Prospective evaluation in 121 consecutive unselected patients undergoing laparoscopic treatment of choledocholithiasis

Two institutes' experience in laparoendoscopic "rendezvous" technique for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct: a prospective randomized comparative clinical trial

There is still disagreement on the best treatment option for cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Although there are some benefits to the single-step procedure, the "laparoendoscopic rendezvous" (LERV) technique that include a lower risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and a shorter hospital stay, the standard technique is still the two-step approach for clearing the common bile duct (CBD) using ERCP and then performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of the LERV technique vs. the standard two-step approach. Four hundred thirty-six patients with symptomatized concomitant stones at both the gall bladder (GB) and the (CBD), at two gastroenterology centers in Zagazig city, Egypt, from January 2010 till April 2022, were analyzed. Patients were randomly divided into two equally groups. The overall length of hospital stay was the primary outcome, and the success of CBD clearance and morbidity, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis, were the secondary endpoints. The LERV group experienced a significantly shorter hospital stay (median 2(2-8) days compared to 4.5 (4-11) days for the two-stage approach (p < 0.001)). The two groups did not differ in terms of CBD clearing success. Also, there was no significant difference in the number of patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis between the LERV group [14 patients (6.4%)] and the two-stage approach [26 patients (11.9%)] with p value = 0.703. For patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis, the optimal treatment must be determined by the knowledge and resources that are accessible locally. Our data further supported the idea that treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis in one stage is a safe and successful strategy.

The effect and importance of extrahepatic bile duct anatomy variations in the etiology of choledocholithiasis

Background: Biliary stone disease is a frequently encountered problem among the population with a variety of causes and resulting in a wide range of symptoms from vague abdominal discomfort to life-threatening conditions requiring urgent surgical intervention. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has become a noninvasive radiological diagnostic method extensively used in the evaluation of the biliary tract providing excellent anatomical detail. Apart from the classical causes widely described in the literature in stone etiology, the effect of anatomical variations of the bile tract is a subject that has been investigated recently. The present study aimed to manifest the effect of anatomical variations of the extrahepatic biliary tract on the etiology of choledocholithiasis. Methods: The data of 182 patients who underwent MRCP in our hospital between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively scanned. The patients were divided into two groups, asymptomatic patients and acute cholangitis. Cystic duct, common hepatic duct, choledochal lengths, and variations in cystic duct opening were analyzed by an experienced radiologist in MRCP. Results: The relation was detected between the cystic choledochal variance of the patients (p<0.001). The cystic duct length of the patients showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05). Conclusion: When the extrahepatic bile duct variations were evaluated, some notable values were found for the etiology, as well as being critical in acute cholangitis. There is a need for studies with larger sample sizes in the literature on this subject.

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.

Single-session minimally invasive management of common bile duct stones

Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones. To avoid serious complications, these stones should be removed. There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for such patients. Traditionally, open surgery was offered but with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) minimally invasive approach had nearly replaced laparotomy because of its well-known advantages. Minimally invasive approach could be done in either two-session (preoperative ERCP followed by LC or LC followed by postoperative ERCP) or single-session (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or LC with intraoperative ERCP). Most recent studies have found that both options are equivalent regarding safety and efficacy but the single-session approach is associated with shorter hospital stay, fewer procedures per patient, and less cost. Consequently, single-session option should be offered to patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiaisis provided that local resources and expertise do exist. However, the management strategy should be tailored according to many variables, such as available resources, experience, patient characteristics, clinical presentations, and surgical pathology.

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.

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.

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.

T-tube drainage of the common bile duct choleperitoneum: etiology and management

External drainage of the common bile duct by placement of a T-tube is a common practice after choledochotomy. This practice may result in the specific complication of bile peritonitis due to leakage after removal of the T-tube. This complication has multiple causes: some are patient-related (corticotherapy, chemotherapy, ascites), and others are due to technical factors (inappropriate suturing of the drain to the ductal wall, minimal inflammatory reaction related to some drain materials). The clinical presentation is quite variable depending on the amount and rapidity of intra-peritoneal spread of of bile leakage. Abdominal ultrasound (US), with US-guided needle aspiration and occasionally Technetium(99) scintigraphy are useful for diagnosis. Traditional therapy consists of surgical intervention including peritoneal lavage and re-intubation of the choledochal fistulous tract to allow for a further period of external drainage. When leakage is walled off and well-tolerated, a more nuanced and less invasive conservative therapy may combine percutaneous drainage with endoscopic placement of a trans-ampullary biliary drainage.

