Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct: lessons learned from 129 consecutive cases

The "Basket-in-Catheter" technique: facilitating transcystic bile duct exploration and optimising the management of suspected ductal stones

The 'Basket-in-Catheter' (BIC) technique facilitates basket-only laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE), increasing its success rate. Using the cholangiography catheter as a sheath is easier and safer than inserting the wire basket-alone. This study evaluates its benefits in confirmed and suspected ductal stones. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients with pre-operative or operative suspicion of bile duct stones or with positive and equivocal intraoperative cholangiographies (IOC) who had LTCE attempted using blind basket trawling, without choledochoscopy, were reviewed. The incidence and outcomes of blind basket LTCEs attempted before and after introducing the BIC technique, whether or not stones were retrieved, were analysed. Blind basket LTCE was attempted in 732 patients. Of 377 (51.5%) patients undergoing successful stone retrieval, only 62% had pre-operative clinical and radiological risk factors for ductal stones, 25% had operative risk factors and 13% had silent stones discovered on IOC. Another 355 patients (48.5%) had negative trawling, although one half had pre-operative risk factors for ductal stones and 47.6% had operative risk factors, e.g. cystic duct stones or dilatation. This cohort had equivocal cholangiography in 25.9%. Following basket trawling, repeat IOC confirmed resolution of abnormalities. As no stones were retrieved, these were not considered duct explorations. The BIC technique facilitates safe and speedy bile duct clearance when stones are confirmed, avoiding choledochotomies, without significant complications. BIC duct trawling is also beneficial in patients with suspected ductal stones, helping to resolve equivocal IOCs. It helps surgeons to acquire and consolidate ductal exploration skills.

Should Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis Be a Specialist-Only Procedure?

Background: Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is performed uncommonly. Issues surrounding its uptake in the laparoscopic era include perceived difficulty and lack of training. We aim to determine the success of CBDE performed by "specialist" and "nonspecialist" common bile duct (CBD) surgeons to determine whether there is a substantial difference in success and safety. Methods: A 10-year retrospective audit was performed of patients undergoing CBD exploration for choledocholithiasis. Northern Health maintains an on-call available "specialist" CBD surgeon roster to aid with CBDE. Results: Five hundred fifty-one patients were identified, of which 489/551 (88.7%) patients had stones successfully cleared. Specialists had a higher success rate (90.8% versus 82.6%, P = .008), associated with a longer surgical time. Method (transcystic or transductal), approach (laparoscopic or open), and indication for operation were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in complications. To be confident of a surgeon having an 80% success rate, 70 procedures over 10 years were required, however, an "in-control" 50% success rate may only require 1 procedure per year. Conclusion: While specialist CBDE surgeons have improved success rates, nonspecialist general surgeons also have a good and comparable success rate with an equivalent complication rate. With realistic annual targets, nonspecialist CBD surgeons should be encouraged to perform CBDE in centers without specialist support.

Factors That Predict the Success of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis: A 10-Year Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) can be performed to treat choledocholithiasis at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to identify factors that predict the success of LCBDE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective audit was performed on patients who underwent LCBDE for the management of choledocholithiasis at Northern Health between 2008 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 513 patients were identified with an overall success rate of 90.8%. Most LCBDE were done through a transcystic approach with the remainder through a choledochotomy. When comparing patients with a successful operation to those that were unsuccessful, univariate analysis demonstrated significant differences in preoperative white cell count and number of duct stones found. Age and elevated nonbilirubin liver function tests were found to be significant factors associated with the failure of LCBDE on multivariate analysis. The likelihood of a failed operation in those with multiple stones was observed to be almost halved compared with patients with single stone although this did not reach significance [odds ratio (OR): 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-1.01, P=0.055]. Multivariate analysis indicated that unsuccessful procedures (OR: 10.13, 95% CI: 4.34-23.65, P<0.001) and multiple duct stones (OR: 3.79, 95% CI: 1.66-8.67, P=0.002) were associated with an increased risk of severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A single impacted stone may be more difficult to remove, however complications were more likely to be associated with multiple duct stones. With no other clinically relevant predictive factors, and because of the high success of the procedure and the low morbidity, LCBDE remains an option for all patients with choledocholithiasis.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Common Bile Duct Exploration: Analysis of the NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is an available option in the management of choledocholithiasis. We aimed to analyze outcomes comparing laparoscopic and open approaches to CBDE using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP database.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing CBDE between 2008 and 2013, using the ACS NSQIP database. The cohort was split into 2 groups and compared based on operative approach: laparoscopic vs open CBDE.

RESULTS

There were 2,635 patients who underwent CBDE during the study period, and 52% underwent an open approach. After adjusting for all confounding variables, open CBDE was associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.95; 95% CI 1.18 to 7.41; p = 0.02), composite morbidity (AOR 2.19; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.07; p < 0.0001), bleeding (AOR 1.86; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.12; p = 0.02), return to the operation room (AOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.12; p = 0.01), and readmission related to the first operation (AOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.39; p = 0.05). On the other hand, retained common bile duct stones were 2.8 times more likely to occur in the laparoscopic group. The mean operative time was longer by 73 minutes for patients who underwent open CBDE.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing open CBDE suffer from a statistically significantly higher rate of mortality and overall complications compared with patients undergoing the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic CBDE should be considered as the preferred procedure whenever possible.

Laparoscopic Bile Duct Clearance Without Choledochoscopy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been proven to be a safe, efficient, and cost-effective option for the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. There are two guiding methods during LCBDE: fluoroscopic or choledochoscopic. Most surgeons prefer the use of flexible choledochoscopy at LCBDE, but it is a fragile, delicate, and expensive instrument. The aim of this work was to report our experience in fluoroscopically guided LCBDE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent LCBDE in the Mansoura Gastroenterology surgical center between March 2007 and September 2014 was performed. Patients with gallstones and concomitant CBD stones were included. After the initial assessment, all patients fulfilling the criteria of enrollment underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and only patients with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography evidence of CBD stones were included. Choledochoscopy was not used in any patient, and we depended on fluoroscopic guidance for CBD stone retrieval in all LCBDE.

RESULTS

A total of 290 patients were assessed for LCBDE: 76 patients were excluded; 11 patients were not completed laparoscopically due to negative intraoperative cholangiography (n=7) and conversion to laparotomy (n=4); the remaining 203 patients were analyzed. LCBDE failed in 16 of the 203 (7.9%) cases, with a success rate of 92.1%. The median operative time was 79 minutes, and the median hospital stay was 2.4 days. Complications were bile leakage (n=4), mild pancreatitis (n=2), wound infection (n=2), port hernia (n=1), and internal hemorrhage (n=1).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with published studies using choledochoscopy at LCBDE, we found comparable results in terms of the success/failure rate, the morbidity and mortality, the operative time, and the length of hospital stay. LCBDE under fluoroscopic guidance may be as safe and efficient as with choledochoscopic guidance.

