Biliary anastomosis using T-tube versus no T-tube for liver transplantation in adults.

IF 11.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jose Jeova de Oliveira Filho, Rachel Riera, Diego R Kleinubing, Diego Adão, Daniel K Shiraiwa, Delcio Matos, Marcelo Moura Linhares
{"title":"Biliary anastomosis using T-tube versus no T-tube for liver transplantation in adults.","authors":"Jose Jeova de Oliveira Filho, Rachel Riera, Diego R Kleinubing, Diego Adão, Daniel K Shiraiwa, Delcio Matos, Marcelo Moura Linhares","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013289.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>In liver transplantation, biliary reconstruction by performing bile duct anastomosis is a critical step of the operation. Biliary complications, especially fistula (leaks) and stenosis, remain the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. During the operation, surgeons can insert a T-tube into the bile duct following the bile duct reconstruction. This drain decompresses the biliary tract, and it is thought to reduce biliary tract-related complications. There is, however, no consensus on the use of a T-tube as a drainage technique during biliary reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of biliary anastomosis with the use of a T-tube compared with biliary anastomosis without the use of a T-tube in adults undergoing liver transplantation.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE ALL Ovid, Embase Ovid, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS; VHL Regional Portal), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science). We also searched online trial registries, reviewed reference lists of identified studies, and contacted, when necessary, the main authors of the included trials. All electronic searches were performed on 28 April 2026.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We considered for inclusion parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biliary reconstruction techniques, with or without a T-tube, in adults undergoing liver transplantation, irrespective of publication type, year, format, status, language, or reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (including biliary leakage/fistula, stenosis, complications attributable to T-tube, retransplantation, and others), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Important outcomes were non-serious adverse events and pain.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane's risk of bias 1 (RoB 1) tool to assess the risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to develop the review. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis (inverse-variance method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation of the between-study variance) and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the outcome results using the GRADE approach. We used the GRADE summary of findings table to display the outcome results for all-cause mortality and, among serious adverse events, anastomotic bile leak, anastomotic biliary stenosis, complications attributable to the T-tube, retransplantation, and serious biliary adverse events. We also presented HRQoL.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included six RCTs in 844 adults (range 60 to 194 participants). Three studies were conducted in Spain, and one each in France, Germany, and the UK. The studies were published between 1996 and 2013. The mean age ranged from 42 years to 55.3 years (average 53.9 years), and most participants were men (60.8%). All six studies compared choledochocholedochostomy biliary anastomosis with a T-tube versus choledochocholedochostomy biliary anastomosis without a T-tube during adult liver transplantation. Follow-up ranged from 9 to 35 months (mean 23 months).</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of biliary anastomosis with a T-tube versus without a T-tube on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.63; I² = 7%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on anastomotic bile leak (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.69; I² = 31%; 4 studies, 586 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The use of a T-tube in biliary anastomosis in liver transplantation may reduce the incidence of anastomotic biliary stenosis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.71; I² = 27%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Biliary anastomosis with T-tube may increase complications attributable to the T-tube (RR 17.81, 95% CI 5.51 to 57.58; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of biliary anastomosis with a T-tube versus without a T-tube on retransplantation (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.89; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and serious biliary adverse events (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.64; I² = 90%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported HRQoL. The very low-certainty evidence was due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>The very low-certainty evidence precluded us from drawing robust conclusions regarding the clinical benefits or harms of using a T-tube versus no T-tube use in biliary anastomosis during adult liver transplantation. We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of T-tube use regarding all-cause mortality, anastomotic bile leak, retransplantation, and serious biliary adverse events. We are also very uncertain whether the T-tube may reduce the incidence of anastomotic biliary stenosis and increase complications attributable to the T-tube. We lack data on HRQoL. We lack high-quality studies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This study did not have any external sources of funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol: doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013289.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD013289"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13595414/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013289.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: In liver transplantation, biliary reconstruction by performing bile duct anastomosis is a critical step of the operation. Biliary complications, especially fistula (leaks) and stenosis, remain the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. During the operation, surgeons can insert a T-tube into the bile duct following the bile duct reconstruction. This drain decompresses the biliary tract, and it is thought to reduce biliary tract-related complications. There is, however, no consensus on the use of a T-tube as a drainage technique during biliary reconstruction.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of biliary anastomosis with the use of a T-tube compared with biliary anastomosis without the use of a T-tube in adults undergoing liver transplantation.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE ALL Ovid, Embase Ovid, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS; VHL Regional Portal), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science). We also searched online trial registries, reviewed reference lists of identified studies, and contacted, when necessary, the main authors of the included trials. All electronic searches were performed on 28 April 2026.

Eligibility criteria: We considered for inclusion parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biliary reconstruction techniques, with or without a T-tube, in adults undergoing liver transplantation, irrespective of publication type, year, format, status, language, or reported outcomes.

Outcomes: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (including biliary leakage/fistula, stenosis, complications attributable to T-tube, retransplantation, and others), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Important outcomes were non-serious adverse events and pain.

Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane's risk of bias 1 (RoB 1) tool to assess the risk of bias.

Synthesis methods: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to develop the review. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis (inverse-variance method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation of the between-study variance) and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the outcome results using the GRADE approach. We used the GRADE summary of findings table to display the outcome results for all-cause mortality and, among serious adverse events, anastomotic bile leak, anastomotic biliary stenosis, complications attributable to the T-tube, retransplantation, and serious biliary adverse events. We also presented HRQoL.

