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%) | |||