Usefulness of early post-operative liver function test monitoring after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

This study examines the usefulness of early post-operative liver function test (LFT) monitoring in predicting retained choledocholithiasis after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

METHODS

Data on patients who had LCBDE over a 3-year period were collected retrospectively. Patients who had ongoing choledocholithiasis after unsuccessful LCBDE were considered for the test group and patients who had successful LCBDE were considered for the control group. Preoperative, day 1 post-operative and day 2 post-operative alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), alanine transaminase (ALT) and bilirubin levels were recorded. Proportions of patients who had worsening LFTs were analysed in each group.

RESULTS

Proportions of patient who had worsening LFTs on day 1 were not statistically different between two groups and they were statistically equal on equivalence testing (two one-sided tests). On day 2, proportions of patient were again not statistically different. Bilirubin and ALT were statistically equivalent (P = 0.022 and P = 0.025 respectively) but GGT and ALP failed to achieve statistical equivalence (P = 0.062 and P = 0.138 respectively) on day 2. Twelve patients with normal appearing final intraoperative cholangiogram needed reintervention due to retained choledocholithiasis diagnosed subsequently. LFTs progressively improved despite presence of choledocholithiasis in eight of these 12 patients (75%) and only four were diagnosed by worsening post-operative LFTs during index admission.

CONCLUSION

LFTs in the early post-operative period are not useful in determining which patients require biliary imaging or intervention after an apparently successful LCBDE.

Surgery for common bile duct stones--a lost surgical skill; still worthwhile in the minimally invasive century?

PURPOSE

Techniques of laparoscopic bile duct exploration have been reported for over 20 years. Despite the simplicity and success of these procedures, they have failed to become commonplace in most surgical departments, as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become the preferred method for dealing with bile duct stones. There is a risk of surgeons not obtaining or losing these skills, which may still be required as a definitive treatment when ERCP fails or is not available.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This paper describes these laparoscopic operations, which can be performed to enable a 'one-stop shop' treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) at the time of cholecystectomy. In particular, transcystic basket clearance of the bile duct is possible in two-thirds of cases with very little increase in morbidity compared to routine cholecystectomy. The selection of patients who are most likely to be successfully treated with this technique is defined. Some of the authors have published large study series and prospective randomised trials, further refining the choices available to the surgeon who, when performing operative cholangiography, is already halfway to bile duct exploration.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery may reclaim this lost ground by offering an excellent and safe therapeutic option for many of the symptomatic CBDS.

Comparison between intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy for ductal clearance in laparoscopic CBD exploration: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is an accepted treatment modality for single stage management of CBD stones in fit patients. A transcholedochal approach is preferred in patients with a dilated CBD and large impacted stones in whom ductal clearance remains problematic. There are very few studies comparing intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) with choledochoscopy to determine ductal clearance in patients undergoing transcholedochal LCBDE. This series represents the first of those comparing the two from Asia.

METHODS

Between April 2009 and October 2012, 150 consecutive patients with CBD stones were enrolled in a prospective randomized study to undergo transcholedochal LCBDE on an intent-to-treat basis. Patients with CBD diameter of less than 9 mm on preoperative imaging were excluded from the study. Out of the 132 eligible patients, 65 patients underwent IOC (Group A), and 67 patients underwent intraoperative choledochoscopy (Group B) to determine CBD clearance.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the two groups in the demographic profile and the preoperative biochemical findings. There was no conversion to open procedures, and complete stone clearance was achieved in all the 132 cases. The mean CBD diameter and the mean number of CBD stones removed were comparable between the two groups. Mean operating time was 170 min in Group A and 140 min in Group B (p < 0.001). There was no difference in complications between the two groups. Nine patients in Group A (13.8%) showed non-passage of contrast into the duodenum on IOC which resolved after administration of i.v. glucagon, suggesting a transient spasm of sphincter of Oddi. Two patients (3%) showed a false-positive result on IOC which had to be resolved with choledochoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that intraoperative choledochoscopy is better than IOC for determining ductal clearance after transcholedochal LCBDE and is less cumbersome and less time-consuming.

Endoscopic or laparoscopic approach for hepatolithiasis in the era of endoscopy in China

BACKGROUND

Many endoscopic procedures have been used to treat hepatolithiasis, including as laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), laparoscopic intrahepatic duct exploration (LIDE), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, long-term results of such treatments are rarely reported. The series aimed to evaluate the immediate outcomes and long-term results of these treatments and their optimal indications.

METHODS

From January 2002 to April 2010, a total of 124 continuous patients with hepatolithiasis were primarily treated with endoscopic surgery, including LH (LH group, n = 37), LIDE (LIDE group n = 41), and ERCP (ERCP group, n = 46) at our two institutes. These cases were retrospectively reviewed. The patients' demographic variables, operative outcomes, complete clearance rate, and cholangitis recurrence rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

Complete stone clearance was achieved in 94.6 % of LH, 78.0 % of LIDE, and 67.4 % of ERCP patients. After a median follow-up period of 5.0 years (rang 2-8 years), we observed stone recurrence in 26.6 % (33/124) of patients and recurrent cholangitis in 24.2 % (30/124) of patients. Stricture, stones in both lobes, and non-hepatectomy treatments were significant risk factors for incomplete stone clearance on multivariate analysis. In addition, recurrent cholangitis was associated with non-hepatectomy therapy, Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, residual stones, and intrahepatic bile strictures.

CONCLUSION

In this study with 2-8 years of follow-up, residual stones, biliary stricture, Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and ERCP therapy were associated with recurrent stones and/or cholangitis after treatment, indicating that the modification of Sphincter of Oddi function and maintaining its normal pressure are very important.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

A randomized trial comparing the use of endobiliary stent and T-tube for biliary decompression after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

PURPOSE

To compare the use of a biliary stent with T-tube for biliary decompression after laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration.