Intraoperative ERCP: What role does it have in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

In the treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis (CBDS) detected during intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), or when the preoperative study of a patient at intermediate risk for CBDS cannot be completed due to the lack of imaging techniques required for confirmation, or if they are available and yield contradictory radiological and clinical results, patients can be treated using intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during the laparoscopic treatment or postoperative ERCP if the IOC finds CBDS. The choice of treatment depends on the level of experience and availability of each option at each hospital. Intraoperative ERCP has the advantage of being a single-stage treatment and has a significant success rate, an easy learning curve, low morbidity involving a shorter hospital stay and lower costs than the two-stage treatments (postoperative and preoperative ERCP). Intraoperative ERCP is also a good salvage treatment when preoperative ERCP fails or when total laparoscopic management also fails.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with gallstones and choledocholithiasis

Failed ERCP appears to decrease the success rate of a laparoscopic approach for common bile duct exploration.

Objectives:

To compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods:

This is a descriptive, comparative study. Patients with an indication of common bile duct exploration between February 2005 and October 2008 were included. We studied 2 groups: Group A: patients with failed ERCP who underwent LCBDE plus LC. Group B: patients with common bile duct stones managed with the 1-step approach (LCBDE + LC) with no prior ERCP.

Results:

Twenty-five patients were included. Group A: 9 patients, group B: 16 patients. Success rate, operative time, and hospital stay were as follows: group A 66% vs group B 87.5%; group A 187 minutes vs 106 minutes; group A 4.5 days vs 2.3 days; respectively.

Conclusion:

Patients with failed ERCP should be considered as high-complex cases in which the laparoscopic procedure success rate decreases, and the conversion rate increases considerably.

Development of a training model for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

A simple, low-cost model is described that allows for accurate reproduction of the main steps in performing laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Background:

Training and experience of the surgical team are fundamental for the safety and success of complex surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Methods:

We describe an inert, simple, very low-cost, and readily available training model. Created using a “black box” and basic medical and surgical material, it allows training in the fundamental steps necessary for laparoscopic biliary tract surgery, namely, (1) intraoperative cholangiography, (2) transcystic exploration, and (3) laparoscopic choledochotomy, and t-tube insertion.

Results:

The proposed model has allowed for the development of the skills necessary for partaking in said procedures, contributing to its development and diminishing surgery time as the trainee advances down the learning curve. Further studies are directed towards objectively determining the impact of the model on skill acquisition.

Conclusion:

The described model is simple and readily available allowing for accurate reproduction of the main steps and maneuvers that take place during laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, with the purpose of reducing failure and complications.

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).

[Laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct lithiasis associated with gallbladder lithiasis]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration has become one of the main options for the treatment of choledocholithiasis associated with cholelithiasis. Our objective is to describe the results of a consecutive series of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed 101 (66 female/16 male) patients who underwent laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Age was 58 +/- 18 years. We analyzed operaion time, hospital stay and postoperative complications according to the surgical approach (transcystic or choledochotomy). Clinical follow up was carried out for 90 days after surgery and then subsequently by telephone.

RESULTS

1435 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed between January 1998 and December 2005. Of those, 101 of those patients underwent laparoscopic bile duct exploration for cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones. We evaluated clinical, laboratory and ultrasound predictors: 70 patients had positive and 31 negative predictors. Laparoscopic transcystic approach was successful in 78 patients and laparoscopic choledochotomy in 17 patients. Operation time was 154 +/- 59 minutes and hospital stay 4.31 +/- 3.44 days. Six patients (5.9%) were converted to open surgery. Two patients were re-operated for postoperative bile leakage. The overall effectiveness was 94%. Postoperative mortality was 0.99%. Median follow up was 51 months. Three patients died of unrelated conditions, three underwent ERCP and one had transfistular extraction for retained stones (3.96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic treatment for common bile duct stones associated with gallbladder stones is a highly effective procedure with a low incidence of retained stones.

