Laparoscopic Transcystic Versus Transductal Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Minimally Invasive Common Bile Duct Stone Management in Gastric Bypass Patients: Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Disposable Bronchoscope

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery patients may develop common bile duct stones, and the alterations in their anatomy present challenges in treating this condition. Methods such as laparoscopic bile duct exploration is impractical in many healthcare facilities, due to the absence of a choledochoscope. This study assesses the feasibility of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct using a disposable bronchoscope in these individuals.

METHOD

The study involved 32 participants who had undergone gastric bypass surgery. These participants presented with both bile duct stones and bile ducts exceeding 8 mm in diameter, diagnosed through either MRCP or cholangiography conducted during the surgery. Stone extraction was carried out through either choledotomy or transcystic routes using a disposable bronchoscope and endoscopic baskets.

RESULTS

The patients' ages ranged from 27 to 66 years, with a mean bile duct diameter of 11.6 mm (SD 3.1 mm). A 100% stone clearance rate was achieved for all patients. None of the patients required conversion to open surgery. No T-tubes were placed. One patient developed biloma and intra-abdominal abscesses, which were successfully treated with a percutaneous drain over the course of a week. No mortalities were recorded during the course of this study.

CONCLUSION

Our study results demonstrate that laparoscopic bile duct exploration is both feasible and safe in patients who have undergone gastric bypass surgery. The utilization of a disposable bronchoscope emerges as a practical and cost-effective alternative to a choledochoscope in this procedure.

Surgical strategies for challenging common bile duct stones in the endoscopic era: A comprehensive review of current evidence

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the primary treatment modality for common bile duct stones (CBDS) or choledocholithiasis due to advancements in instruments, surgical intervention, known as common bile duct exploration (CBDE), is still necessary in cases of difficult CBDS, failed endoscopic treatment, or altered anatomy. Recent evidence also supports CBDE in patients requesting single-step cholecystectomy and bile duct stone removal with comparable outcomes. This review elucidates relevant clinical anatomy, selection indications, and outcomes to enhance surgical understanding. The selection between trans-cystic (TC) vs trans-choledochal (TD) approaches is described, along with stone removal techniques and ductal closure. Detailed surgical techniques and strategies for both the TC and TD approaches, including instrument selection, is also provided. Additionally, this review comprehensively addresses operation-specific complications such as bile leakage, stricture, and entrapment, and focuses on preventive measures and treatment strategies. This review aims to optimize the management of CBDS through laparoscopic CBDE, with the goal of improving patient outcomes and minimizing risks.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) approach for patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a comparative study between four ERCP techniques with proposed management algorithm

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is technically challenging in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to altered anatomy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the procedural and clinical outcomes of 4 different ERCP techniques in RYGB patients.

SETTING

Academic tertiary referral center in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study including patients with RYGB anatomy who underwent an ERCP between January 2015 and September 2020. We compared procedural success and adverse events (AEs) rates of balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE), gastrostomy-assisted ERCP (GAE), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE), and rendezvous guidewire-assisted ERCP (RGA).

RESULTS

Seventy-eight RYGB patients underwent a total of 132 ERCPs. The mean age was 60 ± 11.8 years, with female predominance (85.7%). The ERCP procedures performed were BAE (n = 64; 48.5%), GAE (n = 18; 13.7%), EDGE (n = 25; 18.9%), and RGA (n = 25; 18.9%), with overall procedure success rates of 64.1%, 100%, 89.5%, and 91.7%, respectively. All approaches were superior to BAE (GAE versus BAE, P = .003; EDGE versus BAE, P = .034; RGA versus BAE, P = .011). The overall AE rates were 10.9%, 11.1%, 15.8 %, and 25.0%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in AEs. There were also no differences in bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and perforation rates between the 4 approaches.

CONCLUSION

Procedure success was similar between GAE, RGA, and EDGE, but superior to BAE. AE rates were similar between approaches.