METHODS

Between September 2004 and March 2008, 60 patients undergoing laparoscopic CBD exploration for CBD stones were randomized to choledochotomy closure over either a biliary stent or a T-tube after CBD clearance. Patients at high risk for surgery and unremitting cholangitis requiring preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 29 and 31 patients in the T-tube and stenting groups, respectively. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to their demographic profile and disease characteristics. Patients in the stent group had a significantly shorter operative time and postoperative stay with an earlier return to normal activity (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Choledochotomy closure over a stent results in a shorter postoperative stay and an earlier return to normal activity compared with closure over a T-tube without any increase in morbidity.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous upper abdominal operations

Backgrounds/Aims

We aimed to to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on data from the attempted laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in 44 patients. Among them, 5 patients with previous lower abdominal operation were excluded. 39 patients were divided into two groups according to presence of previous upper abdominal operation; Group A: patients without history of abdominal operation. (n=27), Group B: patients with history of upper abdominal operation. Both groups (n=12) were compared to each other, with respect to clinical characteristics, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, open conversion rate, postoperative complication, duct clearance and mortality.

Results

All of the 39 patients received laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and choledochotomy with T-tube drainage (n=38 [97.4%]) or with primary closure (n=1). These two groups were not statistically different in gender, mean age and presence of co-morbidity, mean operation time (164.5±63.1 min in group A and 134.8±45.2 min in group B, p=0.18) and postoperative hospital stay (12.6±5.7 days in group A and 9.8±2.9 days in group B, p=0.158). Duct clearance and complication rates were comparable (p>0.05). 4 cases were converted to open in group A and 1 case in group B respectively. In group A (4 of 27 (14.8%) and 1 of 12 (8.3%) in group B, p=0.312) Trocar or Veress needle related complication did not occur in either group.

Conclusions

LCBDE appears to be a safe and effective treatment even in the patients with previous upper abdominal operation if performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeon, and it can be the best alternative to failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for difficult cholelithiasis.

Management of common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era

There is no consensus regarding the ideal management of concurrent gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones. Currently the treatment protocol involves most commonly a sequential approach consisting of endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy or a single stage laparoscopic procedure, including cholecystectomy and exploration of the CBD. For this article literature search was performed using online search engines, Google, Pubmed, the online Springer link library and the Cochrane Database Systematic Review. Review articles, prospective and retrospective studies which detailed or compared the various treatment strategies for CBD stones were selected and analyzed. This review article aims to provide an insight into the optimal management of CBD stones in different clinical scenarios. Endoscopic sphincterotomy has inherent morbidity and complications like CBD stone recurrence whereas laparoscopic CBD exploration demands considerable expertise which is available only at specialized centres. The clinical presentation of the patient, number of stones, size of CBD, available resources and technical expertise at hand are an important consideration for the ideal management in different scenarios.

Spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones in jaundiced patients

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are known to pass spontaneously in a significant number of patients. This study investigated the rate of spontaneous CBD stones passage in a series of patients presenting with jaundice due to gallstones. The patients were managed surgically, allowing CBD intervention to be avoided in the event of spontaneous passage of CBD stones.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of patients presenting with jaundice due to CBD stones, and managed surgically with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intra-operative cholangiogram with or without CBD exploration.

RESULTS

The jaundice settled pre-operatively in 76/108 patients, and in 60/108 the CBD stones had passed spontaneously by the time of surgery. These 60 patients avoided any intervention to their CBD.

CONCLUSIONS

CBD stones pass spontaneously in more than half of jaundiced patients. Surgical management (laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intra-operative cholangiogram, with willingness to perform CBD exploration if positive) allows the avoidance of CBD intervention in these patients.

Laparoscopic management of CBD stones: an Indian experience

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) that are seen in the Asian population are very different from those seen in the west. It is not infrequent to see multiple, large, and impacted stones and a hugely dilated CBD. Many of these patients have been managed by open CBD exploration (OCBDE), even after the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), because these large stones pose significant challenges for extraction by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. This series presents the largest experience of managing CBDS using a laparoscopic approach from Indian subcontinent.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2009, 150 patients with documented CBDS were treated laparoscopically at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi. Of these, 4 patients were managed through transcystic route and 140 through the transcholedochal route.

RESULTS

There were 34 men and 116 women patients with age ranging from 15 to 72 years. The mean size of the CBD on ultrasound was 11.7 ± 3.7 mm and on MRCP 13.8 ± 4.7 mm. The number of stones extracted varied from 1 to 70 and the size of the extracted stones from 5 to 30 mm. The average duration of surgery was 139.9 ± 26.3 min and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 103.4 ± 85.9 ml. There were 6 conversions to open procedures, 1 postoperative death (0.7%), and 23 patients (15%) had nonfatal postoperative complications. Three patients had retained stones (2%) and one developed recurrent stone (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with multiple, large, and impacted CBDS, there is scope for a minimally invasive procedure with its attendant benefits in the form of laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE).

Is the use of T-tube necessary after laparoscopic choledochotomy?

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the common bile duct (CBD) is closed with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy and removal of CBD stones. However, the insertion of a T-tube is not without complication.

AIM OF WORK

This randomized study was designed to compare the use of T-tube and primary closure of choledochotomy after laparoscopic choledochotomy to determine whether primary closure can be as safe as closure with T-tube drainage.

METHODS

Between February 2006 and June 2009, 122 consecutive patients with proven choledocholithiasis had laparoscopic choledochotomy. They were randomized into two equal groups: T-tube (n = 61) and primary closure (n = 61). Demographic data, intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, and postoperative stay were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in both groups. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics or clinical presentations between the two groups. Compared with the T-tube group, the operative time and postoperative stay were significantly shorter and the incidences of overall postoperative complications and biliary complications were statistically and significantly lower in the primary closure group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure without external drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy is feasible, safe, and cost-effective. After verification of ductal clearance, the CBD could be closed primarily without T-tube insertion.

A randomized, clinical trial to compare endoscopic sphincterotomy and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with primary laparoscopic bile duct exploration during cholecystectomy in higher risk patients with choledocholithiasis

INTRODUCTION

Outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) versus laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) during LC are comparable in fit patients with choledocholithiasis. This randomized, clinical trial aimed to determine the optimum treatment in patients with higher medical risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-one higher risk patients with evidence of bile duct stones were randomized to ES/LC (group A) or LBDE during LC (group B). The primary outcome measure was duct clearance. Secondary outcome measures were complications, number of procedures per patient, conversion, and postoperative hospital stay (POS).

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were randomized to ES/LC and 44 to LBDE. The median age was 74.56 years. On an intention-to-treat basis, duct clearance was achieved in 29 of 47 of group A and 44 of 44 of Group B patients (P < 0.001). Clavien Grade II-V complications occurred in 8 of 47 and 8 of 44 patients (P = 0.884), the median number of procedures was 2 (2-3) and 1 (1-1) (P < 0.001), 2 of 47 and 4 of 44 patients required conversion (P = 0.676), and the median POS was 3 (2-7) and 5 (2-7) days (P = 0.825), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference between approaches to duct clearance in terms of postoperative stay, complications, or conversion in higher risk patients, but the laparoscopic approach was more effective and efficient and avoided unnecessary procedures.

