Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus T-tube

Abstract Background Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is now one of the main methods for treating choledocholithiasis accompanied with cholelithiasis. The objective of our study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic primary closure for the treatment of common bil...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of surgical research 2014-06, Vol.189 (2), p.249-254
Main Authors: Dong, Zhi-Tao, MD, Wu, Guo-Zhong, MD, Luo, Kun-lun, MD, Li, Jie-Ming, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Choledochotomy
Common bile duct exploration
Drainage - instrumentation
Female
Gallstones - surgery
Humans
Laparoscopic
Laparoscopy - methods
Male
Middle Aged
Primary closure
Prospective Studies
Surgery
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is now one of the main methods for treating choledocholithiasis accompanied with cholelithiasis. The objective of our study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic primary closure for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones compared with T-tube drainage. Methods Patients who underwent CBD stones were studied prospectively from 2002–2012 in a single center. A total of 194 patients were randomly assigned to group A (LCBDE with primary closure) with 101 cases and group B (LCBDE with T-tube drainage) with 93 cases. Intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy were performed in all patients. Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, postoperative stay, complications, and hospital expenses were recorded and analyzed. Results There was no mortality in the two groups. Four patients (3.96%) of group A were converted to open surgery, and three patients (3.23%) in group B. The mean operating time was much shorter in group A than in group B (102.6 ± 15.2 min versus 128.6 ± 20.4 min, P  
ISSN:0022-4804
1095-8673
DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.055