Advantages of laparoscopic stented choledochorrhaphy over T-tube placement

Complications of biliary stenting versus T-tube insertion after common bile duct exploration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complications following the insertion T-tube or stent after common bile duct exploration (CBDE) remain problematic in nowadays surgical era. Based on our knowledge, we did not find any meta-analysis intentionally evaluating the complications between both groups. At this moment, we aimed to analyze and compare both procedures' complications, efficacy, efficiency, and feasibility.

METHODS

We searched literature from four databases (EuroPMC, PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov) up to June 2022 to compile the randomized controlled trials and pro-/retrospective cohort studies. Review Manager 5.4 was used to statistically analyze each outcome measured between biliary stenting and T-tube insertion.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 1,080 patients (534 biliary stents and 546 T-tube) were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the biliary stent group compared to the T-tube group 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.80, p = 0.007]. In terms of the operation time, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate was also decreased in stenting as biliary drainage over T-tube placement 1.02 minutes [95% CI -1.53, -0.52, p < 0.0001], 1.96 days [95% CI -2.63, -1.29, p < 0.00001], and RR 0.39 [95% CI 0.15-0.97, p = 0.04], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting as biliary drainage after CBDE was superior to T-tube insertion. A shorter operation time and hospital stay in biliary drainage resulted in a lower overall postoperative complication rate. Other influences, including the complexity and shorter learning curve, might also affect the superiority of biliary stenting.

Comparative study of three common bile duct closure techniques after choledocholithotomy: safety and efficacy

PURPOSE

T-tube drainage, primary closure, and biliary stenting are the common bile duct closure methods. There is great debate on the optimal duct closure technique after common bile duct exploration. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the three commonest common bile duct closure methods after common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stone for future generalization.

METHODS

In this analysis, 211 patients with common bile duct stone underwent common bile duct exploration from January 2016 to December 2020. The patients were divided according to common bile duct closure techniques into three groups, including the T-tube drainage group (63 patients), primary duct closure group (61 patients), and antegrade biliary stenting group (87 patients).

RESULTS

The incidence of overall biliary complications and bile leak were statistically significantly lower in the biliary stenting group than in the other two groups. Also, hospital stays, drain carried time, return to normal activity, re-intervention, and re-admission rates were statistically significantly lower in the biliary stenting group than in the other two groups. There were no statistically significant differences regarding operative and choledochotomy time, retained and recurrent stone, stricture, biliary peritonitis, cholangitis, and the cost among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We state that the biliary stenting procedure should be the preferred first option for common bile duct closure after common bile duct exploration when compared with T-tube drainage and primary duct closure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov PRS (Approval No. NCT04264299).

Comparison of Primary Suture and T-Tube Drainage After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined with Intraoperative Choledochoscopy in the Treatment of Secondary Common Bile Duct Stones: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Objective: To compare the safety and feasibility of T-tube drainage and primary suture after laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy in the treatment of secondary choledocholithiasis. Methods: The clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic choledochoscopy combined with choledochoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for secondary choledocholithiasis from June 2015 to June 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the different treatment method of common bile duct (CBD) incision, the patients were divided into a T-tube drainage group and a primary suture group. The preoperative clinical characteristics, results of preoperative liver function tests (LFTs), LFTs on the first day after the operation and the fourth day after the operation, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, and times of postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in preoperative clinical data, preoperative LFTs, and postoperative complications between the two groups (P > .05). However, primary suture demonstrated significant advantages (P < .05) in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and other related factors. Bilirubin levels on the first day after the operation and the fourth day after the operation between the two groups suggested that T-tube drainage reduces bilirubin in the short term, but that long-term bilirubin draining is similar between the two strategies. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that choledochal diameter less than 8 mm was an independent risk factor for bile leakage. Conclusions: Laparoscopy combined with intraoperative choledochoscopic CBD exploration is superior to T-tube drainage in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay. The ability of reducing bilirubin by traditional T-tube drainage is indeed better than that of primary suture in the early stage after operation, but there is no difference in long-term outcome between the two groups. Choledochal diameter ≤8 mm was an independent risk factor for bile leakage. To summarize, LCBDEs primary suture for secondary choledocholithiasis is safe and feasible.

Can T-tube drainage be replaced by primary suture technique in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered the best treatment and has the advantages of being minimally invasive for common bile duct (CBD) stones, the choice of T-tube drainage (TTD) or primary duct closure (PDC) after LCBDE is still controversial. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare the superiority of PDC versus TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

All potential studies which compare the surgical effects between PDC with TTD were electronically searched for in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library databases up to November 2019. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

In total, six randomized controlled trials with 604 patients (307 in the PDC group and 297 in the TTD group) were included in the current meta-analysis. As compared with the TTD group, the pooled data showed that PDC group had shorter operating time (WMD = -24.30; 95% CI = -27.02 to -21.59; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%; p < 0.88), less medical expenditure (WMD = -2255.73; 95% CI = -3330.59 to -1180.86; p < 0.0001; I² = 96%; p < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (OR = -2.88; 95% CI = -3.22 to -2.54; p < 0.00001; I² = 60%; p < 0.03), and lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.78; p = 0.77; I² = 0%; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning bile leakage (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.53; p = 0.42; I² = 0%; p = 0.90) and retained stones (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.36 to 2.52; p < 0.93; I² = 0%; p < 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with PDC should be performed as a priority alternative compared with TTD for choledocholithiasis.

Meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-staged management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones

Objective:

The purpose of this article was to compare the effectiveness and safety of single-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration [LCBDE]) with two-stage (LC plus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy [EST]) in management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones.

Materials and Methods:

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes following single-stage with two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and CBD stones published from 1990 to 2017 in PubMed, Embase and the Science Citation Index. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the CBD, post-operative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were retained stone, conversion to other procedures, length of hospital stay and total operating time. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model.

Results:

Eleven RCTs studies were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 1338 patients: 666 underwent LC + LCBDE and 672 underwent LC + ERCP/EST. The meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was noted between the two groups regarding CBD stone clearance (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.99–1.14; P = 0.12), post-operative morbidity (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79–1.34; P = 0.81), mortality (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.06–1.41; P = 0.13), retained stone (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.57–1.47; P = 0.71), conversion to other procedures (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.55–0.16; P = 0.23), length of hospital stay (WMD: 1.24, 95% CI: 3.57–1.09, P = 0.30), total operating time (WMD: 25.42, 95% CI: 22.38–73.22, P = 0.30).

Conclusion:

Single-stage is efficient and safe in the treatment of patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones while avoiding the second procedure. In selected patients, single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and CBD stones might be considered as the preferred approach. However, the findings have to be carefully interpreted due to the existence of heterogeneity, in addition, patient's condition, operator's experience also should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.

A Novel Remote-Controlled Injection Device for T-Tube Cholangiography: A Feasibility Study in Canines

Backgroun

The purpose of this study was to develop a remote-controlled injection device for T-tube cholangiography to avoid occupational exposure.

Material/Methods

The remote-controlled injection device has 3 major components: an injection pump, a pressure sensor, and a wireless remote-control panel. The feasibility and effectiveness of this device for T-tube cholangiography was evaluated in ex vivo porcine livers using a laparoscopic training platform and in in vivo canine experiments.

Results

The contrast dye was successfully injected into the biliary tracts of the ex vivo porcine liver and canines by the designed device. The X-ray images clearly showed the anatomical structure of the bile ducts. No obvious adverse reaction was observed in the dogs during or after the procedure. All steps were controlled remotely, avoiding ionizing radiation exposure to the surgeons.

Conclusions

This novel remote-controlled injection device for T-tube cholangiography can assist operators in completing cholangiography remotely and protecting them from occupational exposure.

Should T-Tube Drainage be Performed for Choledocholithiasis after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been verified to be a comparatively effective treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and it has been previously proposed that the primary duct closure (PDC) technique, in which the bile duct can directly be sutured in only 1 step compared with the T-tube drainage (TTD), can be deemed a choice after LCBDE; however, the conventional TTD performance is controversial in the minimally invasive surgery era. On the basis of the above-mentioned point, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess the different effects between TTD and PDC after LCBDE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, literature search was conducted to screen out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare PDC with TTD. The analyzed outcome variables included overall morbidity, biliary-specific morbidity (retained stones, biliary leak, biliary peritonitis), other morbidities, operating time, postoperative hospital stay, reintervention (surgery, endoscopy/radiology), and median hospital expenses.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, there are 4 RCTs qualifying for inclusion, including 396 patients in all (222 in PDC and 214 in TTD). With respect to postoperative overall morbidity (P<0.05), biliary peritonitis (P<0.05), surgery time (P<0.05), length of stay (P<0.05), and median hospital expenses (P<0.05), PDC presented remarkably better results than TTD (P<0.05). Statistically, no remarkable distinction was found between the 2 groups as to biliary-specific morbidity, retained stones, biliary leak, other morbidities, or reintervention (radiology/endoscopy, surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, there was no evidence provided for clinical benefits of using TTD after LCBDE. Therefore, TTD should not routinely be performed after LCBDE. However, multicenter, large sample size, RCTs should be conducted to clarify this issue.

Efficacy of fibrin-sealants in reducing biliary leakage following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

INTRODUCTION

In spite of the acquired experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis management, there is still a risk of biliary leakage of 5% to 15% following choledochotomy closure. We evaluate the usefulness of fibrin-collagen sealants to reduce the incidence of biliary fistula after laparoscopic choledochorrhaphy.

