Skip to main content

Table 3 Techniques of hepaticojejunostomy; HJ = hepaticojejunostomies

From: Continuous or interrupted suture technique for hepaticojejunostomy? A national survey

  All (n = 76) University hospitals (n = 24) Other hospitals (n = 52) p-value Hospitals with < 54 HJ/year (n = 38) Hospitals with ≥54 HJ/Jahr (n = 39) p-value
Technique used Interrupted suture technique 24 (31%) 10 (40%) 14 (27%) 0,620 11 (29%) 13 (33%) 0,833
Continuous suture technique 7 (9%) 1 (4%) 6 (12%) 3 (8%) 4 (10%)
Interrupted + continuous suture technique 43 (56%) 13 (52%) 30 (58%) 23 (61%) 20 (51%)
Combination of interrupted and continuous suture technique 3 (4%) 1 (4%) 2 (4%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%)
Technique used in cases of S + C (%) [range] Interrupted suture technique 48 [5–95] 49 [10–90] 48 [5–95] 1,000 47 [5–95] 49 [5–90] 1,000
Continuous suture technique 52 [5–95] 51 [10–90] 52 [5–95] 53 [5–95] 51 [10–95]
Decision criteria for the choice of technique (in cases of I + C)* Bile duct diameter 41 (95%) 12 (92%) 29 (97%)   22 (96%) 19 (95%)  
Bile duct wall thickness 16 (37%) 6 (46%) 10 (33%) 8 (35%) 8 (40%)
Other reason 11 (26%) 6 (46%) 5 (17%) 3 (17%) 7 (35%)
Suture material used* Monofilament suture 76 (100%) 24 (100%) 52 (100%) < 0,001 38 (100%) 39 (100%) 0,052
Absorbable suture 76 (100%) 24 (100%) 52 (100%) 38 (100%) 39 (100%)
Strength 3.0 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%)
Strength 4.0 26 (34%) 4 (16%) 22 (42%) 15 (39%) 11 (28%)
Strength 5.0 60 (78%) 23 (92%) 37 (71%) 25 (66%) 35 (90%)
Strength 6.0 17 (22%) 13 (52%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 14 (36%)
  1. *Multiple answers possible