Efficacy prediction of biliary drainage stenting versus primary duct closure alone after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a Bayesian network Meta analysis
10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20200601-00405
- VernacularTitle:贝叶斯网状Meta分析预测腹腔镜胆总管探查术后胆道内支架引流与单纯一期缝合的临床疗效
- Author:
Lei WANG
1
;
Xin HUANG
;
Manjun DENG
;
Hongzhi LIU
;
Ziguo LIN
;
Qizhen HUANG
;
Yongyi ZENG
Author Information
1. 福建医科大学孟超肝胆医院肝胆外科，福州 350025
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery
2020;19(8):849-855
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To predict the efficacy of biliary drainage stenting (BDS) versus primary duct closure (PDC) alone after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)using Bayesian network Meta analysis.Methods:Databases including PubMed, MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang were searched for literatures from January.1st 1990 to January. 31st 2020 with the key words of ( "Choledocholithiasis" OR "common bile duct stone" OR "CBDS" OR "extrahepatic bile duct stone" ) AND ( "laparoscopic common bile duct exploration" OR "LCBDE" ) AND ( "primary duct closure" or "PDC" ) AND ( "T-tube drainage" or "TTD" or "T-tube" ) AND ( "biliary drainage stenting or BDS" ) AND ( "clinical trials" ),胆总管结石,腹腔镜胆总管探查, T管引流,一期缝合,胆道内支架引流. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about comparison of efficacy among BDS, PDC alone and T-tube drainage after LCBDE were received and included. BDS group included patients who underwent BDS after LCBDE, PDC group included patients who underwent PDC alone after LCBDE, and T-tube drainage group included patients who underwent T-tube drainage after LCBDE. The primary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative overall complications, bile leakage and residual stones. GeMTC software was used for Meta analysis in the Rstudio environment. This study was conducted using the random effects model in Bayesian network. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo was used for direct evaluation and indirect prediction. The Brooks-Gelman-Rubing graphing method, tracing method and density plotting were used to evaluate the model convergence. No closed loop formed between intervention measures, so there was no need to evaluate consistency. The matrix of rank probabilities in terms of the outcomes were also calculated.Results:(1) Document retrieval: a total of 12 available RCTs were enrolled. There were 982 patients, including 190 in the BDS group, 296 in the PDC group, and 496 in the T-tube drainage group. (2) Results of Bayesian network meta analysis. ① The BDS group and PDC group had lower overall complication rate than T-tube drainage group [ odds ratio ( OR)=0.21, 0.48, 95% confidence interval ( CI): 0.06-0.52, 0.24-0.87, P<0.05]. There was no significant difference in the indirectly predicted overall complication rate between the BDS group and PDC group ( OR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.12-1.30, P>0.05). ② The BDS group had lower incidence of postoperative bile leakage than T-tube drainage group ( OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.02-0.86, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative bile leakage between the PDC group and T-tube drainage group ( OR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.27-1.70, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the indirectly predicted incidence of postoperative bile leakage between the BDS group and T-tube drainage group ( OR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.03-1.60, P>0.05). ③ T-tube drainage group had no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative residual stones compared with the BDS group and PDC group ( OR=0.58, 1.40, 95% CI: 0.13-2.40, 0.41-5.50, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the indirectly predicted incidence of postoperative residual stones between the BDS group and PDC group ( OR=0.39, 95% CI: 0.05-2.70, P>0.05). (3) Ranking of the incidence of postoperative complication among the three groups: for the BDS group, PDC group, and T-tube drainage group, the probability of ranking the first in the incidence of overall complication was 0.08%, 0.98%, 98.94%, the probability of ranking the second was 6.57%, 92.38%, 1.05%, and the probability of ranking the third was 93.36%, 6.64%, 0.01%, respectively, showing the ranking list as T-tube drainage group >PDC group >BDS group in the incidence of overall complication. The probability of ranking the first in the incidence of postoperative bile leakage was 1.25%, 18.93%, 79.82% for the BDS group, PDC group, and T-tube drainage group, the probability of ranking the second was 6.11%, 74.01%, 19.88%, and the probability of ranking the third was 92.64%, 7.06%, 0.30%, respectively, showing the ranking list as T-tube drainage group >PDC group >BDS group in the incidence of postoperative bile leakage. The probability of ranking the first in the incidence of postoperative residual stones was 10.89%, 67.37%, 21.74% for the BDS group, PDC group, and T-tube drainage group, the probability of ranking the second was 16.09%, 21.09%, 62.82%, and the probability of ranking the third was 73.02%, 11.55%, 15.44%, respectively, showing the ranking list as PDC group >T-tube drainage group >BDS group in the incidence of postoperative residual stones. Conclusions:For patients with appropriate choledocholithiasis, BDS would be recommended first after LCBDE, which can reduce duct closure related complications. This study was registered at http: //www.crd.york.ac.uk/ero/, with the registration number of CRD42019137344.