ERCP findings provide further justification for a "surgery-first" mindset in choledocholithiasis

INTRODUCTION

Choledocholithiasis is most often managed in a two-procedure pathway including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In contrast, a single-stage, surgery-first approach consisting of LC, cholangiogram, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is associated with reduced hospital stays and equivalent morbidity. Despite this, nationwide referral patterns heavily favor ERCP, obscuring those undergoing ERCP with obstructions amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. We hypothesized that most patients had endoscopic findings consistent with simple sludge or small-to-medium stones, which could have been cleared by basic LCBDE maneuvers.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 294 patients > 18 years old who underwent preoperative ERCP for the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Exclusion criteria included: failed ERCP, cholangitis, prior cholecystectomy, patient refusal of surgery, or medical conditions precluding surgical candidacy. Stone size was categorized as small (0-4 mm), medium (5-7 mm), and large (≥ 8 mm).

RESULTS

At the time of ERCP, 37 (20.1%) patients had sludge only, 96 (52.2%) had stones only, 42 (22.8%) had sludge and stones, and 9 (4.8%) had no stones. Of the 138 patients with any stones, 37 (26.8%) had small stones, 41 (29.7%) medium, 43 (31.2%) large, and 17 (12.3%) had uncharacterizable stones. Overall, 74.3% of patients had findings of sludge, stones (0-7 mm), or negative ERCP.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients who underwent preoperative ERCP for suspected choledocholithiasis had findings that are amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. In fact, over a quarter of the patients had a negative ERCP, sludge, or small stones which would likely be cleared by flushing/glucagon precluding any further instrumentation. While large stones may require more advanced techniques, this represents a small percentage of patients. Surgery-first management for suspected choledocholithiasis can offer an efficient alternative for the majority of patients.

Diagnostic performance of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration for the detection of choledocholithiasis in patients with negative MRCP

There is little research to evaluate laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LTCBDE) as a diagnostic test to identify choledocholithiasis undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This study aimed to assess the technical success and safety of LTCBDE in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis but negative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) undergoing LC. We did an ambispective cohort study in patients with gallstones and suspected CBD stones but negative MRCP undergoing LC. The primary outcomes were the rate of complications in the hospital. Between January 2010 and December 2018, 620 patients (median age, 58 years; 58.4% female) were eligible for the study. The success rate of LTCBDE was 91.8% and CBD stones were observed in 53.3% with a stone clearance rate of 99.3%. The overall postoperative complication rate was 0.65% and no death was recorded in the total cohort. Notably, the morbidity in LTCBDE is 0.53%. Retained CBD stones were diagnosed in 2 patients and managed by ERCP successfully. In the LTCBDE cohort, the median duration of operation was 78 (60-100) min and the median postoperative hospital stay was 1 (1-2) days. Overall, at a mean follow-up of 4.1 (2.3-6.1) years, recurrent CBD stones occurred in 1.1% and all-cause mortality in 0.6%. LTCBDE should be considered the favored choice in the diagnostic algorithm for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis but negative MRCP undergoing LC.

Learning curve for performing laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in biliary surgery 2.0 era

BACKGROUND

Recent trials and metanalysis have demonstrated the favorable results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the LC + LCBDE learning curve including transcystic and transductal approaches and its effect on the outcomes.

METHODS

We identified all unselected patients who underwent LC + LCBDE by a single surgeon between May 2017 and July 2021. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative data were analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis to evaluate the learning curve.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were included. Total postoperative complications rate was 12.7%, including bile leakage in six (5.5%) patients. Mean length of hospital stay was 2.7 (1-14) days. No patient had conversion to open surgery. The CUSUM graph divided the learning curve into three distinct phases: (1) Learning (1-38), (2) Competence (39-61) and (3) Proficiency (62-110). There was a significant increase in the transcystic approach rate with each phase (44.7% vs 73.9% vs 98%; P < .001). A significant decrease in the operative time (150.9 vs 117.6 vs 99.9 min; P < .001) and complication rate (21.1% vs 21.7% vs 2%; P = .01) were observed across the three phases.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the learning curve for complete competence in LC + LCBDE is approximately 60 cases, provided that proper training is available. The initial learning phase can be carried out safely and efficiently with acceptable results.

