Colangiopancreatografia retrógrada endoscópica para cálculos no ducto biliar comum: overview de revisões sistemáticas e estudos econômicos / Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct calculi: overview of systematic reviews and economic assessments

Objetivo: Avaliar a eficácia, segurança e custo-efetividade da colangiopancreatografia retrógrada endoscópica (CPRE) comparada à exploração laparoscópica do ducto biliar comum (ELDBC) para coledocolitíase. Métodos: Foi realizada uma busca eletrônica nas bases de dados Medline, The Cochrane Library, Lilacs e Center for Reviews and Dissemination por revisões sistemáticas e estudos econômicos que reportassem dados sobre a comparação entre a CPRE e a ELDBC em pacientes com coledocolitíase. Uma busca complementar foi realizada nas referências dos estudos incluídos, periódicos, resumos de congresso e Google Acadêmico. A seleção foi realizada por dois pesquisadores independentes. Além da síntese qualitativa, uma ressíntese quantitativa para os desfechos primários foi conduzida em Review Manager® 5.3 utilizando um modelo de efeitos randômicos. Resultados: Foram incluídos 15 estudos (9 revisões sistemáticas e 6 estudos econômicos). Não foi demonstrada diferença estatisticamente significativa entre a colecistectomia laparoscópica (CL)+CPRE e a CL+ELDBC em termos de remoção dos cálculos do colédoco (88,5% vs. 92,8%; RR = 0,97, valor-p = 0,08; N = 1.881), morbidade pós-operatória (14,1% vs. 13,8%; RR = 0,98, valor-p = 0,88; N = 1.469), mortalidade (0,8% vs. 0,2%; RR = 2,13, valor-p = 0,33; N = 1.471), cálculos retidos (7,3% vs. 5,8%; RR = 1,17, valor-p = 0,40; N = 1.731), conversão para outros procedimentos (8,7% vs. 6,7%; RR = 1,20, valor-p = 0,55; N = 1.287), duração do procedimento (MD = 10,91, valor-p = 0,61; N = 717) ou tempo de hospitalização (MD = 1,31, valor-p = 0,10; N = 757). A literatura de custo-efetividade é dividida, com alguns estudos favorecendo a CL+CPRE e outros, a CL+ELDBC. Conclusão: Não é possível concluir sobre a superioridade da ELDBC sobre a CPRE ou vice-versa para a remoção de cálculos no colédoco.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) compared to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis. Methods: An electronic search was conducted in the Medline, The Cochrane Library, Lilacs and Center for Reviews and Dissemination databases for systematic reviews and economic studies that reported data on the comparison between ERCP and LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis. A complementary search was conducted on references of included studies, journals, conference abstracts and Google Scholar. The selection was performed by two independent reviewers. In addition to the qualitative synthesis, a quantitative re-synthesis for primary outcomes was conducted in Review Manager® 5.3 using a random effects model. Results: Fifteen studies (9 systematic reviews and 6 economic studies) were included. There was no statistically significant difference between laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)+ERCP and LC+LCBDE in terms of removal of choledochal stones (88.5% vs. 92.8%, RR = 0.97, p-value = 0.08; N = 1,881), morbidity (14.1% vs. 13.8%, RR = 0.98, p-value = 0.88; N = 1,469), mortality (0.8% vs. 0,2%; RR = 2.13, p-value = 0.33, N = 1,471), retained stones (7.3% vs. 5.8%, RR = 1.17, p-value = 0.40; N = 1,731), conversion to other procedures (8.7% vs. 6.7%, RR = 1.20, p-value = 0.55, N = 1,287), duration of the procedure (MD = 10.91, p = 0.61, N = 717) or hospital stay (MD = 1.31, p-value = 0.10, N = 757). The cost-effectiveness literature is divided. Some studies favor LC+ERCP and others LC+LCBDE. Conclusion: It is not possible to conclude on the superiority of the LCBDE on ERCP or vice-versa for choledocholithiasis

Effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for gallstones and common bile duct lithiasis: a systematic overview / Efectividad de la cirugía laparoscópica para colecistolitiasis y coledocolitiasis: revisión global de la evidencia

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the available evidence on the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for treating gallstones and common bile duct lithiasis (CBDL). A systematic overview was performed. Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched (1998-2008). Systematic reviews (SR), clinical practice guidelines (CPG), randomised clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies were included. Internal validity and overall quality of the evidence were assessed. The available evidence was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine proposal. 87 studies were included in this review (12 SR, 23 RCT, 3 CPG, 13 cohort studies, 3 cross-sectional studies, 2 case and control studies and 31 case series). Compared with open cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is associated with shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay and better quality of life (high quality evidence). The use of antibiotic prophylaxis does not appear to reduce the infection rate in low-risk patients (high quality evidence). Although many techniques have been advocated to perform LC their effectiveness is as yet inconclusive (low-quality evidence). Two-stage surgery is the most appropriate strategy for high-risk patients with CBDL (high-quality evidence). Mortality is similar to open surgery, as the effectiveness is similar to that of endoscopic treatment (high-quality evidence). As a conclusion we can state that the evidence concerning the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for gallstones and CBDL is scarce and of low methodological quality and that better quality studies are warranted to assess these techniques more adequately.

El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar la evidencia disponible respecto de la efectividad de la cirugía laparoscópica en el tratamiento de la colelitiasis y la litiasis de la vía biliar (LVBP). Para ello, se realizó una revisión global de la evidencia disponible. Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos MEDLINE, EMBASE y The Cochrane Library (1998-2008). Se incluyeron guías de práctica clínica (GPC), revisiones sistemáticas (RS), ensayos clínicos con asignación aleatoria (EC) y estudios observacionales. Se valoró la validez interna y la calidad global de los estudios. Los datos disponibles y la evidencia generada se clasificaron en base a la propuesta del Centro de Oxford de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia. 87 estudios fueron incluidos en esta revisión (3 GPC, 12 RS, 23 EC, 13 estudios de cohortes, 3 estudios transversales, 2 estudios de casos y de controles y 31 series de casos). En comparación con la colecistectomía abierta, la colecistectomía laparoscópica (CL) se asocia con menor tiempo operatorio y estancia hospitalaria y mejor calidad de vida (evidencia de alta calidad). El uso de profilaxis antibiótica no parece reducir la tasa de infección en pacientes de bajo riesgo (evidencia de alta calidad). Aunque se han descrito numerosas técnicas para realizar una CL, su eficacia no es aún concluyente (evidencia de baja calidad). La cirugía en dos etapas es la estrategia más adecuada para los pacientes de alto riesgo con LVBP (evidencia de alta calidad). La mortalidad del tratamiento laparoscópico de la LVBP es similar a la de la cirugía abierta; y como su eficacia es similar a la del tratamiento endoscópico (evidencia de alta calidad). Se puede concluir señalando que la evidencia disponible respecto de la efectividad de la cirugía laparoscópica para el tratamiento de la colelitiasis y la LVBP es escasa y de baja calidad metodológica; y que se requieren estudios de mejor calidad para valorar de forma más apropiada estas técnicas.