T-tube Drainage Group Research Articles

Comparison between primary closure and T-tube drainage after open choledocotomy

Background: Common Bile Duct (CBD) exploration for choledocolithiasis is usually closed after T-tube insertion. However, complications of T-tube insertion limit its use. In the present study, we wanted to compare outcomes between primary repair of choledocotomy and traditional T-tube insertion. Material and methods: Thirty patients with CBD stones disease admitted at Sina and Imam Reza hospitals of Tabriz, from April 2012 to February 2013, were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: T-tube drainage group and primary closure group. Intraoperative findings and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. Results: There was no mortality and retained stones in both groups. Two of 15 patients in the T-tube group and four of 15 patients in primary closure group suffered from minor bile leakage. There was no major bile leakage in the T-tube group but one patient in the primary closure group had major bile leakage, which was treated conservatively without surgical or endoscopic intervention. Wound infection was seen in two patients in the T-tube group and one patient in the primary closure group. In follow up assessment, there was no intra-abdominal collection in both groups. Overall postoperative complications include biliary complications, wound infection and intra-abdominal collections, were seen in four patients in the T-tube group and six patients in primary closure group; that was not statically significant difference. Conclusion: primary closure of CBD after open choledocotomy is feasible and is as safe as T-tube insertion. In effect, primary closure avoids T-tube insertion and disadvantages associated with the use of T-tube. Primary closure can be recommended for selected patients with CBD stone disease. Key words: common bile duct stones; choledocotomy; T-tube drainage; primary closure

Long-term Outcome of Primary Closure After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined With Choledochoscopy.

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered to be a safe alternative to T-tube drainage on the basis of the short-term outcome. However, little published data exist regarding the biliary complications at the long-term follow-up of primary closure versus T-tube drainage following LCBDE. Hence, the aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcome of primary closure after LCBDE. This is a retrospective study of 142 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE combined with choledochoscopy for CBD stones. After LCBDE, the choledochotomy was closed by primary closure (group P) in 91 patients (64.1%) and with T-tube drainage (group T) in 51 patients (35.9%). The data on operative outcome and long-term biliary complications were compared between the 2 groups. The mean operation time was significantly shorter in group P than group T (168.9 ± 50.1 min for group P vs. 198.0 ± 59.6 min for group T, P = 0.002). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in group P than in group T (8.59 ± 6.0 d for group P vs. 14.96 ± 5.4 d for group T, P = 0.001). Postoperative bile leak occurred in 2 patients (2.2%) in group P and 1 patient (2.0%) in group T. With a mean follow-up of 48.8 months, the stone recurrence rate in group P and group T were 4.4% and 5.9%, respectively (P = 0.722). During the follow-up period, there was no sign of biliary stricture or other biliary complications in both groups. The long-term follow-up data on primary closure after LCBDE indicated a low incidence of recurrent stones, and no biliary strictures. Thus, primary closure after LCBDE with choledochoscopy is considered to be a safe and effective alternative to T-tube drainage in terms of long-term outcome.

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Primary Closure for Management of Choledocholithiasis: A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison with Conventional T-tube Drainage

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) had become one of the main options for management of choledocholithiasis. This retrospective comparative study aimed to evaluate on the feasibility and advantages of primary closure versus conventional T-tube drainage of the common bile duct (CBD) after laparoscopic choledochotomy. In this retrospective analysis, 100 patients (47 men and 53 women) with choledocholithiasis who underwent primary closure of the CBD (without T-tube drainage) after LCBDE (Group A) were compared with 92 patients who underwent LCBDE with T-tube drainage (Group B). Both groups were evaluated with regard to biliary complications, hospital stay, and recurrence of stones. The mean operation time was 104.12 minutes for Group A and 108.92 minutes for Group B (P = 0.069). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group A than that in Group B (6.95 days and 12.05 days, respectively; P < 0.001). In Group A, bile leakage occurred in two patients on postoperative Day 2 and Day 3, respectively. In Group B, bile leakage noted in one patient after removal of the T-tube on Day 14 after operation (P = 1.000). With a median follow-up time of 40 months for both groups, stone recurrence was noted in two patients in Group A and three patients in Group B (P = 0.672). Primary closure of the CBD is safe and feasible in selected patients after laparoscopic choledochotomy. It results in shorter duration of hospital stay without the need for carrying/care of a T-tube in the postoperative period and similar stone recurrence as that of the conventional method.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

