Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy (CGPC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the treatment of gallstones. MethodsThe databases of CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: FAN Hua, ZHANG Shengjun
Format: Article
Language:zho
Published: Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Hepatology 2015-10-01
Series:Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi
Online Access:http://www.lcgdbzz.org/qk_content.asp?id=6886
id doaj-d566f390976940c9bde49c937d8b5157
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d566f390976940c9bde49c937d8b51572020-11-24T21:37:09ZzhoEditorial Department of Journal of Clinical HepatologyLinchuang Gandanbing Zazhi1001-52561001-52562015-10-0131101665167010.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2015.10.026Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysisFAN Hua 0ZHANG Shengjun1Department of General Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Yan′an University, Yan′an 716000, ChinaDepartment of General Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Yan′an University, Yan′an 716000, ChinaObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy (CGPC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the treatment of gallstones. MethodsThe databases of CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to CGPC and LC in the treatment of gallstones published up to June 2015. Data extraction and quality evaluation were performed for the literature included, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. ResultsFive RCTs involving 685 patients were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that CGPC group and LC group had significant differences in operation time (OR=8.85, 95% CI: 049-17.21, P=0.04) and incidence of postoperative diarrhea (OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.11-0.53, P=0.000 4). However, no significant differences were seen between the two groups in intraoperative bleeding volume (OR=-12.37, 95% CI: -29.73-4.99, P=0.16), time to postoperative intestinal function recovery (OR=-7.19, 95% CI: -24.28-9.90, P=0.41), hospitalization days (OR=-0.17, 95% CI: -1.98-1.63, P=0.85), and hospital costs (OR=-1.14, 95% CI: -2.57-0.28, P=0.12). ConclusionThe operation time and incidence of postoperative diarrhea in CGPC are superior to those in LC, while no significant differences are observed in intraoperative bleeding volume, time to postoperative intestinal function recovery, hospitalization days, and hospital costs. Due to a limited number of articles included and publication bias, RCTs with a large sample size and high quality are needed to provide more effective data. http://www.lcgdbzz.org/qk_content.asp?id=6886
collection DOAJ
language zho
format Article
sources DOAJ
author FAN Hua
ZHANG Shengjun
spellingShingle FAN Hua
ZHANG Shengjun
Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis
Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi
author_facet FAN Hua
ZHANG Shengjun
author_sort FAN Hua
title Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of efficacy between choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treatment of gallstones: a meta-analysis
publisher Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Hepatology
series Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi
issn 1001-5256
1001-5256
publishDate 2015-10-01
description ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of choledochoscopic gallbladder-preserving cholelithotomy (CGPC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the treatment of gallstones. MethodsThe databases of CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to CGPC and LC in the treatment of gallstones published up to June 2015. Data extraction and quality evaluation were performed for the literature included, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. ResultsFive RCTs involving 685 patients were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that CGPC group and LC group had significant differences in operation time (OR=8.85, 95% CI: 049-17.21, P=0.04) and incidence of postoperative diarrhea (OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.11-0.53, P=0.000 4). However, no significant differences were seen between the two groups in intraoperative bleeding volume (OR=-12.37, 95% CI: -29.73-4.99, P=0.16), time to postoperative intestinal function recovery (OR=-7.19, 95% CI: -24.28-9.90, P=0.41), hospitalization days (OR=-0.17, 95% CI: -1.98-1.63, P=0.85), and hospital costs (OR=-1.14, 95% CI: -2.57-0.28, P=0.12). ConclusionThe operation time and incidence of postoperative diarrhea in CGPC are superior to those in LC, while no significant differences are observed in intraoperative bleeding volume, time to postoperative intestinal function recovery, hospitalization days, and hospital costs. Due to a limited number of articles included and publication bias, RCTs with a large sample size and high quality are needed to provide more effective data.
url http://www.lcgdbzz.org/qk_content.asp?id=6886
work_keys_str_mv AT fanhua comparisonofefficacybetweencholedochoscopicgallbladderpreservingcholelithotomyandlaparoscopiccholecystectomyintreatmentofgallstonesametaanalysis
AT zhangshengjun comparisonofefficacybetweencholedochoscopicgallbladderpreservingcholelithotomyandlaparoscopiccholecystectomyintreatmentofgallstonesametaanalysis
_version_ 1725937950099767296