METHODS

We report a retrospective analysis of 96 patients undergoing LCBDE from March 2009 to March 2017, whose closure of the bile duct was completed by antegrade stenting and choledochorraphy or by performing a primary suture. The study population was divided into two groups according to whether they received a collagen-fibrin sealant covering the choledochorrhaphy or not, analyzing the incidence of postoperative biliary fistula in each group.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients (41%) received a fibrin-collagen sponge while the bile duct closure was not covered in the remaining 57 patients (59%). The incidence of biliary fistula was 7.7% (3 patients) in the first group and 14% (8 patients) in the second group (P=.338). In patients who underwent primary choledochorraphy, the fibrin-collagen sealant reduced the incidence of biliary leakage significantly (4.5% vs. 33%, P=.020), which was a protective factor with an odds ratio of 10.5.

CONCLUSION

Fibrin-collagen sealants may decrease the incidence of biliary fistula in patients who have undergone primary bile duct closure following LCBDE.

Laparoscopy-assisted micropercutaneous choledocholithotripsy with holmium laser in a cholecystectomized patient: an initial report

We present a novel minimally invasive technique, laparoscopy-assisted micropercutaneous choledocholithotripsy, for choledocholithiasis that cannot be treated with other endoscopic techniques. This technique includes standard laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct, combined with an all-seeing needle and holmium laser lithotripsy. As is known, an all-seeing needle is used in micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy for middle-sized renal stones. In this technique, an all-seeing needle was inserted into the dilatated common bile duct under laparoscopic vision and then a lithotripsy procedure was performed with a holmium laser behind the biliary stent. A cholecystectomized female patient with a 21-mm stone in the common bile duct who previously underwent an unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure was operated on in our service with laparoscopy-assisted micropercutaneous choledocholithotomy without a T-tube. This novel procedure was completed uneventfully and the patient was discharged without any complications. In the future, this procedure will hopefully be a treatment modality in choledocholithiasis that cannot be treated by other minimally invasive techniques.

Comparative Study of Three Bile Duct Closure Methods Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

There are three choledochotomy closure methods available following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: T-tube insertion, antegrade stenting, and primary choledochorrhaphy. We reviewed the experience of 12 years at our center searching for the optimal closure technique.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospectively 146 patients that underwent one of the three closure methods from February 2004 to March 2016. Hospital stay, need for readmission, incidence of early and long-term complications, and biliary leakage development and their clinical impact were determined for each technique.

RESULTS

Hospital stay was more prolonged, and need for readmission was higher in the T-tube group. Nine patients of the T-tube group (17.3%), 5 patients (8.6%) of the antegrade stenting group, and 1 patient of the primary suture group (2.8%) developed Dindo-Clavien ≥3 complications (P = .076). The incidence of biliary leakage was 3.8%, 8.6%, and 16.7% for the T-tube group, antegrade stenting group, and primary suture group, respectively. There was no grade C biliary fistula in the primary suture group, and all grade B leaks in these patients were only due to prolonged duration. The T-tube removal caused adverse events in 21.1% of the patients, and complications directly related with stents occurred in 9.6%.

CONCLUSION

Antegrade stents or T-tube insertion do not provide any added value for choledochotomy closure but are charged with specific morbidity. On the contrary, despite biliary leaks being more frequent after primary suture, they are of little clinical consequence and may be managed on an outpatient basis.

Advantages of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in common bile duct stones

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and open common bile duct exploration for treatment of common bile duct stones.

METHODS

In total, 210 patients were prospectively randomized into 3 groups: laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and open common bile duct exploration. The primary outcome measures were the common bile duct stone clearance rate and the complication rate. The secondary outcome measures were mortality, total costs, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The success rates in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration group (97.14%, 68 out of 70) and open common bile duct exploration group (98.57%, 69/70) were significantly higher than that in the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (85.71%, 60/70, both p < 0.05). The complication rates in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration group (2.86%, 2/70) and open common bile duct exploration group (1.43%, 1/70) were significantly lower than that in the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (14.29%, 10/70, both p < 0.05). The success rate and complication rate were not significantly different between the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration group and open common bile duct exploration group (both p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration provides an alternative therapeutic approach that was safer and more reliable, allowed for earlier recovery, and provided more cost-effective treatment of common bile duct stones.

LABEL procedure: Laser-Assisted Bile duct Exploration by Laparoendoscopy for choledocholithiasis: improving surgical outcomes and reducing technical failure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) is recommended in current treatment guidelines for the management of choledocholithiasis with gallbladder in situ. Failure of this technique is common as a consequence of large or impacted common bile duct (CBD) stones. In this series, we present our experience in using holmium laser lithotripsy as an adjunct to LBDE for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Between 2014 and 2016, eighteen laparoscopic bile duct explorations utilising holmium laser lithotripsy were performed after failure of standard retrieval techniques.

