Common bile duct stones management: A network meta-analysis.

Shahin Mohseni, Gary Alan Bass, Maximilian Peter Forssten, Isidro Martínez Casas, Matthew Martin, Kimberly A Davis, Elliott R Haut, Michael Sugrue, Hayato Kurihara, Babak Sarani, Yang Cao, Raul Coimbra
{"title":"Common bile duct stones management: A network meta-analysis.","authors":"Shahin Mohseni, Gary Alan Bass, Maximilian Peter Forssten, Isidro Martínez Casas, Matthew Martin, Kimberly A Davis, Elliott R Haut, Michael Sugrue, Hayato Kurihara, Babak Sarani, Yang Cao, Raul Coimbra","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000003755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute care setting. Consequently, this systematic review and network meta-analysis, comparing one-stage (CBD exploration or intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] with simultaneous cholecystectomy) and two-stage (precholecystectomy or postcholecystectomy ERCP) procedures, was undertaken with the main outcomes of interest being postprocedural complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were methodically queried for articles from 2010 to 2021. The search terms were a combination of medical subject headings terms and the subsequent terms: gallstone; common bile duct (stone); choledocholithiasis; cholecystitis; endoscopic retrograde cholangiography/ERCP; common bile duct exploration; intraoperative, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; stone extraction; and one-stage and two-stage procedure. Studies that compared two procedures or more were included, whereas studies not recording complications (bile leak, hemorrhage, pancreatitis, perforation, intra-abdominal infections, and other infections) or LOS were excluded. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the four different approaches for managing CBD stones.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 studies (8,644 participants) addressing the LOS and 41 studies (19,756 participants) addressing postprocedural complications were included in the analysis. The one-stage approaches were associated with a decrease in LOS compared with the two-stage approaches. Common bile duct exploration demonstrated a lower overall risk of complications compared with preoperative ERCP, but there were no differences in the overall risk of complications in the remaining comparisons. However, differences in specific postprocedural complications were detected between the four different approaches managing CBD stones.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic CBD exploration and intraoperative ERCP have equally good outcomes and provide a preferable single-anesthesia patient pathway with a shorter overall length of hospital stay compared with the two-stage approaches.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Systematic Review/Meta Analysis; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":501845,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"e155-e165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000003755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute care setting. Consequently, this systematic review and network meta-analysis, comparing one-stage (CBD exploration or intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] with simultaneous cholecystectomy) and two-stage (precholecystectomy or postcholecystectomy ERCP) procedures, was undertaken with the main outcomes of interest being postprocedural complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).

Methods: PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were methodically queried for articles from 2010 to 2021. The search terms were a combination of medical subject headings terms and the subsequent terms: gallstone; common bile duct (stone); choledocholithiasis; cholecystitis; endoscopic retrograde cholangiography/ERCP; common bile duct exploration; intraoperative, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; stone extraction; and one-stage and two-stage procedure. Studies that compared two procedures or more were included, whereas studies not recording complications (bile leak, hemorrhage, pancreatitis, perforation, intra-abdominal infections, and other infections) or LOS were excluded. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the four different approaches for managing CBD stones.

Results: A total of 16 studies (8,644 participants) addressing the LOS and 41 studies (19,756 participants) addressing postprocedural complications were included in the analysis. The one-stage approaches were associated with a decrease in LOS compared with the two-stage approaches. Common bile duct exploration demonstrated a lower overall risk of complications compared with preoperative ERCP, but there were no differences in the overall risk of complications in the remaining comparisons. However, differences in specific postprocedural complications were detected between the four different approaches managing CBD stones.

Conclusion: This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic CBD exploration and intraoperative ERCP have equally good outcomes and provide a preferable single-anesthesia patient pathway with a shorter overall length of hospital stay compared with the two-stage approaches.

Level of evidence: Systematic Review/Meta Analysis; Level III.

胆总管结石管理:网络荟萃分析。
背景:及时治疗是治疗症状性胆总管结石的关键;然而,一个单一的最佳管理策略尚未确定在急性护理设置。因此,本系统综述和网络荟萃分析比较了一期(CBD探查或术中内窥镜逆行胆管胰胆管造影[ERCP]与同期胆囊切除术)和两期(胆囊切除术前或胆囊切除术后ERCP)手术,主要关注的结果是术后并发症和住院时间(LOS)。方法:系统查询PubMed、SCOPUS、MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2010 - 2021年的文章。搜索词是医学主题词和随后的词的组合:胆结石;胆总管(结石);黄疸;胆囊炎;内镜逆行胆道造影/ERCP;胆总管探查;术中、术前、围术期和术后内镜逆行胆管造影;石提取;一阶段和两阶段的手术。比较两种或两种以上手术的研究被纳入,而没有记录并发症(胆漏、出血、胰腺炎、穿孔、腹腔内感染和其他感染)或LOS的研究被排除。一项网络荟萃分析比较了四种不同的治疗CBD结石的方法。结果:共有16项研究(8,644名参与者)涉及LOS, 41项研究(19,756名参与者)涉及术后并发症纳入分析。与两期方法相比,一期方法与LOS降低有关。与术前ERCP相比,胆总管探查显示并发症的总风险较低,但在其余比较中,并发症的总风险没有差异。然而,在处理CBD结石的四种不同方法之间,发现了特定术后并发症的差异。结论:该网络荟萃分析表明,腹腔镜下CBD探查和术中ERCP具有同样好的结果,并且与两阶段方法相比,提供了更好的单麻醉患者路径,总住院时间更短。证据水平:系统评价/Meta分析;第三层次。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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