Abstract: We included three trials randomising 295 participants: 147 to T-tube drainage versus 148 to primary closure. All trials had a high risk of bias. No one died during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with serious morbidity (17/147 (weighted percentage 11.3%) in the T-tube drainage versus 9/148 (6.1%) in the primary closure group; RR 1.86; 95% CI 0.87 to 3.96; three trials), and no significant difference was found in the serious morbidity rates (weighted serious morbidity rate = 97 events per 1000 patients) in participants randomised to T-tube drainage versus serious morbidity rate = 61 events per 1000 patients in the primary closure group; RR 1.59; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.83; three trials). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 21.22 minutes; 95% CI 12.44 minutes to 30.00 minutes; three trials). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 3.26 days; 95% CI 2.49 days to 4.04 days; three trials). According to one trial, the participants randomised to T-tube drainage returned to work approximately eight days later than the participants randomised to the primary closure group (P < 0.005). T-tube drainage appears to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay as compared with primary closure without any evidence of benefit after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Based on currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias, assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

Plain-language summary: We identified a total of three trials including 295 participants, of whom 148 were randomly chosen to receive primary closure and the remaining patients had T-tube drainage after laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct. All three trials were at high risk of bias (risk of underestimating or overestimating the benefits and harms of the intervention). There were no deaths in either group. There was no significant difference in the serious complication rate (approximately 97 complications per 1000 patients in the T-tube group versus 61 complications per 1000 participants in the primary closure group) or in the proportion of participants who developed serious complications (11.3% in the T-tube group versus 6.2% in the primary closure group). Although the complication rates in the T-tube group appear to be twice as high as those in the primary closure group, there is a possibility that this was not a true observation but rather a difference that occurred by chance (similar to there being one chance in eight of flipping a coin and having it come up heads or tails four times in a row). For this reason, we cannot be sufficiently confident scientifically that these differences were not just due to chance and that is the reason why we have stated that there was no 'significant' difference. Of course, if such a difference truly exists, it would be clinically important. None of the trials reported the quality of life of the participants. The average operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube group than in the primary closure group (by about 20 minutes). The average hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube group than in the primary closure group (by about three days). Participants returned to work significantly later in the T-tube group than primary closure group (by about eight days). Use of T-tube appears to increase the cost without providing any benefit to the patients. Further randomised trials with low risk of bias (low chance of arriving at wrong conclusions because of prejudice by healthcare providers, researchers, or patients) with longer follow-up period are necessary. Until the results from such trials are available, we discourage the routine use of T-tube after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.