Systematic review of cystic duct closure techniques in relation to prevention of bile duct leakage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Table 2 Patient and operative characteristics of included comparative studies

Study, year, country	No. of patients	No. of complicated cases	Failure of technique in intervention group	Operating time	Hospital stay
Harmonic scalpel/ shears vs metal clips
Wills[22], 2013, United States	57 vs 148	NR	3	NR	NR
Wu[26], 2011, China	100 vs 100	0 (exclusion criterium)	NR	Mean in minute (SD) 49.2 (13.8) vs 53.3 (24)	NR
Redwan[13], 2010, Egypt	80 vs 80	NR	NR	Mean in minute (SD) 20 (6.8) vs 45 (6.5)	Mean in days (SD) 1 (0.0) vs 1.5 (0.51)
Kandil[14], 2010, Egypt	70 vs 70	NR	NR	Mean in minute (SD) 33.2 (9.6) vs 51.7 (13.8)	Mean in hours (SD) 23.4 (2.29) vs 267.0 (8.94)
Gelmini[23], 2010, Italy	95 vs 90	28 vs 22	17	Median in minute (range) 60 (20-140) vs 80 (45-130)	Median in days (range) 2 (1-16) vs 2 (1-12)
Bessa[15], 2008, Egypt	60 vs 60	0 (exclusion criterium)	NR	Median in minute (range) 32 (18-75) vs 40 (21-85)	NR
Absorbable vs non-absorbable clips
Yang[21], 2014, China	635 vs 728	545 vs 626	NR	Mean in minute (SD) 41.6 (16.5) vs 58.9 (19.4)	2.6 (0.4) vs 2.7 (0.6)
Locking vs non-locking clips
Matsui[20], 2012, Japan	907 vs 110	85 (unknown in which group)	5	NR	NR per group
Rohatgi[24], 2006, United Kingdom	346 vs 148	NR	2	NR	NR
Yano, 2003, Japan[25]	328 vs 444	8 vs 9	0	Mean in minute (SD) 84.6 (1.6) vs 112.7 (2.3)	Mean in days (SD) 7.9 (0.2) vs 8.0 (0.1)
Other
Singal[19], 2018, India	70 silk ligature vs 70 titanium clips	0 (exclusion criterium)	0	NR	NR in detail (“similar”)
Schulze[17], 2010, Denmark	101 Ligasure vs 113 titanium clips	Only elective surgery	NR	NR	NR
Seenu[16], 2004, India	53 absorbable ligature vs 52 titanium clips	NR	NR	Mean in minute 78 vs 66	NR
Hüscher[18], 2003, Italy	331 harmonic shears vs 130 harmonic shears + endoloop	109 vs 68	NR	Mean in minute 76.8 vs 97.5	Mean in days 4.3 vs 5.1

NR: Not reported.