T-tube drainage may prevent bile leak from the biliary tract following bile duct exploration and it offers post-operative access to the bile ducts for visualisation and exploration. Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is controversial. To assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013. We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager (RevMan) Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We included three trials randomising 295 participants: 147 to T-tube drainage versus 148 to primary closure. All trials had a high risk of bias. No one died during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with serious morbidity (17/147 (weighted percentage 11.3%) in the T-tube drainage versus 9/148 (6.1%) in the primary closure group; RR 1.86; 95% CI 0.87 to 3.96; three trials), and no significant difference was found in the serious morbidity rates (weighted serious morbidity rate = 97 events per 1000 patients) in participants randomised to T-tube drainage versus serious morbidity rate = 61 events per 1000 patients in the primary closure group; RR 1.59; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.83; three trials). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 21.22 minutes; 95% CI 12.44 minutes to 30.00 minutes; three trials). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 3.26 days; 95% CI 2.49 days to 4.04 days; three trials). According to one trial, the participants randomised to T-tube drainage returned to work approximately eight days later than the participants randomised to the primary closure group (P < 0.005). T-tube drainage appears to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay as compared with primary closure without any evidence of benefit after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Based on currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias, assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Stones may be removed at the time of cholecystectomy by opening and clearing the common bile duct. The optimal technique is unclear. The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure without biliary stent after open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones. We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013. We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration. Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using Review Manager (RevMan) analyses. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We included six trials randomising 359 participants, 178 to T-tube drainage and 181 to primary closure. All trials were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (4/178 (weighted percentage 1.2%) in the T-tube group versus 1/181 (0.6%) in the primary closure group; RR 2.25; 95% CI 0.55 to 9.25; six trials). There was no significant difference in the serious morbidity rate between the two groups (24/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 145 events per 1000 patients) in the T-tube group versus 9/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 66 events per 1000 patients) in the primary closure group; RaR 2.19; 95% CI 0.98 to 4.91; four trials). Quality of life and return to work were not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 28.90 minutes; 95% CI 17.18 to 40.62 minutes; one trial). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 4.72 days; 95% CI 0.83 days to 8.60 days; five trials). T-tube drainage appeared to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay compared with primary closure without any apparent evidence of benefit on clinically important outcomes after open common bile duct exploration. Based on the currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. T-tube drainage should not be used outside well designed randomised clinical trials. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias and assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects of T-tube drainage, including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

Primary Closure Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined with Intraoperative Cholangiography and Choledochoscopy

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has become one of the main options for treating choledocholithiasis associated with cholelithiasis. Our objective was to assess the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) compared with laparoscopic choledochotomy plus T-tube drainage. We retrospectively studied 137 patients undergoing primary closure following LCBDE (group A) compared with 102 cases with laparoscopic choledochotomy plus T-tube drainage (group B) between January 2007 and January 2010. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) and choledochoscopy were performed in all patients. Three patients in group A (2.2%) were converted to open surgery and two (2.0%) in group B because of serious adherence. According to routine IOC, unexpected CBD stones were found in 16 cases (6.8%). The duration of the operation in group A was shorter than in group B (92.4 ± 15.2 vs. 125.7± 32.6 min, P < 0.05), as was length of postoperative stay (3.1± 2.4 vs. 5.7± 4.3 days, P < 0.05). Postoperative bile leakage occurred in six patients (4.5%) in group A and four cases (4.0%) in group B; all of the patients recovered after simple drainage without reoperation. Bile peritonitis was seen in one case after T-tube removal. The median follow-up was 26 months. There were no recurrences. Laparoscopic primary closure of the CBD is safe and successful for the management of CBD stones. Application of IOC and choledochoscopy to ensure clearance of the CBD and careful suturing are essential for primary closure.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

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. 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. 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. The primary closure might be as effective as T-tube drainage after choledochotomy in the prevention of the development of post-operative complications.

