Meta‐analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

Mohamed Bekheit (Corresponding Author), R Smith, George Ramsay, F Soggiu, M Ghazanfar, I Ahmed

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background
It is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta‐analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated.

Methods
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud‐based platform. Random‐effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD.

Results
Of 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD −0·86, 95 per cent c.i. −0·97 to −0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD −0·78, −1·14 to −0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate.

Conclusion
LCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)242-251
Number of pages10
JournalBJS Open
Volume3
Issue number3
Early online date23 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Choledocholithiasis
Common Bile Duct
Odds Ratio
Bile
Length of Stay
PubMed
Pathologic Constriction
Databases
Guidelines
Confidence Intervals

Cite this

Meta‐analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis. / Bekheit, Mohamed (Corresponding Author); Smith, R; Ramsay, George; Soggiu, F; Ghazanfar, M; Ahmed, I.

In: BJS Open, Vol. 3, No. 3, 06.2019, p. 242-251.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{68ae34b9006743cabf0b2e125313f773,
title = "Meta‐analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis",
abstract = "BackgroundIt is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta‐analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud‐based platform. Random‐effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD.ResultsOf 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD −0·86, 95 per cent c.i. −0·97 to −0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD −0·78, −1·14 to −0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate.ConclusionLCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.",
author = "Mohamed Bekheit and R Smith and George Ramsay and F Soggiu and M Ghazanfar and I Ahmed",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1002/bjs5.50132",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "242--251",
journal = "BJS Open",
issn = "2474-9842",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta‐analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

AU - Bekheit, Mohamed

AU - Smith, R

AU - Ramsay, George

AU - Soggiu, F

AU - Ghazanfar, M

AU - Ahmed, I

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - BackgroundIt is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta‐analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud‐based platform. Random‐effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD.ResultsOf 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD −0·86, 95 per cent c.i. −0·97 to −0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD −0·78, −1·14 to −0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate.ConclusionLCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.

AB - BackgroundIt is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta‐analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud‐based platform. Random‐effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD.ResultsOf 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD −0·86, 95 per cent c.i. −0·97 to −0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD −0·78, −1·14 to −0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate.ConclusionLCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/metaanalysis-laparoscopic-transcystic-versus-transcholedochal-common-bile-duct-exploration-choledoch

U2 - 10.1002/bjs5.50132

DO - 10.1002/bjs5.50132

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 242

EP - 251

JO - BJS Open

JF - BJS Open

SN - 2474-9842

IS - 3

ER -