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Using a Disposable Bronchoscope

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) remains underutilized in the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. The exact cause of this under-utilization remains unclear; however, identified barriers to LCBDE implementation include lack of training and unavailability of dedicated instruments. LCBDE is an attractive alternative for stone retrieval in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass given the anatomical difficulty in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopaneatography (ERCP). Direct visualization through choledochoscopy is the method of choice for LCBDE. However, dedicated choledoscopes are expensive and not widely available, which may lead surgeons to seek for alternatives at their particular environment. With the COVID-19 pandemic, disposable bronchoscopes have become widely accessible at our institution, raising the possibility of using one for direct vision of the biliary tract. We present the case of a 61-year-old male with past medical history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, who presented to the emergency department with a CBD stone. Successful LCBDE was achieved with the aid of a disposable bronchoscope for direct visualization of the biliary tract.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12262-022-03642-7.

Multi-institutional expert update on the use of laparoscopic bile duct exploration in the management of choledocholithiasis: Lesson learned from 3950 procedures

BACKGROUND

Recently there has been a growing interest in the laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones with gallbladder in situ (LBDE), which is favoring the expansion of this technique. Our study identified the standardization factors of LBDE and its implementation in the single-stage management of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A retrospective multi-institutional study among 17 centers with proven experience in LBDE was performed. A cross-sectional survey consisting of a semi-structured pretested questionnaire was distributed covering the main aspects on the use of LBDE in the management of choledocholithiasis.

RESULTS

A total of 3950 LBDEs were analyzed. The most frequent indication was jaundice (58.8%). LBDEs were performed after failed ERCP in 15.2%. The most common approach used was the transcystic (63.11%). The overall series failure rate of LBDE was 4% and the median rate for each center was 6% (IQR, 4.5-12.5). Median operative time ranged between 60-120 min (70.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 14.6%, with a postoperative bile leak and complications ≥3a rate of 4.5% and 2.5%, respectively. The operative time decreased with experience (P = .03) and length of hospital stay was longer in the presence of a biliary leak (P = .04). Current training of LBDE was defined as poor or very poor by 82.4%.

CONCLUSION

Based on this multicenter survey, LBDE is a safe and effective approach when performed by experienced teams. The generalization of LBDE will be based on developing training programs.

Controversias en cirugía: colelitiasis y coledocolitiasis ¿Exploración de vías biliares laparoscópica más colecistectomía laparoscópica (cirugía en un paso) o CPRE y colecistectomía laparoscópica (cirugía en dos pasos)?

Introducción. La colelitiasis tiene una prevalencia del 15 % y el 21 % tendrá coledocolitiasis al momento de la colecistectomía, con 50 % de probabilidad de presentar complicaciones asociadas. Desde el advenimiento de la colecistectomía laparoscópica, el abordaje de la coledocolitiasis ha sido endoscópico, usualmente en un tiempo diferente al vesicular, sin embargo, los avances en laparoscopia han permitido explorar la vía biliar común por la misma vía, pudiendo realizar ambos procedimientos en el mismo tiempo de forma segura. Métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda de la literatura existente con relación al enfoque para el manejo de la colecistocoledocolitasis en un paso comparado con dos pasos. Resultados. Existe evidencia que demuestra mayor efectividad del abordaje en dos pasos, con CPRE y posterior colecistectomía laparoscópica, sobre el abordaje en un paso, especialmente en la tasa de fuga biliar y de cálculos retenidos. El enfoque en un paso con exploración de vías biliares y colecistectomía laparoscópica en el mismo tiempo es seguro, con alta tasa de éxito, baja incidencia de complicaciones, menor estancia hospitalaria y costos. Conclusión. El abordaje laparoscópico en un solo paso es un procedimiento seguro y eficaz para el manejo de la colecisto-coledocolitiasis, con el beneficio de estancia hospitalaria menor, sin embargo, se requieren habilidades técnicas avanzadas en cirugía laparoscópica. En nuestro medio ya existe una infraestructura para el manejo híbrido con CPRE y colecistectomía laparoscópica, pudiéndose realizar ambos en el mismo tiempo, para reducir estancia y costos.