RESULTS

Choledocholithiasis was successfully treated in 18 patients using laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (transcystically in 14 patients). There was one failure where a CBD stricture prevented the scope reaching the stone. Two medical complications were recorded (Clavien-Dindo I and II). There were no mortalities or re-interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

LABEL technique is a successful and safe method to enhance LBDE in cases of impacted or large stones. In our experience, this approach increases the feasibility of the transcystic stone retrieval and may reduce overall operative time.

Single-stage laparoscopic management of acute gallstone pancreatitis: outcomes at different timings

BACKGROUND

Definitive therapy for gallstone pancreatitis requires eradication of gallstones with cholecystectomy and common bile duct (CBD) clearance. Current guidelines recommend this be done within the same admission and preferably by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBD exploration. We report our experience of laparoscopic single-stage management with cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiogram followed by laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) when necessary performed at three different stages.

METHODS

From January 1998 to December 2012, 134 patients (100 females and 34 males) underwent single-stage laparoscopic management of gallstone pancreatitis. Patients were classified according to the timing of surgery: "A", ≤7 days from symptom onset (n=27); "B", 8 to 30 days (n=58) and "C", >30 days (n=49).

RESULTS

LBDE was performed in 30 patients with a success rate of 100%. CBD stones were found in 25 patients (A: 22.2%, B: 22.4%, C: 12.2%). CBD stones were more common in patients undergoing surgery within 30 days of presentation than after this time point (P=0.35). Multiple choledocholithiasis was more frequent in patients treated within 7 days (P=0.04). The 30-day mortality after surgery was 0, with no conversion to an open approach. Overall complication rate was 11.9%, which did not differ significantly between patients treated within 7 days or after this time point (P=0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the feasibility and reproducibility of single-stage laparoscopic management of acute gallstone pancreatitis, which has a low complication rate at any stage. Patients undergoing early treatment have a higher incidence of choledocholithiasis and multiple stones than those treated after 30 days, supporting the passage of stones with time.

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: transpapillary stenting or external biliary drainage?

BACKGROUND

To date, the management of common bile duct stones (CBDs) is still controversial. If laparoscopic exploration is performed and biliary decompression is needed after stone removal, the placement of a laparoscopic transpapillary stent shows promising results in avoiding T-tube-related complications.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and May 2012, a series of 48 patients who underwent biliary decompression after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) to treat choledocholithiasis was retrospectively analyzed. The results in patients with transpapillary stent placement (TS=35) were compared with those who had an external biliary drainage (EBD=13).

RESULTS

LCBDE and TS placement was achieved either by a choledochotomy or through the cystic duct. There was no mortality in our series. Patients with an external biliary drainage (EBD) had more surgery-related complications (P<.0001) and a longer hospital stay (P=.03). Postoperative ERCP to remove the TS was successful in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic TS is a safe method in the treatment of selected patients with CBD stones that can be achieved without having to perform a choledochotomy. Because of the lower morbidity and the shorter hospital stay compared with EBD, it should be considered as a first approach whenever biliary decompression is needed after LCBDE.

A meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of single-stage [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)+laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)] vs. two-stage management [preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)+LC] for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.

METHODS

RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for data extraction were identified from electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library) up to August 2014. The relevant congressional proceedings were also searched. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures, length of hospital stay, total operative time, and hospitalization charges. The outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.2.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, which included 1130 patients, were identified for analysis in our study. The meta-analysis revealed that the common bile duct stone clearance rate in the single-stage group was higher (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.33, P=0.03). The lengths of hospital stay (MD=-1.02, 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.04, P=0.04) and total operative times (MD=-16.78, 95% CI: -27.55 to -6.01, P=0.002) were also shorter in the single-stage group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative morbidity (OR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.59, P=0.52), mortality (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.41, P=0.13) and conversion to other procedures (OR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.82, P=0.62).

CONCLUSION

Single- and two-stage management for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis had similar mortality and complication rates; however, the single-stage strategy was better in terms of stone clearance, hospital stay and total operative time.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

With advances in laparoscopic instrumentation and acquisition of advanced laparoscopic skills, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is technically feasible and increasingly practiced by surgeons worldwide. Traditional practice of suturing the dochotomy with T-tube drainage may be associated with T-tube-related complications. Primary duct closure (PDC) without a T-tube has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement (TTD) after LCBDE. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PDC when compared to TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage. Studies were reviewed for the primary outcome measures: overall postoperative complications, postoperative biliary-specific complications, re-interventions, and postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes assessed were: operating time, median hospital expenses, and general complications.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies comparing PDC and TTD qualified for inclusion in our meta-analysis, with a total of 1770 patients. PDC showed significantly better results when compared to TTD in terms of postoperative biliary peritonitis (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.76, P = 0.02), operating time (WMD, -22.27, 95% CI -33.26 to -11.28, P < 0.00001), postoperative hospital stay (WMD, -3.22; 95% CI -4.52 to -1.92, P < 0.00001), and median hospital expenses (SMD, -1.37, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.77, P < 0.00001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly decreased in the primary duct closure with internal biliary drainage (PDC + BD) group when compared to TTD group (WMD, -2.68; 95% CI -3.23 to -2.13, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrates that PDC after LCBDE is feasible and associated with fewer complications than TTD. Based on these results, primary duct closure may be considered as the optimal procedure for dochotomy closure after LCBDE.