Single-step treatment of gall bladder and bile duct stones: a combined endoscopic-laparoscopic technique

INTRODUCTION

The advent of endoscopic techniques changed surgery in many regards. In the management of cholelithiasis; laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is today the treatment of choice. This has created a dilemma in the management of choledocholithiasis. Today a number of options exist, including endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) before LC in patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) by the transcystic approach or laparoscopic choledocotomy, open CBD exploration and postoperative ERCP. A major concern regarding both pre- and postoperative extraction of CBD stones (CBDS) by the ERCP is the risk of development of pancreatitis, also more than 10% of the preoperative ERCP is normal. More recently the alternative technique of combined LC with intraoperative ERCP and ES is emerging in an attempt to manage cholecysto-choledocholithiasis in a single-step procedure.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work was to assess the treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) in a one-stage operation by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC+IO-ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was carried out on 45 patients with gall bladder stones and with suspected or confirmed CBDS at the Gastrointestinal Surgery Unit in the Main Alexandria University Hospital. They were treated by a single-step procedure combining LC and IO-ERCP. Laparoscopic intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) was carried out to confirm the presence of CBDS. A soft-tipped guide-wire was passed through the cystic duct and papilla into the duodenum. A papillotome was inserted endoscopically over the guide-wire. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed and the stones were extracted with a retrieval balloon or with a Dormia basket. The surgical operating time, surgical success rate, postoperative complications, retained CBDS, and postoperative length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 30 females and 15 males. Their mean age was 45.07+11.3 years (ranging from 27 to 65 years). Twenty-seven patients had confirmed CBDS by preoperative ultrasound (US) and/or MRCP. Eighteen patients were suspected for CBDS on clinical, laboratory and/or US basis. Conversion to open cholecystectomy occurred in one case due to severe adhesions at the Calot's triangle. IOC revealed the presence of CBDS in 36 patients. IO-ERCP with ES was performed successfully in 33 patients and stones were extracted endoscopically. Passage of the guide-wire through the papilla failed in three patients. Cholecystectomy was completed laparoscopically in 44 patients. The mean operative time was 119+14.4 min (ranging from 100 to 150 min). Minor postoperative complications occurred in 15 patients. No postoperative complications related to the procedure, i.e., pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, were encountered. Patients regained their bowel motion on the next day and were discharged after a mean hospital stay of 2.55+0.89 days. None of the patients presented on the postoperative follow-up with symptoms, signs, laboratory or radiological evidence of retained CBDS. The mean duration of the postoperative follow-up was 9+4.07 months (ranging from 3 to 14 months).

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that LC+IO-ERCP for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is a safe and aneffective technique with a low rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It offers another alternative for surgeons especially those who do not practice LCBDE to treat patients in a single setting. However, additional studies with larger patient populations are needed keeping in mind that the limiting characteristic is the proximity and availability of the endoscopic settings.

Liver test patterns in patients with acute calculous cholecystitis and/or choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Liver tests are utilized to determine the presence of biliary obstruction.

AIM

To examine our hypothesis that liver tests aid in elucidating whether patients have simple calculous cholecystitis (ACC) or choledocholithiasis (CDL).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients admitted to two University of Texas Southwestern teaching hospitals with a clinical picture consistent with 'acute gallstone disease', i.e. cholecystitis +/- choledocolithiasis. The presence of ACC and CDL was based on defined clinical criteria.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 154 patients meeting specific entry criteria, primarily with right upper quadrant pain; 62 ACC, 79 both ACC and CDL and 13 CDL alone. Approximately 30% of patients with ACC had abnormal alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and/or bilirubin level and approximately 50% had abnormal aminotransferase levels. Among patients with ACC/CDL, 77% had abnormal ALP, 60% had abnormal bilirubin and 90% had abnormal aminotransferase levels. By multivariate analysis, increasing common bile duct size and an abnormal ALP and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were excellent predictors of having ACC with CDL.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver test patterns can aid in elucidating CDL, including in ACC patients. Fundamentally, patients with CDL were more likely to have more abnormal liver tests, whether they had CDL only, or CDL and ACC. A dilated CBD, and abnormal ALP and ALT had modest sensitivity and high specificity for identification of patients with ACC and CDL.

ERCP in the management of biliary complications after cholecystectomy

Open cholecystectomy has been associated historically with 0.2% to 0.5% risk of postoperative biliary injury. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which has become the first-line surgical treatment of calculous gallbladder disease, has been associated with a 2.5-fold to fourfold increase in the incidence of postoperative bile duct injury. The biliary endoscopist can expect to see a varied spectrum of complications after cholecystectomy by either technique, including postoperative biliary strictures, bile leaks, and retained calculi in the biliary tree. Proper diagnosis and treatment are paramount in ensuring a satisfactory outcome after bile duct injury. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become the primary modality for treatment and effectively manages most bile duct injuries.

Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a 5-year follow up of 150 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

The treatment of common bile duct stones discovered at routine intraoperative cholangiography includes postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography or intraoperative laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Given the equivalence of short-term outcome data for these two techniques, the choice of one over the other may be influenced by long-term follow-up data. We aimed to establish the long-term outcomes following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and compare this with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration between March 1998 and March 2006 carried out by a single surgeon. All were prospectively studied for 1 month followed by a late-term phone questionnaire ascertaining the prevalence of adverse symptoms. Patients presented with a standardized series of questions, with reports of symptoms corroborated by review of medical records.

RESULTS

In 150 patients, operations included laparoscopic transcystic exploration (135), choledochotomy (10) and choledochoduodenostomy (2). At long-term follow up (mean 63 months), 116 (77.3%) patients were traceable, with 24 (20.7%) reporting an episode of pain and 18 (15.5%) had more than a single episode of pain. There was no long-term evidence of cholangitis, stricture or pancreatitis identified in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration appears not to increase the incidence of long-term adverse sequelae beyond the reported prevalence of postcholecystectomy symptoms. There was no incidence of bile duct stricture, cholangitis or pancreatitis. It is a safe procedure, which obviates the need and expense of preoperative or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in most instances.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

OBJECTIVE

To describe the technique of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with high clearance rates, low morbidity, and mortality rates.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

LCBDE is well accepted by patients because treatment is obtained during the same anesthesia. If one stage therapy for gallstones and common bile duct stones provides success rates equivalent to those of the sequential approach, with lower costs, this should be considered the standard of care.

