Search

Background: Both one-stage [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)] and two-stage [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by sequential LC] approaches are effective treatment for concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstone. Although many studies compared one-stage with two-stage surgical approach for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, there are very few studies compared the two management strategies for acute cholecystitis (AC) associated with CBD stones. Methods: Between January 2014 and December 2019, patients with concomitant AC and CBD stones proposed to early surgery were retrospectively studied. The patients were scheduled to undergo either the one-stage [LCBDE and LC (LCBDE+LC) were undertaken at the same operation] or two-stage [preoperative ERCP for CBD stone clearance was followed by LC 1–3 days later (pre-ERCP+LC)] procedure. The success rate of complete stone clearance, procedure-related complication, hospital stay, hospitalization charges and later biliary complications were compared between the two groups. Results: Sixty patients were included in the study, 28 in the one-stage group and 32 in the two-stage group. There was no significant difference in the success rate of complete stone clearance (96.4% vs. 93.8%, P = 1.000), complication rate (10.7% vs. 9.4%, P = 1.000), incidence of pancreatitis (0 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.494) or length of hospital stay (12 ± 5 vs. 11 ± 4 days, P = 0.393) between the two groups. Conclusion: For patients with concomitant AC and choledocholithiasis proposed to early surgery, both the one-stage (LCBDE+LC) and two-stage (pre-ERCP+LC) approaches were acceptable and broadly comparable in achieving clearance of CBD stones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have indicated that bariatric surgery in nonseverely obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) less than 35 kg/m2 might be even superior to medical therapy with regard to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission, but the efficacy of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in nonseverely obese patients has not been conclusively determined. The objective of this study is to compare LRYGB versus LSG for T2DM in nonseverely obese patients. Methods: A meta-analysis identifying RCTs evaluating LRYGB versus LSG for T2DM in nonseverely obese patients was conducted. The primary outcome was T2DM remission. Additional analyses comprised percent excess weight loss (%EWL), BMI, waist circumference, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), serum lipid level, medication use, quality of life, and adverse events. Results: Four RCTs concerning total 296 patients were included. T2DM remission rate and %EWL were of no difference between the two bariatric procedures. LRYGB was associated with lower BMI, waist circumference, low-density lipoprotein, and higher high-density lipoprotein than LSG. However, HbA1c, FPG, total cholesterol, and triglyceride were not significantly different between the two surgical groups. The medication use and quality of life were improved in both two groups. The gastroesophageal reflux diseases of LRYGB group were less than that of LSG group. Dumping syndromes were noted more frequently in the LRYGB group. Conclusions: Both LRYGB and LSG have comparative effect on resolving T2DM in nonseverely obese patients at midterm follow-up. Further RCTs should address the potential risks and long-term effects of LRYGB and LSG in nonseverely obese patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]