Optimal treatment for concomitant gallbladder stones with common bile duct stones and predictors for recurrence of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for concomitant gallbladder (GB) stones with common bile duct (CBD) stones and predictors for recurrence of CBD stones are not established.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study reviewed 466 patients diagnosed with a first event of concomitant GB stones with CBD stones from January 2010 to December 2018.

RESULTS

92 patients underwent single-stage laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) (group1), 108 underwent LCBDE + LC after endoscopic stone extraction (ESE) failure (group2), and 266 underwent ESE + LC (group3). Clearance (95.7 vs. 99.1 vs. 97.0%, p = 0.324) and recurrence rates (5.4 vs. 13.0 vs. 7.9%, p = 0.138) did not differ between groups. Group1 had fewer procedures (p < 0.001), lower post-treatment complication rates (7.6 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.9%, p = 0.082), and shorter hospital stay after the first procedure (5.7 vs 13.0 vs 9.8 days, p < 0.001). 40 patients (8.6%) had recurrence of CBD stones at mean follow-up of 17.1 months, of which 29 (72.5%) occurred within 24 months. In multivariate analysis, a CBD diameter > 8 mm, combined type-1 periampullary diverticulum, and age > 70 years were significant predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage LCBDE + LC is a safe and effective treatment for concomitant GB stones with CBD stones compared to ESE + LC. LCBDE should be considered in patients with a high risk of ESE failure. Careful follow-up is recommended for patients at high risk of recurrence of CBD stones, especially within 24 months after surgical or endoscopic treatment.

Laparoscopic treatment of a recurrent biliary stone forming around a Hem-o-lok clip in a patient with previous gastrectomies: Case report

RATIONALE

A history of gastrectomy is associated with an increased incidence of gallstones requiring surgery. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is challenging for patients who undergo total or Billroth II gastrectomy. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been attempted in such cases. Herein, we report a case of choledocholithiasis in which a stone formed around a migrated Hem-o-lok clip.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 67-year-old man was admitted to the hospital for acute right upper abdominal pain. He had a history of 2 open gastric cancer surgeries in the previous seven years and had undergone LCBDE 12 months prior to this admission. Postoperative examination revealed recurrence of bile duct stones.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient underwent repeat LCBDE plus primary closure with an evaluation of abdominal adhesion. A stone had formed around a Hem-o-lok clip in the common bile duct was removed.

OUTCOMES

The patient had an uneventful recovery with no stone recurrence or movement of the remaining Hem-o-lok clips after a 1-year follow-up.

LESSONS

LCBDE with primary closure should be carefully considered in patients with certain gallstone diseases after complicated upper abdominal surgery.Postoperative clip migration is a rare complication; hence care must be taken in placing the clip appropriately to ensure that it is not too close to the common bile duct.

Comparison of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treating gallstones and common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time.

RESULTS

Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones.

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

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

One-stage fluoroscopy-guided laparoscopic transcystic papillary balloon dilation and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis who previously had undergone gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with a history of gastrectomy have a higher incidence of cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL) and related morbidities than the general population. However, the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is challenging in patients after Roux-en-Y or Billroth II reconstruction because of the altered gastrointestinal anatomy. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic transcystic papillary balloon dilation and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LTPBD+LC) in patients with previous gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included five patients with CCL who had previously undergone gastrectomy. All five underwent LTPBD+LC between May 2015 and February 2020 at our institution. The primary end-point was complete clearance of the CBD stones.

RESULTS

Of the 311 patients who had undergone gastrectomy for gastric cancer from December 2009 to December 2018 at our institution, six (1.9%) were later diagnosed with CCL. Five of the six patients did not need emergency biliary drainage and underwent conservative therapy and subsequent elective LTPBD+LC. LTPBD+LC was successfully performed in all cases. None of the patients required conversion to open surgery. The rate of complete clearance of the CBD stones was 100%. The mean operative time of the entire procedure was 126 minutes (range, 102-144 minutes), and the mean blood loss was 12.4 mL (range, 1-50 mL). There were no major perioperative complications, and the mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 4.2 days (range, 3-7 days).