Use of biliary stent in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

INTRODUCTION

It is well supported in the literature that laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis has equal efficacy when compared to ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Decompression after supra-duodenal choledochotomy is common practice as it reduced the risk of bile leaks. We conducted a prospective non-randomized study to compare outcomes and length of stay in patients undergoing biliary stent insertion versus T-tube drainage following LCBDE via choledochotomy.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The study involved 116 patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE and decompression of the biliary system by either ante-grade biliary stent or T-tube insertion. A 7 French straight/duodenal curve biliary Diagmed™ stent (9-11 cm) was placed in 82 patients (Biliary Stent Group). T-tube insertion was used for 34 patients (T-tube group). The length of hospital stay and complications for the selected patients were recorded. All trans-cystic common bile duct explorations were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

The mean hospital stay for patients who underwent ante-grade biliary stent or T-tube insertion after LBCDE were 1 and 3.4 days, respectively. This is a statistically significant result with a p value of less than 0.001. Of the T-tube group, two patients required laparoscopic washout due to bile leaks, one had ongoing biliary stasis and one reported ongoing pain whilst the T-tube was in situ. A complication rate of 11.2%, this was a significant finding. There were no complications or concerns reported for the Biliary Stent Group.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that there is a significant reduction in length of hospital stay and morbidity for patients that have ante-grade biliary stent decompression of the CBD post laparoscopic choledochotomy when compared T-tube drainage. This implies that ante-grade biliary stent insertion is likely to reduce costs and increase overall patient satisfaction. We support the use of ante-grade biliary stent insertion during LCBDE when primary closure is not preferred.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Lessons learned after 200 cases

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a reliable, reproducible and cost-effective treatment for common bile duct stones. Several techniques have been described for choledochotomy closure.

AIMS

To present our experience and the lessons learned in more than 200 cases of LCBDE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1999 and July 2012, 206 patients with common bile duct stones underwent LCBDE. At the beginning of the series, we performed the closure of the CBD over a T-tube (36 patients), subsequently we favoured closure over an antegrade stent (133 patients) but due to a high incidence of acute pancreatitis in the last 16 patients we have performed primary closure.

RESULTS

The 3 closure groups were matched for age and sex. Jaundice was the most frequent presentation. A total of 185 (88,5%) patients underwent choledochotomy whereas in 17 (8,7%) patients the transcystic route was used. The group that underwent choledochotomy had a larger size of stones compared to the transcystic group (9,7 vs 7,6mm). In the stented group we found an 11,6% incidence of pancreatitis and 26,1% of hyperamylasemia. In the primary closure group we found a clear improvement of complications and hospital stay. The increased experience of the surgeon and age (younger than 75) had a positive impact on mortality and morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure of the common bile duct after LCBDE seems to be superior to closure over a T tube and stents. The learning curve seems to have a positive impact on the outcomes making it a safe and reproducible technique especially for patients aged under 75.

Does laparoscopic approach impair T-tube-related sinus-tract formation?

PURPOSE

Postoperative morbidity after bile duct exploration with T-tube insertion is mainly related to tube removal and incomplete sinus-tract formation leading to serious complications. Laparoscopic surgery reduces abdominal adhesion formation and diminishes tissue trauma and inflammatory response to surgery, which is essential for sinus-tract formation. This study evaluates if complication rate of T-tube removal is increased after laparoscopic bile duct exploration.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and January 2011, 94 patients underwent a T-tube insertion following choledocolithotomy (44 and 50 patients in the laparoscopic and open surgery group, respectively). Epidemiological data, preoperative characteristics, day of tube removal, and morbidity rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Global T-tube removal-related biliary complication rate was 14.9% (18.2% in the laparoscopic group vs. 12% in the open surgery group). Although the day of T-tube removal was significantly delayed, there was a slight increased incidence of biliary peritonitis requiring reintervention in the laparoscopic surgery group (6.9% vs. 2%).

