Colangiopancreatografia retrógrada endoscópica para cálculos no ducto biliar comum: overview de revisões sistemáticas e estudos econômicos

• Autor(a) principal: Andre Soares Santos
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Ananda Jessyla Felix Oliveira, José Luiz Dos Santos Nogueira, Kenya Valeria Micaela de Souza Noronha, Monica Viegas Andrade
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFMG
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/55759
• topic: Ducto colédoco; Cirurgia; Laparoscopia; Colangiopancreatografia retrógrada endoscópica; Revisão; Cálculos biliares; Laparoscopia; Cirurgia

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.