CONCLUSION

One-stage LTPBD+LC may be a feasible procedure for patients with CCL who have previously undergone gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Open conversion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration: subspecialisation safely reduces the conversion rates

Background

Open conversion rates during laparoscopic cholecystectomy vary depending on many factors. Surgeon experience and operative difficulty influence the decision to convert on the grounds of patient safety but occasionally due to technical factors. We aim to evaluate the difficulties leading to conversion, the strategies used to minimise this event and how subspecialisation influenced conversion rates over time.

Methods

Prospectively collected data from 5738 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed by a single surgeon over 28 years was analysed. Routine intraoperative cholangiography and common bile duct exploration when indicated are utilised. Patients undergoing conversion, fundus first dissection or subtotal cholecystectomy were identified and the causes and outcomes compared to those in the literature.

Results

28 patients underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy (0.49%). Morbidity was relatively high (33%). 16 of the 28 patients (57%) had undergone bile duct exploration. The most common causes of conversion in our series were dense adhesions (9/28, 32%) and impacted bile duct stones (7/28, 25%). 173 patients underwent fundus first cholecystectomy (FFC) (3%) and 6 subtotal cholecystectomy (0.1%). Morbidity was 17.3% for the FFC and no complications were encountered in the subtotal cholecystectomy patients. These salvage techniques have reduced our conversion rate from a potential 3.5% to 0.49%.

Conclusion

Although open conversion should not be seen as a failure, it carries a high morbidity and should only be performed when other strategies have failed. Subspecialisation and a high emergency case volume together with FFC and subtotal cholecystectomy as salvage strategies can reduce conversion and its morbidity in difficult cholecystectomies.

Lessons learnt from the first 200 unselected consecutive cases of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct stones at a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

The management of choledocholithiasis evolves with diagnostic imaging and therapeutic technology, facilitating a laparoscopic approach. We review our first 200 cases of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct, highlighting challenges and lessons learnt.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied the first 200 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration between 2006 and 2019. The database contains demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, diagnostic modalities, operative techniques, duration and outcomes.

RESULTS

We compared two approaches: transcystic vs. transcholedochal in our 200 cases. Choledocholithiasis was suspected preoperatively in 163 patients. 21 cases found no stones. Of the remainder, 111/179 cases were completed via the transcystic route and the remaining were completed transcholedochally (68/179); 25% of the transcholedochal cases were converted from a transcystic approach. CBD diameter for transcystic route was 8.2 vs. 11.0 mm for transcholedochal. Total clearance rate was 84%. Retained or recurrent stones were noted in 7 patients. Length of stay was 5.8 days, 3.5 days in the transcystic route vs. 9.4 days after transcholedochal clearance. Eight patients required re-operation for bleeding or bile leak. No mortalities were recorded in this cohort, but 2 cases (1%) developed a subsequent CBD stricture.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant laparoscopic common bile duct clearance with cholecystectomy is feasible, safe and effective in a district general hospital, despite constraints of time and resources. The transcystic route has a lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay, and hence our preference of this route for all cases. Advancements in stone management technology will allow wider adoption of this technique, benefitting more patients.

Laparoscopic Exploration of the Common Bile Duct: A Systematic Review of the Published Evidence Over the Last 10 Years

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic and open surgical interventions are widely implemented as the standard practice in common bile duct exploration. However, the laparoscopic approach has been also reported to have comparative/superior outcomes in this concept. This has created an ongoing debate about the ideal approach to adopt in practice.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published evidence over the last decade that has looked into the outcomes of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct through transductal and transcystic approaches.

RESULTS

Our systematic review included 36 relevant papers. The majority were based on nonrandomized protocols conducted in single centers with high expertise. The data analysis showed that laparoscopic common bile duct exploration through both approaches was successful in more than 84% of the patients, with an average length of hospital stay of 5.6 days. Conversion to open surgery was reported in 5%-8% of the patients, and the bile leak rates from the more recent studies was 0%-12%, with mortality figures of 0%-1.3%. The outcomes were statistically in favor of the transcystic route when compared to the transductal route from the viewpoints of bile leak rates, mean operative time, duration of hospital stay and morbidity.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, both laparoscopic approaches in common bile duct exploration are safe in patients who are clinically fit to have this intervention. It is associated with a statistically significant lower overall morbidity and shorter duration of hospital stay when compared to open surgery. Relevant up-to-date high-quality randomized trials are unavailable.