CONCLUSIONS

We reveal that T-tube removal is associated with significant morbidity. There was no statistical difference between the laparoscopic and the open surgery group, although global biliary complications after tube removal were slightly increased and bile spillage was worse delimited when T-tube was inserted laparoscopically. Laparoscopic approach may diminish inflammatory response and adherence development and impair, and therefore sinus-tract formation.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Stones may be removed at the time of cholecystectomy by opening and clearing the common bile duct. The optimal technique is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure without biliary stent after open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using Review Manager (RevMan) analyses. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials randomising 359 participants, 178 to T-tube drainage and 181 to primary closure. All trials were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (4/178 (weighted percentage 1.2%) in the T-tube group versus 1/181 (0.6%) in the primary closure group; RR 2.25; 95% CI 0.55 to 9.25; six trials). There was no significant difference in the serious morbidity rate between the two groups (24/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 145 events per 1000 patients) in the T-tube group versus 9/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 66 events per 1000 patients) in the primary closure group; RaR 2.19; 95% CI 0.98 to 4.91; four trials). Quality of life and return to work were not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 28.90 minutes; 95% CI 17.18 to 40.62 minutes; one trial). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 4.72 days; 95% CI 0.83 days to 8.60 days; five trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

T-tube drainage appeared to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay compared with primary closure without any apparent evidence of benefit on clinically important outcomes after open common bile duct exploration. Based on the currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. T-tube drainage should not be used outside well designed randomised clinical trials. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias and assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects of T-tube drainage, including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage may prevent bile leak from the biliary tract following bile duct exploration and it offers post-operative access to the bile ducts for visualisation and exploration. Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager (RevMan) Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials randomising 295 participants: 147 to T-tube drainage versus 148 to primary closure. All trials had a high risk of bias. No one died during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with serious morbidity (17/147 (weighted percentage 11.3%) in the T-tube drainage versus 9/148 (6.1%) in the primary closure group; RR 1.86; 95% CI 0.87 to 3.96; three trials), and no significant difference was found in the serious morbidity rates (weighted serious morbidity rate = 97 events per 1000 patients) in participants randomised to T-tube drainage versus serious morbidity rate = 61 events per 1000 patients in the primary closure group; RR 1.59; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.83; three trials). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 21.22 minutes; 95% CI 12.44 minutes to 30.00 minutes; three trials). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 3.26 days; 95% CI 2.49 days to 4.04 days; three trials). According to one trial, the participants randomised to T-tube drainage returned to work approximately eight days later than the participants randomised to the primary closure group (P < 0.005).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

T-tube drainage appears to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay as compared with primary closure without any evidence of benefit after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Based on currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias, assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of T-tube free (TTF) versus T-tube drainage (TTD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

BACKGROUND

LCBDE has been proven to be an effective and preferred treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and the appropriateness of T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct (CBD) stones is still under debate.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Springer-Link, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Postoperative complications were evaluated/graded according to the modified Clavien classification. Other variables extracted including primary closures of the CBDs and the associated assistant methods, T-tube types, and placement durations. Stratified and sensitivity analyses were performed both to explore heterogeneity between studies and to assess the effects of the study qualities.

RESULTS

A total of 956 patients from 12 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio for postoperative complications and biliary-specific complications in TTF was found to be 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.91; P = 0.02], 0.62 (95% CI, 0.36-1.06; P = 0.08), respectively, when compared with TTD. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly decreased in the TTF group, with the pooled weighted mean differences being 18.84 minutes (95% CI, -27.01 to 10.67; P < 0.01) and 3.22 days (95% CI, -4.59 to 1.84; P < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that among patients undergoing laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones, primary closure of the CBD alone is superior to TTD; however, there is no significant benefit in terms of primary duct closure with various internal or external drainage techniques. Further randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited to prove 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.

Treatment of common bile duct injuries after surgery

The treatment of common biliary duct injuries after surgery is a permanent challenge for physicians, and management by a multidisciplinary team is often required. The endoscopic approach is a valuable tool because it is able to assess the problem and also provide a therapeutic option for both fistulas and stenosis of the biliary tree. This article discusses the endoscopic management of postsurgical injuries of the common bile duct and discusses the application of practical tools.

Antegrade common bile duct (CBD) stenting after laparoscopic CBD exploration

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been found to be a safe, efficient and cost-effective treatment for choledocholithiasis. Following LCBDE, the clearance may be ascertained by a cholangiogram or choledochoscopy. The common bile duct (CBD) may be closed primarily with or without a stent in situ or may be drained by means of a T-tube or a biliary enteric anastomosis.

Laparoscopic Primary Closure of Common Bile Duct Combined with Percutaneous Cholangiographic Drainage for Treating Choledocholithiasis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) combined with percutaneous transhepatic cholangiographic drainage (PTCD) and laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube placement for the treatment of CBD stones. Between January 1991 and July 2002, 50 patients with choledocholithiasis and a CBD diameter larger than or equal to 1 cm underwent laparoscopic CBD explorations. The study group consisted of 10 patients undergoing laparoscopic primary closure of the CBD combined with PTCD. The control group consisted of 40 patients undergoing laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube placement. Parameters were compared statistically. The study group showed higher female/male ratio (6/4 vs 8/32, P = 0.02), less stone numbers (1.90 ± 0.88 vs 3.40 ± 1.65, P = 0.0078), shorter operation time (138 ± 37 minutes vs 191 ± 75 minutes, P = 0.014), and shorter postoperative stays (7 ± 3 days vs 10 ± 3 days, P = 0.0013). It seems that laparoscopic primary closure of the CBD combined with PTCD can shorten the operation time and postoperative stays as compared with laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube placement for the treatment of CBD stones.