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.

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.

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. :

Gallstone cholangitis: a 10-year experience of combined endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND

To date, no procedure has yet been identified as the gold standard for the treatment of gallstone cholangitis in the laparoscopic era.

METHODS

The data of 109 consecutive patients with acute cholangitis were prospectively entered into a computerized database. All patients were managed according to a standard protocol. The main treatments were endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), followed by interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Patients in whom ERC or endoscopic stone clearance failed were managed by emergency open common bile duct exploration. LC was performed with a standardized four-cannula technique. The mean duration of surgery, conversion rate, and postoperative outcome of these patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

ERC was successful in 103 patients (94.5%). In five of these patients (4.8%), no bile duct stones were found. The 98 patients (95.2%) with common bile duct stones were referred for ES. The bile duct stones were successfully removed after ES in 93 cases (94.9%). The overall failure rate of ERC and ES for choledocholithiasis was 10.1%. Self-limiting pancreatitis occurred in four patients (4.3%). Overall, two of the 109 patients died (1.8%). After ES, 81 patients underwent LC. LC was performed successfully in 74 patients (91.3%). Conversion to open surgery was required in seven patients (8.7%). The morbidity rate after cholecystectomy was 7.4%; the morbidity rate after open bile duct exploration was 36.4% (p<0.05). Fifteen patients were managed conservatively after initial endoscopic management of their cholangitis. The overall incidence of recurrent biliary symptoms was significantly higher among patients with gallbladder in place than for patients who underwent cholecystectomy (38.5% vs 1.5%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ES followed by LC is a safe and effective approach for the management of gallstone cholangitis; cholecystectomy should be performed in patients with gallstone cholangitis unless the operative risk is extremely high. These high operative risk patients and those who refuse surgery after ES should be warned that they are at high risk for recurrent biliary symptoms.

Endoscopic management of bile duct stones

The advantages of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) over open surgery make it the predominant method of treating choledocholithiasis. Today, technologic advances such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic surgery are challenging ERCP's primacy in the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. This article reviews the current status of endoscopic treatment of biliary stones and examines this in relation to laparoscopic management. The techniques and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy and balloon sphincteroplasty are reviewed. Balloon sphincteroplasty should be limited to study protocols because of safety questions and inherent limitations. After sphincterotomy, 85% to 90% of CBD stones can be removed with a Dormia basket or balloon catheter. These techniques are described as having both advantages and disadvantages. Methods for managing "difficult stones" include mechanical lithotripsy, intraductal shock wave lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, chemical dissolution, and biliary stenting. These approaches are presented along with data supporting their use in specific situations. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as the preferred alternative to open cholecystectomy. Parallel advances in the endoscopic and laparoscopic management of CBD stones have made the issue regarding the optimal treatment strategy complex. Three approaches to the management of choledocholithiasis in the laparoscopic era are presented as follows: strict therapeutic splitting, flexible therapeutic splitting, and strict laparoscopic management. The optimal approach needs to be defined in prospective comparative trials. For now, preoperative endoscopic stone extraction should still be recommended as the approach of choice in patients suspected to have CBD stones based on clinical, biochemical, and imaging parameters. Primary laparoscopic evaluation and management is reasonable in patients who have a low-to-moderate probability of having CBD stones.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: the past, the present, and the future

BACKGROUND

The advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has created a dilemma for treating patients with known or suspected choledocholithiasis. With rapid technologic growth and experience in laparoscopic skills, many surgeons are now routinely performing laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and questioning the wisdom of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on the subject of LCBDE and critically evaluate the clinical results of this emerging technology.

METHODS

Medline and Science Citation Index databases were used to search English language articles published on LCBDE since 1989.

RESULTS

Transcystic common bile duct exploration has a better clearance rate, and carries less morbidity and mortality compared with laparoscopic choledochotomy. Compared with two-stage ERCP and LC, one-stage LC and LCBDE seems to be associated with a shorter hospital stay, a quicker recovery, less expense, and less morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE is a feasible, safe and effective procedure that carries a low morbidity and mortality and will decrease the need for unnecessary ERC in the future for suspected or proved choledocholithiasis.

