Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg.  2021 Nov;25(4):472-476. 10.14701/ahbps.2021.25.4.472.

Economics and safety of continuous and interrupted suture hepaticojejunostomy: An audit of 556 surgeries

• Saxena R
• Ghosh NK
• Galodha S

• KMID: 2523050
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.2021.25.4.472

Abstract

Backgrounds/Aims
Hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) for bilioenteric continuity is generally performed with interrupted sutures. This study compares the safety, economics, short- and long-term outcomes of continuous suture hepaticojejunostomy (CSHJ) and interrupted suture hepaticojejunostomy (ISHJ).
Methods
A retrospective cohort analysis involving all HJs between January 2014 and December 2018 was conducted. Patients with type IV or V biliary strictures, duct diameter < 8 mm and/or associated vascular injury, and liver transplant recipients were excluded. Patient demographics, preoperative parameters including diagnosis, intra-operative parameters including type and number of sutures, suture time, and postoperative morbidity (based on Clavien-Dindo classification) were recorded. Patients were followed up to 60 months. McDonald’s Grade A and B outcomes were considered favorable. Cost according to suture type and number (polydioxanone 3-0/5-0 mean cost, US$ 9.26/length; polyglactin 3-0/4-0 mean cost, US$ 6.56/length), and operation room charge (US$ 67.47/hour) were compared between the two techniques. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS ver. 22 software.
Results
A total of 556 eligible patients (468 patients undergoing ISHJ and 88 undergoing CSHJ; 47% [n = 261] with malignant and 53% [n = 295] with benign pathology) were analyzed. The two groups were similar. Number of sutures, cost, time, and postoperative bile leak were significantly higher in the ISHJ group. Bile leak occurred in 54 patients (6 CSHJ, 48 ISHJ). Septic shock-induced death occurred in 16 cases (3 CSHJ, 13 ISHJ). Morbidity and the anastomotic stricture rates were comparable in both groups.
Conclusions
CSHJ is a safe, economical, and worthy of routine use.

Keyword

Continous suture hepaticojejunostomy; Interrupted suture hepaticojejunostomy; Cost of hepaticojejunostomy; economics; anastomotic time; Hepaticojejunostomy outcome

Reference

1. Kasahara M, Egawa H, Takada Y, Oike F, Sakamoto S, Kiuchi T, et al. 2006; Biliary reconstruction in right lobe living-donor liver transplantation: comparison of different techniques in 321 recipients. Ann Surg. 243:559–566. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000206419.65678.2e. PMID: 16552210. PMCID: PMC1448968.

2. Soejima Y, Taketomi A, Yoshizumi T, Uchiyama H, Harada N, Ijichi H, et al. 2006; Biliary strictures in living donor liver transplantation: incidence, management, and technical evolution. Liver Transpl. 12:979–986. DOI: 10.1002/lt.20740. PMID: 16721777.

3. Castaldo ET, Pinson CW, Feurer ID, Wright JK, Gorden DL, Kelly BS, et al. 2007; Continuous versus interrupted suture for end-to-end biliary anastomosis during liver transplantation gives equal results. Liver Transpl. 13:234–238. DOI: 10.1002/lt.20986. PMID: 17256781.

4. Tsui TY, Schlitt HJ, Obed A. 2011; Prospective evaluation of biliary reconstruction with duct-to-duct continuous suture in adult live donor liver transplantation. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 396:209–215. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-010-0661-y. PMID: 21058040. PMCID: PMC3026930.

5. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. 2004; Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 240:205–213. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. PMID: 15273542. PMCID: PMC1360123.

6. McDonald ML, Farnell MB, Nagorney DM, Ilstrup DM, Kutch JM. 1995; Benign biliary strictures: repair and outcome with a contemporary approach. Surgery. 118:582–590. discussion 590–591. DOI: 10.1016/S0039-6060(05)80022-4. PMID: 7570309.

7. Antolovic D, Koch M, Galindo L, Wolff S, Music E, Kienle P, et al. 2007; Hepaticojejunostomy--analysis of risk factors for postoperative bile leaks and surgical complications. J Gastrointest Surg. 11:555–561. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-007-0166-3. PMID: 17394045.

8. Galodha S, Saxena R. 2016; Economic and safety implications of continuous versus interrupted suturing method of hepaticojejunostomy: a prospective study. HPB (Oxford). 18(Suppl 1):E495. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.03.310.

9. de Castro SM, Kuhlmann KF, Busch OR, van Delden OM, Laméris JS, van Gulik TM, et al. 2005; Incidence and management of biliary leakage after hepaticojejunostomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 9:1163–1171. discussion 1171–1173. DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2005.08.010. PMID: 16269388.

10. Asano T, Natsume S, Senda Y, Sano T, Matsuo K, Kodera Y, et al. 2016; Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic stenosis of continuous hepaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 23:628–635. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.385. PMID: 27474880.

11. Kadaba RS, Bowers KA, Khorsandi S, Hutchins RR, Abraham AT, Sarker SJ, et al. 2017; Complications of biliary-enteric anastomoses. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 99:210–215. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0293. PMID: 27659373. PMCID: PMC5450270.

12. Brunner M, Stockheim J, Krautz C, Raptis D, Kersting S, Weber GF, et al. 2018; Continuous or interrupted suture technique for hepaticojejunostomy? A national survey. BMC Surg. 18:84. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-018-0418-z. PMID: 30309351. PMCID: PMC6182832.

13. Abdel Hamid MAS, Ahmed Rady M, Abd-Elrazik MA. 2020; Interrupted versus continuous suturing techniques in hepaticojejunostomy, a retrospective study. J Am Sci. 16:23–27.