PS与更短的手术时间和住院时间相关。总的来说,治疗选择应根据胆道解剖、结石负担、患者病情和机构专业知识进行个体化治疗。
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
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书