Continuous vs. interrupted suturing in hepaticojejunostomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) is a crucial reconstructive step in upper gastrointestinal (UGI), pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), and Hepaticobiliarypancreatic (HBP) surgeries. The optimal suturing technique remains debated, with conflicting evidence regarding operative efficiency, costs, and complications. This meta-analysis compares continuous and interrupted suturing to provide evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were anastomotic time and costs, while secondary outcomes included bile leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, cholangitis, hospital stay, and re-exploration rates. A random or fixed-effects model was applied based on heterogeneity. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized cohort studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and MINORS instrument as appropriate. Additionally, the quality of evidence for each outcome was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out method. RESULTS: Seven studies (1,159 patients) were included (continuous: 388, interrupted: 771). Continuous suturing significantly reduced anastomotic time (MD = -13.06 min, 95% CI: -17.37 to -8.75, P < 0.001) and costs (SMD = -4.89, 95% CI: -6.10 to -3.67, P < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed in bile leakage, anastomotic stricture, morbidity, cholangitis, hospital stay, or re-exploration rates (P > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Continuous suturing reduces anastomotic time by ~ 13 min and costs by ~ $90 without increasing complications. While these differences may be statistically significant, their clinical relevance can vary depending on the surgical context. Surgical choice should consider surgeon expertise, institutional protocols, and patient factors. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate these findings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.