Various techniques for the surgical treatment of common bile duct stones: a meta review

Common bile duct stones (CBDSs) may occur in up to 3%–14.7% of all patients for whom cholecystectomy is preformed. Patients presenting with CBDS have symptoms including: biliary colic, jaundice, cholangitis, pancreatitis or may be asymptomatic. It is important to distinguish between primary and secondary stones, because the treatment approach varies. Stones found before, during, and after cholecystectomy had also differing treatments. Different methods have been used for the treatment of CBDS but the suitable therapy depends on conditions such as patient' satisfaction, number and size of stones, and the surgeons experience in laparoscopy. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with or without endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy, laparoscopic CBD exploration (transcystic or transcholedochal), or laparotomy with CBD exploration (by T-tube, C-tube insertion, or primary closure) are the most commonly used methods managing CBDS. We will review the pathophysiology of CBDS, diagnosis, and different techniques of treatment with especial focus on the various surgical modalities.

Is a T-tube necessary after common bile duct exploration?

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage used to be standard practice after surgical choledocholithotomy, but there is now a tendency in some centers to close the common bile duct (CBD) primarily. This study was designed to review the complications associated with T-tube drainage after CBD exploration and to determine whether primary closure of the bile duct reduces postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective audit was performed on patients undergoing CBD exploration between July 1997 and March 2007, who were identified from the theatre database of one teaching hospital. Intraoperative findings and postoperative complications were recorded from the clinical notes.

RESULTS

During the study period, 158 patients (97 women; median age 65 (range, 25-90) years) underwent CBD exploration. A T-tube was inserted in 91 patients (group I) and the CBD was closed primarily in 67 (group II). One or more biliary complications occurred in 26 patients (16.5%): 20 (22.0%) in group I and 6 (8.9%) in group II (p = 0.03). In group I, 15 had a biliary leak (3 needed reoperation), 2 had accidental slippage of the tube, 2 an entrapped T-tube, and 1 a retained stone. In group II, six patients had biliary leakage, two of whom were re-explored. Six patients in group I also had peritubal infection, necessitating the use of antibiotics. There were three deaths: two in group I (1 T-tube-related) and 1 in group II (p = 1, not significant).

CONCLUSION

There is a lower biliary complication rate associated with primary closure of the CBD than after T-tube drainage.

Is a T-tube necessary after common bile duct exploration?

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage used to be standard practice after surgical choledocholithotomy, but there is now a tendency in some centers to close the common bile duct (CBD) primarily. This study was designed to review the complications associated with T-tube drainage after CBD exploration and to determine whether primary closure of the bile duct reduces postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective audit was performed on patients undergoing CBD exploration between July 1997 and March 2007, who were identified from the theatre database of one teaching hospital. Intraoperative findings and postoperative complications were recorded from the clinical notes.

RESULTS

During the study period, 158 patients (97 women; median age 65 (range, 25-90) years) underwent CBD exploration. A T-tube was inserted in 91 patients (group I) and the CBD was closed primarily in 67 (group II). One or more biliary complications occurred in 26 patients (16.5%): 20 (22.0%) in group I and 6 (8.9%) in group II (p = 0.03). In group I, 15 had a biliary leak (3 needed reoperation), 2 had accidental slippage of the tube, 2 an entrapped T-tube, and 1 a retained stone. In group II, six patients had biliary leakage, two of whom were re-explored. Six patients in group I also had peritubal infection, necessitating the use of antibiotics. There were three deaths: two in group I (1 T-tube-related) and 1 in group II (p = 1, not significant).

CONCLUSION

There is a lower biliary complication rate associated with primary closure of the CBD than after T-tube drainage.

[Advantages of laparoscopic stented choledochorrhaphy. Six years experience]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is nowadays a valid option in the management of common bile duct stones. T tube and primary closure have been used to close the choledochotomy, but these methods are not free of complications. We present our experience with the stented choledochorrhaphy.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 104 patients, who underwent LCBDE between January 1999 and February 2007. T tube was used in the first period. From July 2001 the method of choice has been the closure of the CBD over an endoprosthesis placed under direct view and later removed by gastroscopy.

