ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and harms of primary closure versus T-tube drainage after common bile duct (CBD) exploration for choledocholithiasis. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was done to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the benefits and harms of primary closure versus T-tube drainage after CBD exploration from Jan. 1990 to Apr. 2010. A meta-analysis was set up to distinguish overall difference between the primary closure and the T-tube drainage group. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between groups: biliary complications (odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42 (0.19-0.92); P = 0.03), main complications (OR 95% CI, 0.46 (0.23-0.90); P = 0.02), operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD) 95% CI, -19.53 (-29.35 to -9.71); P < 0.0001), and hospital stay (WMD 95% CI, -4.16 (-7.07 to -1.24); P = 0.005) except peri-operative mortality (OR 95% CI, 0.83 (0.11-6.37); P = 0.86), residual stones (OR 95% CI, 0.70 (0.22-2.25); P = 0.55), and abdominal collections (OR 95% CI, 1.93 (0.34-10.76); P = 0.46). And the result of wound infection (OR 95% CI, 0.38 (0.14-1.02); P = 0.05) tended to favor the primary closure group. CONCLUSION: The primary closure might be as effective as T-tube drainage after choledochotomy in the prevention of the development of post-operative complications.
Subject(s)
Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques , Choledochostomy/methods , Drainage/methods , Gallstones/surgery , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Gallstones/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Survival Analysis , Suture TechniquesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) in prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery. METHOD: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was done to identify randomized controlled trials involving comparison of postoperative complications after mechanical bowel preparation with PEG (PEG group) and no preparation (control group). A meta-analysis was set up to distinguish overall difference between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of five randomized controlled trials was identified according to our inclusion criteria. The use of PEG for mechanical bowel preparation did not significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infection (SSI; odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39 (0.85-2.25); P = 0.19) including incisional SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.44 (0.88-2.33); P = 0.15), organ/space SSI (OR 95% CI, 1.10 (0.43-2.78); P = 0.49), anastomotic leak (OR 95% CI,1.78 (0.95-3.33; P = 0.07), mortality (OR 95% CI, 1.24 (0.37-4.14; P = 0.73), infectious complications (OR 95% CI, 1.14 (0.62-2.08); P = 0.67), and hospital stay (weighted mean difference 95% CI, 2.17 (-2.90-7.25); P = 0.40) except main complications (OR 95% CI, 1.76 (1.09-2.85); P = 0.02), of which the rate increased significantly in the PEG group. CONCLUSION: The use of mechanical bowel preparation with PEG does not significantly lower postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery.