One-stage fluoroscopic-guided laparoscopic transcystic papillary balloon dilation and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of choledocholithiasis after Roux-en-Y reconstruction

Patients with a history of gastrectomy have a higher incidence of cholecystocholedocholithiasis and morbidities. In particular, the management of choledocholithiasis with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been challenging in patients after Roux-en-Y or Billroth II reconstruction due to the altered gastrointestinal anatomy. A 92-year-old man presented with high fever. He had undergone laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction 9 years earlier for gastric cancer. Choledocholithiasis was diagnosed and ERCP was attempted, but cannulation of the papilla of Vater failed. An elective one-stage operation was planned. One-stage fluoroscopic-guided laparoscopic transcystic papillary balloon dilation (LTPBD) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were performed. The operation time was 130 min with 3 mL of intraoperative bleeding. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 3 with no complications. We report this case in which one-stage LTPBD and LC was successfully performed for a super-elderly patient with choledocholithiasis after Roux-en-Y reconstruction.

Transductal versus transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: an institutional review of over four hundred cases

BACKGROUND

Many studies have failed to demonstrate significant differences between single- and two-staged approaches for the management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones in terms of post-operative morbidity. However, none of these studies paid specific attention to the differences between the methods of accessing the bile duct during laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to report outcomes of transcystic versus transductal laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) from our experience of over four hundred cases.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 416 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at a single-centre between 1998 and 2018 was performed. Data collected included pre-operative demographic information, medical co-morbidity, pre-operative investigations, intra-operative findings (including negative choledochoscopy rates, use of holmium laser lithotripsy and operative time) and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

Transductal LCBDE via choledochotomy was achieved in 242 patients (58.2%), whereas 174 patients (41.8%) underwent transcystic LCBDE. Stone clearance rates, conversion to open surgery and mortality were similar between the two groups. Overall morbidity as well as minor and major post-operative complications were significantly higher in the transductal group. The main surgery-related complications were bile leak (5.8% vs 1.1%, p = 0.0181) and pancreatitis (7.4% vs 0.6%, p = 0.0005). Median length of post-operative stay was also significantly greater in the transductal group.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the largest single study to date comparing outcomes from transcystic and transductal LCBDE. Where possibly, the transcystic route should be used for LCBDE and this approach can be augmented with various techniques to increase successful stone clearance and reduce the need for choledochotomy.

Holmium laser lithotripsy improves the rate of successful transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Purpose

Transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) seems safer than transductal LCBDE and is associated with fewer biliary complications. It has traditionally been limited to smaller bile duct stones however. This study aimed to assess the ability of laser-assisted bile duct exploration by laparoendoscopy (LABEL) to increase the rate of successful transcystic LCBDE in patients with bile duct stones at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Patients undergoing LCBDE between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Baseline demographic and medical characteristics were recorded, as well as intra-operative findings and post-procedure outcomes. Standard LCBDE via the transcystic route was initially attempted in all patients, and LABEL was only utilised if there was failure to achieve transcystic duct clearance. The transductal route was utilised for failed transcystic extraction.

Results

One hundred and seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent LCBDE; 119 (66.5%) underwent unaided transcystic extraction, 29 (16.2%) required LABEL to achieve transcystic extraction and 31 (17.3%) failed transcystic extraction (despite the use of LABEL in 7 of these cases) and hence required conversion to transductal LCBDE. As such, LABEL could be considered to increase the rate of successful transcystic extraction from 66.5% (119/179) to 82.7% (148/179). Patients requiring LABEL were however more likely to experience major complications (CD III–IV 5.6% vs 0.7%, p = 0.042) although none were specifically attributable to the laser intra-operatively.

Conclusions

LABEL is an effective adjunct to LCBDE that improves the rate of successful transcystic extraction.