RESULTS

The technique was performed on 70 consecutive patients. Median operation time was 90 minutes. There was no conversion to open surgery. Stones could not be retrieved in 4.2% of patients. The median hospital stay was 4 days. Morbidity was 7%, although only 2.8% was related to the stent (acute pancreatitis). Postoperative mortality was 1.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The stented laparoscopic choledochorrhaphy allows an efficient biliary decompression, and seems to avoid the complications of the T tube and primary closure. This method should be considered as a valid option after choledochotomy.

Laparoscopic choledochotomy in management of choledocholithiasis

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic choledochotomy on patients indicated for common bile duct exploration was carried out according to an algorithm for managing choledocholithiasis. This study describes retrospectively our method and evaluates a new cystic duct biliary decompression cannula (J-tube) as an alternative to the T-tube.

METHODS

Patients with confirmed choledocholithiasis (n=46) underwent laparoscopic choledochotomy. The T-tube was inserted in cases with suspected retained stones after common bile duct clearance, and the J-tube (950-mm long, 4 Fr) with a tapered and J-shaped segment at the distal end was inserted in other cases.

RESULTS

Only 1 case was converted to open surgery (success rate, 97.8%); the J-tube was inserted in 30 patients and the T-tube in 15. The median operation time, hospital stay, and the interval until removal of the tube were significantly shorter with J-tube than with T-tube cases. Bile leakage after surgery occurred in 4 J-tube and 2 T-tube cases with one residual stone in each case.

CONCLUSIONS

The transcystic decompression tube is easily and safely inserted with the J-kit. Among several strategies currently available for the management of choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic choledochotomy with the use of the J-tube is one of the safest and most feasible methods.

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.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration

BACKGROUND

Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is controversial. We were unable to identify any meta-analysis or systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine primary closure versus T-tube drainage following laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without a biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from the one identified trial. We analysed the data using the fixed-effect model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial with 55 patients randomised: 27 to the primary closure and 28 to the T-tube group. This trial was of inadequate methodological quality. There was no mortality in either group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes except for the hospital stay (WMD -2.8 days, 95% CI -1.93 to -3.67), which was lower in the primary closure group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have insufficient evidence to recommend T-tube drainage over primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration or vice versa. Further randomised trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage compared with primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Open common bile duct exploration is an important operation when endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography fails or when expertise for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is not available. The optimal method for performing open common bile duct exploration is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of primary closure versus routine T-tube drainage in open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 324 patients randomised: 165 to primary closure without stent and 159 to T-tube. Three of the five trials were considered to have adequate methodological quality, but all lacked blinded outcome assessment. The primary closure group had significantly lower positive bile culture (3 trials, OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45) and wound infection (5 trials, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.56). When only trials with high methodological quality were included, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the outcomes except positive bile culture, which became non-significant when the random-effects model was used. The deaths of the three patients in the T-tube group were directly related to surgery and sepsis. Bile peritonitis was higher in the T-tube group (2.9%) than in the primary closure group (1%) (not statistically significant). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube group compared with the primary closure group in three of the four trials, which reported on the hospital stay. The only trial comparing primary closure with stent (37 patients) versus T-tube drainage (44 patients) did not reveal any statistically significant difference in any of the reported outcomes (mortality, re-operations, wound infection, and hospital stay). There was one case of stent migration, which could not be retrieved after two attempts of ERCP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure after common bile duct exploration seems at least as safe as T-tube drainage. We need randomised trials that assess whether stents may offer benefits.

Limitations of fluoroscopic intraoperative cholangiography in cases suggestive of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Fluoroscopic intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) has been proposed as a safe and accurate screening method for choledocholithiasis, with a sensitivity and specificity of nearly 100% in selected cases. In the present study we retrospectively reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of IOC in cases highly suggestive of choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 1999 and December 2002, 103 patients underwent IOC as an imaging method for common bile duct (CBD) stone detection. We did not routinely perform IOC in all patients who were submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, reserving the method for patients with a high probability of choledocholithiasis, namely patients with a history or the presence of painful obstructive jaundice at the time of referral, patients with a history of mild acute pancreatitis of biliary origin, and patients with abnormalities in their liver biochemistry profile as measured by liver function tests (LFT).

RESULTS

The mean rates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for IOC were 98%, 94%, 94.5%, and 98% for the whole series, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was 100% in patients with a history of obstructive jaundice or liver biochemical derangement, but was less in patients with a history of biliary pancreatitis. There were 3 false positive cases and 1 case of false negative results, all of which occurred in the subgroup of patients with a history of pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

Selective fluoroscopic IOC is generally feasible and safe, as well as highly accurate (100%) for CBD stone detection in patients with obstructive jaundice or abnormal LFT. The PPV of the method decreases in patients with a history of pancreatitis (75%), while a negative result is highly suggestive of the absence of CBD stones (NPV = 98%). The present study concluded in a higher incidence of false results in patients with a normal size CBD, suggesting that the diagnostic accuracy of IOC is probably related to the size of the CBD rather than the indication for its performance.