METHODS

From September 1991 to March 2007, 5201 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed at São José Avaí Hospital. LCBDE was carried out in 481 patients (9.25%).

RESULTS

Of 481 LCBDE, 225 (46.78%) were managed using a transcystic approach and 183 (38.05%) with choledochotomy (114 with transcystic choledochotomy and 69 with longitudinal opening of the common bile duct). Successful laparoscopic stone clearance was achieved in 468 (97.3%). An elective postsurgical endoscopic sphincterotomy were done on the 13 (2.70%) patients not cleared laparoscopically. Seven patients had unexpected retained stones.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE during laparoscopic cholecystectomy solves 2 problems during the same anesthesia with high success rates and may be employed successfully.

Treatment of common bile duct stones discovered during cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Several techniques of laparoscopic bile duct exploration and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) have been developed to treat patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones in one session and avoid the complications of ES. With all these options available, very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been undertaken. This review analyzes those studies.

METHODS

We searched PubMed. Four RCTs and a Cochran Database Systematic Review were found.

RESULTS

Two RCTs compared preoperative ES and laparoscopic CBD exploration (E) for known CBD stones. Laparoscopic CBDE had shorter length of hospitalization. Two RCTs compared immediate and delayed treatment and found that length of stay was less with laparoscopic CBDE, but clearance rates and morbidity/mortality were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies suggest that CBD stones discovered at the time of cholecystectomy are best treated during the same operation. The transcystic approach is safest if applicable. Individual surgeons must be aware of their own capabilities and those of the available endoscopists and perform the safest technique.

A randomized comparison of primary closure and T-tube drainage of the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the common bile duct (CBD) has been closed with T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy and removal of CBD stones. However, insertion of the T-tube is related to some potential postoperative complications, and patients must carry the T-tube for several weeks before its removal. Primary closure of the CBD without drainage has been proposed as a safe alternative to T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy. This randomized study aimed to compare the postoperative course and final outcome between the two methods applied after LCBDE.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and January 2004, 80 patients treated with laparoscopic choledochotomy for CBD stones were randomly assigned to primary duct closure (n = 40) or T-tube drainage (n = 40). The primary end points were morbidity, operative time, postoperative stay, hospital expenses, and time until return to work.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the demographic characteristics or clinical presentations between the two groups. In the primary closure group, the postoperative stay (5.2 +/- 2.2 vs 8.3 +/- 3.6 days) and the time until return to work (12.6 +/- 5.1 vs 20.4 +/- 13.2 days) were significantly shorter, the hospital expenses (8,638 +/- 2,946 vs 12,531 +/- 4,352 yuan) were significantly lower, and the incidences of postoperative complications (15% vs 27.5%) and biliary complications (10% vs 20%) were statistically and insignificantly lower than in the T-tube drainage group. In the primary closure group, six patients experienced postoperative complications, four of whom had biliary complications, compared, respectively, with 11 and 8 patients in the T-tube drainage group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that primary CBC closure after laparoscopic choledochotomy was a viable alternative to mandatory T-tube drainage.

Trend towards primary closure following laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was the assessment of patient outcome, peri-operative complications, length of stay and duration of operation after laparoscopic primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) compared with choledochotomy with T-tube drainage and trans-cystic exploration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data on 71 explorations of the common bile duct between July 2001 and March 2006.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients had exploration of the CBD. Within this group, 12 were referred after failed endoscopic retro-grade cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The methods of exploration included trans-cystic (9 cases), choledochotomy with T-tube (12), and choledochotomy with primary closure (50). CBD stones were found in 66 patients. In the remaining cases, we found a stricture in 1, debris in 2, and dilatation of the CBD without a stone in 2. There were 5 conversions to open technique and 3 patients required postoperative ERCP (1 with permanent stenting). Peri-operative complications included T-tube (3), primary closure group (9), and trans-cystic (0). There was no statistical significant difference (Chi-square test, P = 0.296) between the groups. There was a trend towards a shorter length of stay in the primary closure group as compared with the trans-cystic and T-tube groups of 4.16, 4.44, and 6.33 days, respectively. However, it did not reach statistical significance (one-way analysis of variance with Boneferroni correction, mean difference between groups 1.89, 0.28, 2,17, statistical significance at P < 0.05). The shortest operating time was in the primary closure group (95.92 min) which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). We did not use a biliary drain in the last 48 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary laparoscopic closure of the CBD is safe and results in a reduction in operating time. Choledochoscopy ensures clearance of the CBD and eliminates the need for T-tube.

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration: results of 160 consecutive cases with 2-year follow up

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous reports showing the advantages of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), many general surgeons, particularly those working outside of nonspecialist units, continue to rely heavily on endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with sphincterotomy (ERCP) to manage bile duct stones (BDS). This article investigates the performance of LCBDE when adopted as the preferred first-line management of both suspected and incidental BDS by general surgeons in a regional setting.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients in whom LCBDE was attempted by a regional general surgical unit. The unit policy was to preferentially treat all incidental and suspected BDS (except in ascending cholangitis or severe pancreatitis) by LCBDE, with ERCP used only if unsuccessful. In addition to chart review, formal prospective follow up by telephone interview was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 160 consecutive patients with BDS (mean age 66.9 years, 65% suspected and 35% incidental) underwent attempted LCBDE between January 2000 and July 2005. Successful clearance was achieved in 84.3% according to chart review. However, four additional cases of retained choledocholithiasis shown by late telephone interview (median interval 2.5 years) yielded a more accurate clearance rate of 81.8%. Major morbidity occurred in 13.8%, including biliary leak in 7.5% and one late biliary stricture (0.6%). Median length of hospital stay was 4.8 days. In-hospital mortality was 0.6%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remains an effective, efficient and safe first-line treatment of BDS even when carried out in regional nonspecialist units. In spite of the wide availability of ERCP, general surgeons should be encouraged to continue performing LCBDE in order to optimise patient care and maintain important surgical skills.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