Included studies: We included six RCTs in 844 adults (range 60 to 194 participants). Three studies were conducted in Spain, and one each in France, Germany, and the UK. The studies were published between 1996 and 2013. The mean age ranged from 42 years to 55.3 years (average 53.9 years), and most participants were men (60.8%). All six studies compared choledochocholedochostomy biliary anastomosis with a T-tube versus choledochocholedochostomy biliary anastomosis without a T-tube during adult liver transplantation. Follow-up ranged from 9 to 35 months (mean 23 months).

Synthesis of results: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of biliary anastomosis with a T-tube versus without a T-tube on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.63; I² = 7%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on anastomotic bile leak (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.69; I² = 31%; 4 studies, 586 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The use of a T-tube in biliary anastomosis in liver transplantation may reduce the incidence of anastomotic biliary stenosis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.71; I² = 27%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Biliary anastomosis with T-tube may increase complications attributable to the T-tube (RR 17.81, 95% CI 5.51 to 57.58; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of biliary anastomosis with a T-tube versus without a T-tube on retransplantation (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.89; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and serious biliary adverse events (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.64; I² = 90%; 6 studies, 826 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported HRQoL. The very low-certainty evidence was due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.

Authors' conclusions: The very low-certainty evidence precluded us from drawing robust conclusions regarding the clinical benefits or harms of using a T-tube versus no T-tube use in biliary anastomosis during adult liver transplantation. We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of T-tube use regarding all-cause mortality, anastomotic bile leak, retransplantation, and serious biliary adverse events. We are also very uncertain whether the T-tube may reduce the incidence of anastomotic biliary stenosis and increase complications attributable to the T-tube. We lack data on HRQoL. We lack high-quality studies.

Funding: This study did not have any external sources of funding.

Registration: Protocol: doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013289.

胆道吻合t管与非t管在成人肝移植中的比较。
理由:在肝移植中,通过胆管吻合重建胆道是手术的关键步骤。胆道并发症,特别是瘘(漏)和狭窄,仍然是发病率和死亡率的主要原因。在手术中,外科医生可以在胆管重建后将t型管插入胆管。这种引流可使胆道减压,并被认为可减少胆道相关并发症。然而,在胆道重建中使用t管作为引流技术尚无共识。目的:比较成人肝移植术后使用t管与不使用t管的胆道吻合术的利弊。检索方法:检索Cochrane肝胆组对照试验注册库、Cochrane图书馆对照试验中央注册库、MEDLINE ALL Ovid、Embase Ovid、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学信息数据库(LILACS; VHL区域门户)、科学引文索引扩展(Web of Science)和会议记录引文索引- Science (Web of Science)。我们还检索了在线试验注册库,查阅了已确定研究的参考文献列表,并在必要时联系了纳入试验的主要作者。所有电子搜查均于2026年4月28日进行。入选标准:我们考虑纳入平行组随机对照试验(rct),比较肝移植成人胆道重建技术,无论有无t管,而不考虑发表类型、年份、格式、状态、语言或报道结果。结果:我们的关键结果是全因死亡率、严重不良事件(包括胆漏/瘘、狭窄、t管并发症、再移植等)和健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)。重要的结局是非严重的不良事件和疼痛。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane’s Risk of bias 1 (RoB 1)工具来评估偏倚风险。综合方法:我们采用Cochrane期望的标准方法学程序来进行综述。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析(限制最大似然估计研究间方差的反方差方法)分析二分类结果,并以95%置信区间(CI)的风险比(RR)表示结果。我们使用GRADE方法评估结果中证据的确定性。我们使用GRADE结果总结表显示全因死亡率的结果,在严重不良事件中,吻合口胆汁漏、吻合口胆道狭窄、t管并发症、再移植和严重胆道不良事件。我们还介绍了HRQoL。纳入的研究:我们纳入了6项随机对照试验,涉及844名成年人(60至194名参与者)。在西班牙进行了三项研究,法国、德国和英国各进行了一项研究。这些研究发表于1996年至2013年之间。平均年龄42 ~ 55.3岁(平均53.9岁),以男性居多(60.8%)。所有六项研究都比较了在成人肝移植中胆道吻合t管与胆道吻合t管与胆道吻合t管。随访9 ~ 35个月(平均23个月)。结果综合:胆道吻合t管与不吻合t管对全因死亡率(RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.58 - 1.63; I²= 7%;6项研究,826名受试者;极低确定性证据)和吻合口胆漏(RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 - 1.69; I²= 31%;4项研究,586名受试者;极低确定性证据)的影响的证据非常不确定。肝移植胆道吻合使用t管可降低胆道吻合口狭窄发生率(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 ~ 0.71; I²= 27%;6项研究,826名受试者;极低确定性证据),但证据非常不确定。胆道吻合t管可能增加t管并发症(RR 17.81, 95% CI 5.51 ~ 57.58; I²= 0%;6项研究,826名受试者;极低确定性证据),但证据非常不确定。关于胆道吻合t管与不吻合t管对再移植的影响(RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.38 ~ 3.89; I²= 0%;3项研究,427名受试者;极低确定性证据;RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.51 ~ 2.64; I²= 90%;6项研究,826名受试者;极低确定性证据)和严重胆道不良事件的证据非常不确定。没有研究报道HRQoL。极低确定性的证据是由于存在偏倚、不精确和异质性的风险。 作者的结论:非常低确定性的证据使我们无法得出关于成人肝移植中胆道吻合术使用t管与不使用t管的临床利弊的有力结论。在全因死亡率、吻合口胆漏、再移植和严重的胆道不良事件方面,我们对使用t管的利与弊非常不确定。我们也非常不确定t管是否会减少吻合口胆道狭窄的发生率,增加t管引起的并发症。我们缺乏关于HRQoL的数据。我们缺乏高质量的研究。经费:本研究没有任何外部资金来源。注册:协议:doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013289。
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
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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