瘘管与再造腹腔镜胆囊次全切除术:系统回顾和荟萃分析

Sarah Bueno Motter, Sérgio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, Patrícia Marcolin, Bruna Oliveira Trindade, Gabriela R Brandao, Jennifer M Moffett
{"title":"瘘管与再造腹腔镜胆囊次全切除术:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Sarah Bueno Motter, Sérgio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, Patrícia Marcolin, Bruna Oliveira Trindade, Gabriela R Brandao, Jennifer M Moffett","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11225-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Introduction</h3><p>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures by general surgeons. Strategies for minimizing bile duct injuries including use of the critical view of safety method, as outlined by the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program, are not always possible. Subtotal cholecystectomy has emerged as a safe “bail-out” maneuver to avoid iatrogenic bile duct injury in these difficult cases. Strasberg and colleagues defined two main types of subtotal cholecystectomies: reconstituting and fenestrating. As there is a paucity of studies comparing the two subtypes of laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the reconstituting and fenestrating techniques for managing the difficult gallbladder.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective studies comparing fenestrating and reconstituting LSC. The outcomes of interest were bile leak, reoperation, readmissions, completion cholecystectomy, postoperative ERCP, and retained CBD stones.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>We screened 2855 studies and included 13 studies with a total population of 985 patients. Among them, 330 patients (33.5%) underwent reconstituting LSC and 655 patients (55.5%) underwent fenestrating LSC. Twelve studies were retrospective, and one was prospective. Notably, reconstituting STC was associated with decreased incidence of bile leak (OR 0.29; CI 95% 0.16–0.55; <i>p</i> = 0.0002; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 36%). We also noted increased rates of postoperative ERCP with fenestrating STC in sensitivity analysis (OR 0.32; CI 95% 0.16–0.64; <i>p</i> = 0.001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 31%). In addition, there was no difference between the two techniques regarding the rates of completion of cholecystectomy, reoperation, readmission, and retained CBD stones.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Fenestrating LSC leads to a higher incidence of postoperative bile leakage. In addition, our sensitivity analysis revealed that the fenestrating technique is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative ERCP. Further randomized trials and studies with longer-term follow-up are still necessary to better understand these techniques in the difficult gallbladder cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":501625,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fenestrating vs reconstituting laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Bueno Motter, Sérgio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, Patrícia Marcolin, Bruna Oliveira Trindade, Gabriela R Brandao, Jennifer M Moffett\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00464-024-11225-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Introduction</h3><p>Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures by general surgeons. Strategies for minimizing bile duct injuries including use of the critical view of safety method, as outlined by the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program, are not always possible. Subtotal cholecystectomy has emerged as a safe “bail-out” maneuver to avoid iatrogenic bile duct injury in these difficult cases. Strasberg and colleagues defined two main types of subtotal cholecystectomies: reconstituting and fenestrating. As there is a paucity of studies comparing the two subtypes of laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the reconstituting and fenestrating techniques for managing the difficult gallbladder.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>A search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective studies comparing fenestrating and reconstituting LSC. The outcomes of interest were bile leak, reoperation, readmissions, completion cholecystectomy, postoperative ERCP, and retained CBD stones.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>We screened 2855 studies and included 13 studies with a total population of 985 patients. Among them, 330 patients (33.5%) underwent reconstituting LSC and 655 patients (55.5%) underwent fenestrating LSC. Twelve studies were retrospective, and one was prospective. Notably, reconstituting STC was associated with decreased incidence of bile leak (OR 0.29; CI 95% 0.16–0.55; <i>p</i> = 0.0002; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 36%). We also noted increased rates of postoperative ERCP with fenestrating STC in sensitivity analysis (OR 0.32; CI 95% 0.16–0.64; <i>p</i> = 0.001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 31%). In addition, there was no difference between the two techniques regarding the rates of completion of cholecystectomy, reoperation, readmission, and retained CBD stones.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>Fenestrating LSC leads to a higher incidence of postoperative bile leakage. In addition, our sensitivity analysis revealed that the fenestrating technique is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative ERCP. Further randomized trials and studies with longer-term follow-up are still necessary to better understand these techniques in the difficult gallbladder cases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11225-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11225-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言腹腔镜胆囊切除术是普外科医生最常进行的手术之一。尽量减少胆管损伤的策略,包括使用 SAGES 安全胆囊切除术计划所概述的安全关键视图法,并非总是可行。在这些疑难病例中,胆囊次全切除术已成为避免胆管先天性损伤的安全 "保胆 "方法。斯特拉斯伯格及其同事定义了两种主要的胆囊次全切除术类型:再造性胆囊切除术和峡部胆囊切除术。由于比较这两种腹腔镜胆囊次全切除术(LSC)亚类型的研究很少,我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,比较了处理疑难胆囊的再造和胆囊穿刺技术。研究结果包括胆漏、再次手术、再次入院、完成胆囊切除术、术后 ERCP 和保留的 CBD 结石。其中,330 名患者(33.5%)接受了再造性 LSC,655 名患者(55.5%)接受了穿透性 LSC。12项研究为回顾性研究,1项为前瞻性研究。值得注意的是,重组 STC 与胆漏发生率降低有关(OR 0.29;CI 95% 0.16-0.55;P = 0.0002;I2 = 36%)。我们还注意到,在敏感性分析中,采用开窗式 STC 的术后 ERCP 发生率增加(OR 0.32;CI 95% 0.16-0.64;P = 0.001;I2 = 31%)。此外,两种技术在胆囊切除术完成率、再次手术率、再次入院率和保留 CBD 结石率方面没有差异。此外,我们的敏感性分析表明,穿刺技术与较高的术后 ERCP 发生率有关。为了更好地了解这些技术在疑难胆囊病例中的应用,仍有必要进一步开展随机试验和长期随访研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Fenestrating vs reconstituting laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Fenestrating vs reconstituting laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures by general surgeons. Strategies for minimizing bile duct injuries including use of the critical view of safety method, as outlined by the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program, are not always possible. Subtotal cholecystectomy has emerged as a safe “bail-out” maneuver to avoid iatrogenic bile duct injury in these difficult cases. Strasberg and colleagues defined two main types of subtotal cholecystectomies: reconstituting and fenestrating. As there is a paucity of studies comparing the two subtypes of laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the reconstituting and fenestrating techniques for managing the difficult gallbladder.

Methods

A search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective studies comparing fenestrating and reconstituting LSC. The outcomes of interest were bile leak, reoperation, readmissions, completion cholecystectomy, postoperative ERCP, and retained CBD stones.

Results

We screened 2855 studies and included 13 studies with a total population of 985 patients. Among them, 330 patients (33.5%) underwent reconstituting LSC and 655 patients (55.5%) underwent fenestrating LSC. Twelve studies were retrospective, and one was prospective. Notably, reconstituting STC was associated with decreased incidence of bile leak (OR 0.29; CI 95% 0.16–0.55; p = 0.0002; I2 = 36%). We also noted increased rates of postoperative ERCP with fenestrating STC in sensitivity analysis (OR 0.32; CI 95% 0.16–0.64; p = 0.001; I2 = 31%). In addition, there was no difference between the two techniques regarding the rates of completion of cholecystectomy, reoperation, readmission, and retained CBD stones.

Conclusions

Fenestrating LSC leads to a higher incidence of postoperative bile leakage. In addition, our sensitivity analysis revealed that the fenestrating technique is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative ERCP. Further randomized trials and studies with longer-term follow-up are still necessary to better understand these techniques in the difficult gallbladder cases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信