Management of Bile Duct Stones in 1572 Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Evidence of bile duct stones (BDSs) was identified on routine cholangiogram in 136 (8.7%) of 1572 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy from March 1989 through March 1997. Forty-two (30.9%) were unsuspected. All patients with evidence of BDSs underwent laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE). Initially, a standard choledochotomy with T-tube drainage as in the open approach was used. Later, transcystic duct exploration was added to the algorithm. The algorithm evolved into an ongoing treatment protocol study that was initiated in March 1992. Through March 1997, 100 patients underwent LBDE based on the protocol. The study is divided into two groups. Group A comprises the total 136 patients undergoing LBDE, including those in the protocol study. A subgroup, Group B, comprises only the 100 patients in the protocol study. In Group A, LBDE was successful in 114 patients (83.8%). Stones were missed in seven patients and left behind for spontaneous passage or later retrieval in six patients. Eleven patients (8.1%) were converted to open. There were 13 major complications (9.6%), including the seven missed stones and two deaths. In Group B, LBDE was successful in 94 per cent. Stones were missed in one patient and intentionally left behind in four patients. One patient was converted to open. There were seven major complications (7%), including one of the missed stones and one death. Using the protocol algorithm and the techniques described, BDSs can be effectively managed laparoscopically at the time of cholecystectomy in approximately 94 per cent of cases.

Routine laparoscopic cholangiography: a means of avoiding unnecessary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Controversy exists between routine and selective on-table cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been suggested as first-line investigation in patients with suspected duct stones. We report a series of 154 on-table cholangiograms (OTC) and consider the requirements for ERCP according to historical and biochemical markers. A retrospective review of 154 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with OTC was performed. Historical and biochemical markers of duct stones were examined with respect to the necessity of ERCP. OTC was performed, with a 100% success rate, and took approximately 10 min. Eight (5.2%) of the patients had duct stones. Only one did not have preoperative indicators of duct stones. Sixty-six patients had preoperative markers suggesting the need for ERCP. According to the OTC findings, 59 (89.4%) of these patients would have undergone unnecessary ERCP. Routine laparoscopic OTC is advocated because it maintains expertise in the technique and avoids unnecessary ERCP with its attendant costs and complications.

Towards T-tube free laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a methodologic evolution during 300 consecutive procedures

OBJECTIVE

To establish a simple, reproducible, and safe technique of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (CBDE) with high clearance rates and low morbidity and mortality rates.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

For most general surgeons, laparoscopic CBDE appears an unduly complex and demanding procedure. Since the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, many surgeons use endoscopic cholangiography (ERC) and endoscopic sphincterotomy as their only option in treating bile duct stones. ERC is more specific if used after surgery, but it carries an appreciable morbidity rate and has the disadvantage of requiring a second procedure to deal with bile duct stones. To this end, various methods of laparoscopic CBDE have been developed.

METHODS

Between August 1991 and February 1997, 300 consecutive unselected patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE.

RESULTS

Of 300 laparoscopic CBDE procedures, 173 (58%) were managed using a transcystic approach and 127 (42%) with choledochotomy. Successful laparoscopic stone clearance was achieved in 271 (90%). Of the 29 (10%) patients not cleared laparoscopically, 10 had an elective postsurgical ERC, 12 were converted to an open procedure early in the series, and 7 had unexpected retained stones. There was one death (mortality rate 0.3%) and major morbidity occurred in 22 patients (7%). The last 100 procedures were performed from July 1995 to February 1997, and stone clearance was unsuccessful in only two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic transcystic basket extraction of common duct stones under fluoroscopic guidance is a relatively quick, successful, and safe technique. Choledochotomy, when required, is associated with a higher morbidity rate, particularly with T-tube insertion, and the authors advocate primary bile duct closure with or without insertion of a biliary stent as a more satisfactory technique for both surgeon and patient. Most patients with gallbladder and common duct calculi should expect a curative one-stage laparoscopic procedure without the need for external biliary drainage or ERC.