10% to 18% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct (CBD) stones. Treatment options for these stones include pre- or post-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or open or laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the management of CBD stones by four approaches: (1) ERCP versus open surgical bile duct clearance. (2) Pre-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (3) Post-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (4) ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance in patients with previous cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched key relevant electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant papers, and abstracts of relevant subspecialty meetings until November 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The quality of included trials was assessed by adequacy of allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Published and unpublished data relevant to 12 predefined outcome measures were used to conduct fixed- and random-effects models meta-analyses, with exploration of heterogeneity and use of sensitivity and subgroup analysis where required.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials randomised 1351 patients. Eight trials (n = 760) compared ERCP with open surgical clearance, three (n = 425) compared pre-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance, and two (n = 166) compared post-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance. There were no trials of ERCP versus laparoscopic clearance in patients without an intact gallbladder. Methodology was considered adequate in at least two of three assessable fields in ten trials. A significantly increased number of total procedures (including for complications) per patient was seen in the ERCP arms in all three comparisons with weighted mean differences of 0.62 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.09), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.96), and 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.24), respectively. ERCP was less successful than open surgery in CBD stone clearance (Peto OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.81 to 4.61) with a tendency towards higher mortality (risk difference 1%, 95% CI -1% to 4%). Laparoscopic CBD stone clearance was as efficient as pre- (Peto OR 1.00, CI 0.53 to 1.80) and post-operative ERCP (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.37 to 13.9) and with no significant difference in morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic trials universally reported shorter hospital stays in surgical arms. Insufficient data were reported for cost analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the era of open cholecystectomy, open bile duct surgery was superior to ERCP in achieving CBD stone clearance. In the laparoscopic era, data are close to excluding a significant difference between laparoscopic and ERCP clearance of CBD stones. The use of ERCP necessitates increased number of procedures per patient.

Laparoscopic transcystic duct common bile duct exploration

The modern era of common bile duct (CBD) surgery started with Mirizzi, who introduced intraoperative cholangiography in 1932. Intraoperative choledoscopy had been developed as an adjunctive to intraoperative cholangiography, which helped to detect CBD stones in an additional 10% to 15% of instances that otherwise would have been missed. Findings have shown choledochoscopy to be an important technique for efficient and effective management of CBD stones. Efforts to treat patients with common duct stones in one session and to avoid the potential complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy resulted in several laparoscopic transcystic CBD (LTCBDE) techniques. The techniques of transcystic stone extraction include lavage, trolling with wire baskets or biliary balloon catheters, cystic duct dilation, biliary endoscopy, and stone retrieval with wire baskets under direct vision and antegrade sphincterotomy, lithotripsy, and catheter techniques. The indications for LTCBDE are filling or equivocal defects at cholangiography, stones smaller than 10 mm, fewer than 9 stones, and possible tumor. The contraindications are stones larger than 1 cm, stones proximal to the cystic duct entrance into the CBD, small friable cystic duct, and 10 or more stones. Experience with LTCBDE shows that the approach is applicable in more than 85% of cases, with a success rate of 85% to 95%. It also is shown to be more cost effective than postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Recent developments in LTCBDE have focused mainly on implementation of robotically assisted surgery and new imaging methods such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with three-dimensional virtual cholangioscopy and three-dimensional ultrasound. Further technological advances will facilitate the application of laparoscopic approaches to the common duct, which should become the primary strategy for the great majority of patients.

Postoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of selected bile duct calculi: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Prospectively evaluate whether for patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy with failed trans-cystic duct clearance of bile duct (BD) stones they should have laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Clinical management of BD stones found at laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the last decade has focused on pre-cholecystectomy detection with ERCP clearance in those with suspected stones. This clinical algorithm successfully clears the stones in most patients, but no stones are found in 20% to 60% of patients and rare unpredictably severe ERCP morbidity can result in this group. Our initial experience of 300 consecutive patients with fluoroscopic cholangiography and intraoperative clearance demonstrated that, for the pattern of stone disease we see, 66% of patients' BD stones can be cleared via the cystic duct with dramatic reduction in morbidity compared to the 33% requiring choledochotomy or ERCP. Given the limitations of the preoperative approach to BD stone clearance, this trial was designed to explore the limitations, for patients failing laparoscopic trans-cystic clearance, of laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP.

METHODS

Across 7 metropolitan hospitals after failed trans-cystic duct clearance, patients were intraoperatively randomized to have either laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP. Exclusion criteria were: ERCP prior to referral for cholecystectomy, severe cholangitis or pancreatitis requiring immediate ERCP drainage, common BD diameter of less than 7 mm diameter, or if bilio-enteric drainage was required in addition to stone clearance. Drain decompression of the cleared BD was used in the presence of cholangitis, an edematous ampulla due to instrumentation or stone impaction and technical difficulties from local inflammation and fibrosis. The ERCP occurred prior to discharge from hospital. Mechanical and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was available. Sphincter balloon dilation as an alternative to sphincterotomy to allow stone extraction was not used. Major endpoints for the trial were operative time, morbidity, retained stone rate, reoperation rate, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

From June 1998 to February 2003, 372 patients with BD stones had successful trans-cystic duct clearance of stones in 286, leaving 86 patients randomized into the trial. Total operative time was 10.9 minutes longer in the choledochotomy group (158.8 minutes), with slightly shorter hospital stay 6.4 days versus 7.7 days. Bile leak occurred in 14.6% of those having choledochotomy with similar rates of pancreatitis (7.3% versus 8.8%), retained stones (2.4% versus 4.4%), reoperation (7.3% versus 6.6%), and overall morbidity (17% versus 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the majority of secondary BD stones can be diagnosed at the time of cholecystectomy and cleared trans-cystically, with those failing having either choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP. However, because of the small trial size, a significant chance exists that small differences in outcome may exist. We would avoid choledochotomy in ducts less than 7 mm measured at the time of operative cholangiogram and severely inflamed friable tissues leading to a difficult dissection. We would advocate choledochotomy as a good choice for patients after Billroth 11 gastrectomy, failed ERCP access, or where long delays would occur for patient transfer to other locations for the ERCP.

Postoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of selected bile duct calculi: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Prospectively evaluate whether for patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy with failed trans-cystic duct clearance of bile duct (BD) stones they should have laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Clinical management of BD stones found at laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the last decade has focused on pre-cholecystectomy detection with ERCP clearance in those with suspected stones. This clinical algorithm successfully clears the stones in most patients, but no stones are found in 20% to 60% of patients and rare unpredictably severe ERCP morbidity can result in this group. Our initial experience of 300 consecutive patients with fluoroscopic cholangiography and intraoperative clearance demonstrated that, for the pattern of stone disease we see, 66% of patients' BD stones can be cleared via the cystic duct with dramatic reduction in morbidity compared to the 33% requiring choledochotomy or ERCP. Given the limitations of the preoperative approach to BD stone clearance, this trial was designed to explore the limitations, for patients failing laparoscopic trans-cystic clearance, of laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP.

