T‑tube versus internal drainage tube in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Dong,Hanzhang; Ke,Shaobiao; Zhan,Jiulin; Luo,Mingjian; Liu,Xi; Li,Zhiwei

doi:10.3892/etm.2023.12195

T‑tube versus internal drainage tube in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Authors:
- Hanzhang Dong
- Shaobiao Ke
- Jiulin Zhan
- Mingjian Luo
- Xi Liu
- Zhiwei Li
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Kanghua Hospital, Dongguan, Guangdong 523080, P.R. China, Research and Teaching Department, Shenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518033, P.R. China
Published online on: September 6, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2023.12195
Article Number: 496
Copyright: © Dong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The 203 patients who underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into internal drainage tube group (n=87) and T‑tube group (n=116). Total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase (AST), aspartate aminotransferase (ALT), the diameter of common bile duct, number of stones, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Possible influencing factors were selected as independent variables, and the operation mode was selected as the dependent variable for multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis. There were no significant differences in the sex, age, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, AST, ALT, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative biliary leaks between the two groups (P>0.05). The diameter of the common bile duct was smaller and the incidence of multiple stones in the common bile duct was lower in the internal drainage tube group compared with that in the T‑tube group (P<0.05). The results of multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the diameter of the common bile duct and the number of stones in the common bile duct were associated with the operation mode as influencing factors. In conclusion, Patients with multiple stones in the common bile duct or with a wide diameter of the common bile duct are more likely to have T‑tube placed rather than an internal drainage tube.

View Figures

View References

1	Martin IJ, Bailey IS, Rhodes M, O'Rourke N, Nathanson L and Fielding G: Towards T-tube free laparoscopic bile duct exploration: A methodologic evolution during 300 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg. 228:29–34. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Zhang LF, Hou CS, Xu Z, Wang LX, Ling XF, Wang G, Cui L and Xiu DR: Clinical effect of laparoscopic transcystic drainage combined with common bile duct exploration for the patients with difficult biliary stones. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 54:1185–1189. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In Chinese).
3	Yin Z, Xu K, Sun J, Zhang J, Xiao Z, Wang J, Niu H, Zhao Q, Lin S and Li Y: Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 257:54–66. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Podda M, Polignano FM, Luhmann A, Wilson MS, Kulli C and Tait IS: Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc. 30:845–861. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Dong H, Liu X, Luo M, Ke S, Zhan J and Li Z: Application of an internal drainage tube in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Med Int (Lond). 9:1–5. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Cianci P, Tartaglia N, Alberto F, Antonio A and Neri V: Management of choledocholithiasis: Current opinions and personal experience. Surg Chron. 23:157–161. 2018.
7	Harvey PR, Baldwin S, Mytton J, Dosanjh A, Evison F, Patel P and Trudgill NJ: Higher volume providers are associated with improved outcomes following ERCP for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. EClinicalMedicine. 18(100212)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Fernandez Y, Viesca M and Arvanitakis M: Early diagnosis and management of malignant distal biliary obstruction: A review on current recommendations and guidelines. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 12:415–432. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Stirrat J, Patel NR, Stella SF, Mafeld S, Ho CS and Shlomovitz E: Safety and efficacy of percutaneous gallstone extraction in high-risk patients: An Alternative To Cholecystectomy Or Long-Term Drainage? J Am Coll Surg. 232:195–201. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Kim SK, Mani NB, Darcy MD and Picus DD: Percutaneous cholecystolithotomy using cholecystoscopy. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 22:139–148. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Vecchio R and MacFadyen BV: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 387:45–54. 2002.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Rendell VR and Pauli EM: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. JAMA Surg. 158:766–767. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Wang Y, Huang Y, Shi C, Wang L, Liu S, Zhang J and Wang W: Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy with primary closure for the management of acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc. 36:4869–4877. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Jiang Y, Zhang J, Li W and Li L: Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis. Updates Surg. 74:899–906. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Martínez-Segundo U, Pinto-Angulo VM, García-Álvarez J, Cruz-Reyes JM and Briceño-Sáenz G: Usefulness of serum amylase and lipase as predictors of the severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Cir Cir. 88:428–434. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Lyon M, Menon S, Jain A and Kumar H: Use of biliary stent in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc. 29:1094–1098. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Omar MA, Redwan AA and Alansary MN: Comparative study of three common bile duct closure techniques after choledocholithotomy: Safety and efficacy. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 407:1805–1815. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Kadaba RS, Bowers KA, Khorsandi S, Hutchins RR, Abraham AT, Sarker SJ, Bhattacharya S and Kocher HM: Complications of biliary-enteric anastomoses. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 99:210–215. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Zafar SN, Khan MR, Raza R, Khan MN, Kasi M, Rafiq A and Jamy OH: Early complications after biliary enteric anastomosis for benign diseases: A retrospective analysis. BMC Surg. 11(19)2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Seifert L, von Renesse J, Seifert AM, Sturm D, Meisterfeld R, Rahbari NN, Kahlert C, Distler M, Weitz J and Reissfelder C: Interrupted versus continuous suture technique for biliary-enteric anastomosis: Randomized clinical trial. BJS Open. 7(zrac163)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Nassar AHM and Ng HJ: Risk identification and technical modifications reduce the incidence of post-cholecystectomy bile leakage: Analysis of 5675 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 407:213–223. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar