Cargando…

A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()

BACKGROUND: Despite some evidence of improved survival with intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy, debate has raged about its benefit, in part because of its questionable benefit, time, and resources required to complete. METHODS: An International Prospective Register of Systematic R...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Donnellan, Eoin, Coulter, Jonathan, Mathew, Cherian, Choynowski, Michelle, Flanagan, Louise, Bucholc, Magda, Johnston, Alison, Sugrue, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33937738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2020.07.004
_version_ 1783684785670979584
author Donnellan, Eoin
Coulter, Jonathan
Mathew, Cherian
Choynowski, Michelle
Flanagan, Louise
Bucholc, Magda
Johnston, Alison
Sugrue, Michael
author_facet Donnellan, Eoin
Coulter, Jonathan
Mathew, Cherian
Choynowski, Michelle
Flanagan, Louise
Bucholc, Magda
Johnston, Alison
Sugrue, Michael
author_sort Donnellan, Eoin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite some evidence of improved survival with intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy, debate has raged about its benefit, in part because of its questionable benefit, time, and resources required to complete. METHODS: An International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews–registered (ID CRD42018102154) meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from 2003 to 2018 was undertaken including search strategy “intraoperative AND cholangiogra* AND cholecystectomy.” Articles scoring ≥ 16 for comparative and ≥ 10 for noncomparative using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included. A dichotomous random effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method performed on Review Manager Version 5.3 was carried out. RESULTS: Of 2,059 articles reviewed, 62 met criteria for final analysis. The mean rate of intraoperative cholangiography was 38.8% (range 1.6%–96.4%).There was greater detection of bile duct stones during cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography compared with selective intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 3.28, confidence interval = 2.80–3.86, P value < .001). While bile duct injury during cholecystectomy was less with intraoperative cholangiography (0.39%) than without intraoperative cholangiography (0.43%), it was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.88, confidence interval = 0.65–1.19, P value = .41). Readmission following cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography was 3.0% compared to 3.5% without intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 0.91, confidence interval = 0.78–1.06, P value = .23). CONCLUSION: The use of intraoperative cholangiography still has its place in cholecystectomy based on the detection of choledocholithiasis and the potential reduction of unfavorable outcomes associated with common bile duct stones. This meta-analysis, the first to review intraoperative cholangiography use, identified a marked variation in cholangiography use. Retrospective studies limit the ability to critically define association between intraoperative cholangiography use and bile duct injury.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8076912
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80769122021-04-29 A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?() Donnellan, Eoin Coulter, Jonathan Mathew, Cherian Choynowski, Michelle Flanagan, Louise Bucholc, Magda Johnston, Alison Sugrue, Michael Surg Open Sci Article BACKGROUND: Despite some evidence of improved survival with intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy, debate has raged about its benefit, in part because of its questionable benefit, time, and resources required to complete. METHODS: An International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews–registered (ID CRD42018102154) meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from 2003 to 2018 was undertaken including search strategy “intraoperative AND cholangiogra* AND cholecystectomy.” Articles scoring ≥ 16 for comparative and ≥ 10 for noncomparative using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included. A dichotomous random effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method performed on Review Manager Version 5.3 was carried out. RESULTS: Of 2,059 articles reviewed, 62 met criteria for final analysis. The mean rate of intraoperative cholangiography was 38.8% (range 1.6%–96.4%).There was greater detection of bile duct stones during cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography compared with selective intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 3.28, confidence interval = 2.80–3.86, P value < .001). While bile duct injury during cholecystectomy was less with intraoperative cholangiography (0.39%) than without intraoperative cholangiography (0.43%), it was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.88, confidence interval = 0.65–1.19, P value = .41). Readmission following cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography was 3.0% compared to 3.5% without intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 0.91, confidence interval = 0.78–1.06, P value = .23). CONCLUSION: The use of intraoperative cholangiography still has its place in cholecystectomy based on the detection of choledocholithiasis and the potential reduction of unfavorable outcomes associated with common bile duct stones. This meta-analysis, the first to review intraoperative cholangiography use, identified a marked variation in cholangiography use. Retrospective studies limit the ability to critically define association between intraoperative cholangiography use and bile duct injury. Elsevier 2020-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8076912/ /pubmed/33937738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2020.07.004 Text en © 2020 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Donnellan, Eoin
Coulter, Jonathan
Mathew, Cherian
Choynowski, Michelle
Flanagan, Louise
Bucholc, Magda
Johnston, Alison
Sugrue, Michael
A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()
title A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()
title_full A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()
title_fullStr A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()
title_full_unstemmed A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()
title_short A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()
title_sort meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?()
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33937738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2020.07.004
work_keys_str_mv AT donnellaneoin ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT coulterjonathan ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT mathewcherian ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT choynowskimichelle ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT flanaganlouise ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT bucholcmagda ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT johnstonalison ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT sugruemichael ametaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT donnellaneoin metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT coulterjonathan metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT mathewcherian metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT choynowskimichelle metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT flanaganlouise metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT bucholcmagda metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT johnstonalison metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy
AT sugruemichael metaanalysisoftheuseofintraoperativecholangiographytimetorevisitourapproachtocholecystectomy