METHODS

Across 7 metropolitan hospitals after failed trans-cystic duct clearance, patients were intraoperatively randomized to have either laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP. Exclusion criteria were: ERCP prior to referral for cholecystectomy, severe cholangitis or pancreatitis requiring immediate ERCP drainage, common BD diameter of less than 7 mm diameter, or if bilio-enteric drainage was required in addition to stone clearance. Drain decompression of the cleared BD was used in the presence of cholangitis, an edematous ampulla due to instrumentation or stone impaction and technical difficulties from local inflammation and fibrosis. The ERCP occurred prior to discharge from hospital. Mechanical and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was available. Sphincter balloon dilation as an alternative to sphincterotomy to allow stone extraction was not used. Major endpoints for the trial were operative time, morbidity, retained stone rate, reoperation rate, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

From June 1998 to February 2003, 372 patients with BD stones had successful trans-cystic duct clearance of stones in 286, leaving 86 patients randomized into the trial. Total operative time was 10.9 minutes longer in the choledochotomy group (158.8 minutes), with slightly shorter hospital stay 6.4 days versus 7.7 days. Bile leak occurred in 14.6% of those having choledochotomy with similar rates of pancreatitis (7.3% versus 8.8%), retained stones (2.4% versus 4.4%), reoperation (7.3% versus 6.6%), and overall morbidity (17% versus 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the majority of secondary BD stones can be diagnosed at the time of cholecystectomy and cleared trans-cystically, with those failing having either choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP. However, because of the small trial size, a significant chance exists that small differences in outcome may exist. We would avoid choledochotomy in ducts less than 7 mm measured at the time of operative cholangiogram and severely inflamed friable tissues leading to a difficult dissection. We would advocate choledochotomy as a good choice for patients after Billroth 11 gastrectomy, failed ERCP access, or where long delays would occur for patient transfer to other locations for the ERCP.

Cost-effective method for laparoscopic choledochotomy

BACKGROUND

Recent reports have noted that postoperative complications following open or laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct (CBD) exploration are mainly related to the T-tube presence, and that there has been no trend of decrease in the laparoscopic era. Laparoscopic endobiliary stent placement with primary closure of the CBD has been proposed as a safe and effective alternative to T-tube placement.

METHODS

Between January 1999 and January 2003, 53 consecutive patients suffering from proven choledocholithiasis underwent laparoscopic common bile exploration (LCBDE) via choledochotomy. In the early period, a T-tube was placed at the end of the procedure (group A, n = 32) while, from June 2001 onwards, laparoscopic biliary stent placement and primary CBD closure were chosen as the drainage method (group B, n = 21).

RESULTS

Six patients developed T-tube-related complications postoperatively. Univariate analysis revealed statistically significant lower morbidity rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay for the stent group. Although not statistically significant, a median saving of 780 UK pounds per patient was observed in the stent group.

CONCLUSION

Biliary endoprosthesis placement following laparoscopic choledochotomy avoids the well-known complications of a T-tube, leading to a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The method is safe and effective and it should also be considered as cost-effective compared to T-tube placement. Further studies are required in order to document cost-effectiveness of the method.

Feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in a rural centre

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration has emerged as a preferred option for the management of choledocholithiasis. The present study sought to review the feasibility of this technique in a rural centre.

METHODS

A comprehensive retrospective review was undertaken of all patients who underwent surgical treatment of biliary calculi in Lismore, NSW (Australia), between January 1996 and December 2002.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1567 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, of whom 82 (5.2%) had choledocholithiasis identified at intraoperative cholangiography. A total of 86 laparoscopic common bile duct explorations were undertaken in these patients, 37 (43%) via a transcystic approach, and 49 (57%) via a laparoscopic choledochotomy. All common bile duct calculi were successfully removed in 78 cases, representing an overall duct clearance rate of 90.7%. Complications were noted in seven patients, a morbidity rate of 8.5%. Median operative time for the procedure over the study period was 173 min. Median hospital stay was 6 days for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration can be successfully undertaken in a rural setting by general surgeons who have appropriate laparoscopic experience, and should be the procedure of choice for the management of choledocholithiasis in these patients. It should not be restricted to specialized surgical departments in major referral centres.

Biliary stones: including acute biliary pancreatitis

The widespread availability of endoscopic ultrasound has facilitated the evaluation of the pancreas and extrahepatic biliary system. Endosonography has been shown to be highly sensitive in the detection of choledocholithiasis (especially in patients with small stones and nondilated bile ducts) and gallbladder microlithiasis; however, the use of this technique in relation to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and laparoscopic surgery in gallstone disease remains confusing. This article highlights the clinical performance and results of endoscopic ultrasound in this context and proposes strategies in relation to its use in association with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and surgery in common clinical practice. Endosonography allows the correct identification of patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and proves an important adjunct in eliminating other causes of undetermined pancreatitis.

Advantages of laparoscopic stented choledochorrhaphy over T-tube placement

Background

Postoperative complications after laparoscopic choledochotomy are mainly related to the T tube. Both laparoscopic endobiliary stent placement with primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) and primary closure of the CBD without drainage have been proposed as safe and effective alternatives to T-tube placement.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on 53 consecutive patients suffering from proven choledocholithiasis who underwent laparoscopic CBD exploration through a choledochotomy between January 1999 and January 2003. In the early period a T-tube was placed at the end of the procedure (n = 32). Biliary stent placement and primary CBD closure was performed from June 2001 (n = 21).

Results

There were no significant differences in epidemiological characteristics, preoperative factors or intraoperative findings between the groups. Seven patients developed complications, six in the T-tube group and one in the stent group. Univariate analysis revealed a significantly lower morbidity rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay in the stent group.

Conclusion

Placement of a biliary endoprosthesis after laparoscopic choledochotomy achieves biliary decompression, and avoids the complications of a T tube, leading to a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The method is a safe and effective alternative method of CBD drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy.

Scoring system to predict asymptomatic choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate if a recently proposed score system based on six preoperative parameters [history of colic pain and/or jaundice, dyspepsia, cholecystitis, ultrasound (US), evidence of common bile duct stones (CBDS), number and size of gallbladder stones at US, level of serum glutamic oxalacetic transaminase and/or alkaline phosphatase is effective in the selection of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with asymptomatic CBDS and could allow a significant reduction of the total number of preoperative examinations.

METHODS

In the case group, 408 patients were categorized into low-, medium-, and high-risk classes and underwent, respectively, no further preoperative assessment of the bile duct, intravenous cholangiography (IVC), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) was performed whenever the surgeon was in doubt as to biliary anatomy or bile duct clearance. These patients were compared with 408 retrospectively matched patients (control group) undergoing routine preoperative IVC and/or ERC.