A randomized comparison of primary closure and T-tube drainage of the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy

Traditionally, the common bile duct (CBD) has been closed with T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy and removal of CBD stones. However, insertion of the T-tube is related to some potential postoperative complications, and patients must carry the T-tube for several weeks before its removal. Primary closure of the CBD without drainage has been proposed as a safe alternative to T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy. This randomized study aimed to compare the postoperative course and final outcome between the two methods applied after LCBDE. Between January 2000 and January 2004, 80 patients treated with laparoscopic choledochotomy for CBD stones were randomly assigned to primary duct closure (n = 40) or T-tube drainage (n = 40). The primary end points were morbidity, operative time, postoperative stay, hospital expenses, and time until return to work. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics or clinical presentations between the two groups. In the primary closure group, the postoperative stay (5.2 +/- 2.2 vs 8.3 +/- 3.6 days) and the time until return to work (12.6 +/- 5.1 vs 20.4 +/- 13.2 days) were significantly shorter, the hospital expenses (8,638 +/- 2,946 vs 12,531 +/- 4,352 yuan) were significantly lower, and the incidences of postoperative complications (15% vs 27.5%) and biliary complications (10% vs 20%) were statistically and insignificantly lower than in the T-tube drainage group. In the primary closure group, six patients experienced postoperative complications, four of whom had biliary complications, compared, respectively, with 11 and 8 patients in the T-tube drainage group. This study showed that primary CBC closure after laparoscopic choledochotomy was a viable alternative to mandatory T-tube drainage.

Role of choledochojejunostomy in the treatment of intrahepatic lithiasis

目的 探讨胆肠吻合术在治疗肝胆管结石中的指征和作用.方法回顾分析我院314例不伴有胆管狭窄或囊性病变的肝胆管结石,比较不同胆道引流下的残石率和手术疗效.结果全组无手术死亡,住院死亡率为1.6%.胆肠吻合组和T管引流组术后残石率无差异,但经胆道镜取石后,T管组术后总的残石率显著低于胆肠吻合组(0.5% vs 17.5%,P<0.01).肝切除+T管引流术后胆管炎发生率为8.2%,显著低于肝切除+胆肠吻合术.胆肠吻合组手术时间明显延长,手术并发症高于T管引流组.结论肝切除术+术中或术后胆道镜取石是治疗肝胆管结石最有效的方法.只有同时合并胆道狭窄或囊性扩张的病例,由于要切除病变的胆管,才必须行胆肠吻合术重建胆道引流。

Biliary excretion of aztreonam in patients with biliary tract disease.

The biliary excretion of aztreonam was studied in 10 post-cholecystectomy patients with T-tube biliary drainage (group A) and four other subjects with obstructive biliary tract disease who had recent placement of external biliary drainage (group B). Maximum biliary levels ranged from 9.7 to 88.2 micrograms/ml (mean, 42.9 +/- 7.9 micrograms/ml) and occurred 2.4 h after injection of a single 1-g dose intravenously. Peak biliary levels observed in group B patients were approximately one-third those in group A. Cumulative 12-h biliary excretion (group B) accounted for 0.18 +/- 0.06% of the total dose. In the same period, urinary excretion accounted for 65 to 72% of the total dose. The lower biliary levels of aztreonam observed in group B patients relative to those in group A suggest that in patients with total biliary tract obstruction the liver may not recover full secretory capacity, at least within 3 to 7 days after biliary decompression.

Surgical approaches to recurrent choledocholithiasis: Choledochoduodenostomy versus T-tube drainage after choledochotomy

To assess the value of choledochoduodenostomy versus T-tube drainage to manage patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis, a prospective, randomized study was carried out where under strict criteria of selection, 45 patients underwent choledochoduodenostomy after choledochotomy (Group A), and another 45 patients underwent T-tube drainage (Group B). Results revealed that patients in Group A had low early morbidity (8.8 percent), no mortality, and no reoperations due to recurrent choledocholithiasis. In contrast, in Group B patients there was a mortality of 4.4 percent, an early morbidity of 26.6 percent, and a late recurrence and reoperation rate of 20.9 percent. The difference in those elements between patients in Group A and Group B is considered significant (p <0.05, p <0.001, and p <0.0001, mortality and early and late morbidity, respectively). It is recommended that at least for a proportion of patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis who present with clinical and operative findings similar to those in this study, choledochoduodenostomy has to be considered the method of choice.