RESULTS

In the case group, significantly lower numbers of IVC (120 vs 392) and IOC (3 vs 16) were performed ( p < 0.005), whereas no difference in the total number of ERCs was noted. One patient in the control group had retained CBDS detected during follow-up evaluation, whereas none occurred in the case group.

CONCLUSION

The proposed scoring system allows selective use of IVC, ERC, and/or IOC in patients undergoing elective LC.

Long-term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

METHODS

A retrospective review of 175 consecutive patients who underwent attempted LCBDE between 1992 and 1999 was conducted. Laparoscopic transcystic exploration was accomplished in 110 patients and laparoscopic choledochotomy in 52 patients. Conversion to an open common bile duct exploration was required for 13 patients (7.4%). Retained common bile duct stones occurred in eight patients (4.6%). The 30-day postoperative morbidity was 6.9%, and there was no 30-day mortality. All the patients (alive and localized) received a questionnaire evaluating long-term results.

RESULTS

Of the 175 patients, 169 (4 unrelated deaths and 2 patients lost to follow-up evaluation) received and 152 (90%) returned the questionnaire. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 72 months (median, 36 months). One patient developed recurrent common bile duct stones. There were no signs or evidence of common bile duct stricture in any patient.

CONCLUSION

The LCBDE procedure can be performed without increased risk of late bile duct complications.

Comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct is becoming more popular, although endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the usual treatment for bile duct stones. However, loss of the biliary sphincter causes permanent duodenobiliary reflux, and recurrent stone disease and biliary neoplasia may be a consequence.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to compare laparoscopic exploration with endoscopic sphincterotomy. A text word search of the Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane databases, and a manual search of the citations from these references, was used.

RESULTS

Endoscopic sphincterotomy is associated with a median (range) mortality rate of 1 (0-6) per cent, compared with 1 (0-5) per cent for laparoscopic bile duct exploration. The median (range) rate of pancreatitis following endoscopic sphincterotomy is 3 (1-19) per cent; this is a rare complication after laparoscopic duct exploration. The combined morbidity rate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic sphincterotomy is 13 (3-16) per cent, which is greater than 8 (2-17) per cent for laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Randomized trials are few and contain relatively small numbers of patients. They show little overall difference in rates of duct clearance, but a higher mortality rate and number of hospital admissions are noted for endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Endoscopic sphincterotomy is associated with recurrent stone formation (up to 16 per cent) with associated cholangitis. It is also associated with bacterobilia and chronic mucosal inflammation. The late development of bile duct cancer has been reported in up to 2 per cent of patients.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct may be a better way of removing stones than endoscopic sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. :

Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct stenting in the management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with common bile duct stones associated with stones in the gall bladder remains controversial.

METHODS

Over the three-year period from 1996 to 1999, patients with cholelithiasis and known choledocholithiasis, or choledocholithiasis found at laparoscopic cholecystectomy, were initially treated by placing a stent across the sphincter of Oddi. The stent was pushed along a guide wire through the cystic duct and then down the common bile duct, before the cystic duct was closed. Subsequently, the stent was used to facilitate performance of a needle knife endoscopic sphincterotomy. The stent was then removed, a cholangiography was performed and the common bile duct was cleared. Patients with persistent jaundice usually had a preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography.

RESULTS

Transcystic stenting was the 'intention-to-treat' basis of therapy for 56 of the patients. The placement of the stent only failed once when the stent became trapped in the cystic duct. Complications of the operation included: pain and jaundice (n = 2), cholangitis (n = 1), and pulmonary embolus (n = 1). The median postoperative hospitalization was 2 days (range: 1-15). Five further patients had common bile duct stones removed via a choledochotomy; a stent was placed through the choledochotomy before its closure. The selective common bile duct cannulation rate at the first endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography, was 98%. A second endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography was required in 15% of patients. The only complication of all the endoscopic procedures was a single case of mild cholangitis; there were no cases of pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

A treatment option open to all surgeons for non-jaundiced patients with known choledocholithiasis or choledocholithiasis found at operative cholangiogram, is the transcystic stenting of the sphincter of Oddi at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. At a subsequent sitting, the common bile duct can be safely cleared endoscopically using a sphincterotomy facilitated by the stent.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without routine operative cholangiography does not result in significant problems related to retained stones

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether failure to identify common bile duct stones at laparoscopic cholecystectomy results in significant postoperative complications related to retained stones.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the case notes of 377 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy without routine operative cholangiography under a single surgeon in a district general hospital between 1995 and 1999. Highly selective preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was employed to identify and manage suspected bile duct stones in pancreatitis, jaundice, persistently elevated liver function tests, or a dilated common bile duct.

RESULTS

Eighteen (4.8%) of 377 patients presented postoperatively with symptoms/signs suggesting biliary pathology. Two (0.5%) were confirmed to have retained duct stones/debris (ultrasound/ERCP); both recovered with conservative treatment. Only 1 patient of 274 (0.4%) without preoperative ERCP subsequently presented with a symptomatic retained stone, the other having been stented preoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly selective preoperative ERCP without routine operative cholangiography is not associated with a significant increase in morbidity/mortality related to retained stones following laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Prospective analysis of a scoring system to predict choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The management of choledocholithiasis in the laparoscopic era remains debatable. A common policy is to perform preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on patients suspected of having common bile duct (CBD) stones, using standard risk criteria. The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively a scoring system designed to improve the accuracy of CBD stone prediction before laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Known clinical, biochemical and radiological risk factors for CBD stones were analysed retrospectively in 233 patients. The presence (n = 77) or absence (n = 156) of CBD stones was determined by preoperative ERCP and/or laparoscopic cholangiography. Using multivariate analysis, the significant risk factors for CBD stones were identified and a new preoperative scoring system was developed. A score of 3 or more was taken as the cut-off point to suggest CBD stones and the need for preoperative ERCP. This scoring system was then tested prospectively in 211 consecutive patients with symptomatic gallstones requiring surgery. Patients whose bile ducts could not be demonstrated by ERCP or operative cholangiography were excluded.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients scored 3 or more (predicted ERCP rate of 29 per cent), of whom 23 (42 per cent) had proven CBD stones. Intraoperative cholangiography was successful in 87 per cent. Five patients (4 per cent) who scored less than 3 had small stones (less than 5 mm) demonstrated at operative cholangiography. The overall sensitivity and specificity of this scoring were 82 and 80 per cent respectively.

CONCLUSION

Formal risk assessment of the presence of CBD stones using this scoring system is simple and may be used for preoperative selection of patients for biliary tract imaging by magnetic resonance cholangiography or ERCP.