Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for management of common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1230-1237. [PMID: 20844893 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1348-8]

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

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

One-Stage Intraoperative ERCP combined with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Two-Stage Preoperative ERCP Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Management of Gallbladder with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones, known as cholecystocholedocholithiasis, are clinically prevalent. There is currently no consensus on sequential versus simultaneous management approaches, and, if simultaneous, which approach to adopt. This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) versus two-stage ERCP followed by LC for treating concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in five databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, VIP, and Wanfang, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and retrospective studies published up to February 2024. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. The primary outcomes were CBD stone clearance rate and postoperative complications morbidity. Secondary outcomes included conversion to other procedures and length of hospital stay. Statistical analyses were performed using R (v.4.3.2) with weighted mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies involving 2120 patients have been included, with 898 patients receiving single-stage and 1222 patients undergoing two-stage treatment. Of these studies, 9 were RCTs and 8 were retrospective cohort study. The one-stage group demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of CBD stone clearance (OR = 2.07, p = 0.0004), overall morbidity (OR = 0.35, p < 0.0001), post-operative pancreatitis (OR = 0.49, p = 0.006), conversion to other procedures (OR = 0.38, p = 0.0006), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.6456, 95% CI - 3.5776; - 1.7136, p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in post-operative cholangitis (OR = 0.44, p = 0.12), post-operative bleeding (OR = 0.76, p = 0.47), or bile leakage (OR = 1.28, p = 0.54).

CONCLUSION

For patients with concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones, the one-stage approach combining ERCP and LC appears safer and more effective, with advantages including higher stone clearance rates, reduced postoperative complications (particularly pancreatitis), shorter hospital stays, fewer residual stones, and decreased need for additional procedures. However, additional high-quality clinical trials are needed to establish the optimal treatment approach for various patient scenarios.

The short- and long-term outcome after the surgical management of common bile duct stones in a tertiary referral hospital

BACKGROUND

The removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) shows excellent results with low complication rates and is therefore considered a gold standard. However, in case of stones non-removable by ERCP, surgical extraction is needed. The surgical approach is still controversial and clinical guidelines are missing. This study aims to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones.

METHODS

All patients who underwent choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones at a tertiary referral hospital over 11 years were included. The analyzed data contains basic demographics, diagnostics, surgical parameters, length of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 4375 patients underwent cholecystectomy, and 655 received an ERCP with stone extraction, with 48 of these patients receiving subsequent surgical treatment. ERCP was attempted in 23/30 (77%) of the choledochotomy patients pre/intraoperatively and 11/18 (56%) in hepaticojejunostomy patients. The 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo > II) was 1/30 (3%) in the choledochotomy group and 2/18 (11%) in the hepaticojejunostomy group. Complications after 30 days occurred in 3/30 (10%) patients and 2/18 (11%), respectively, and no mortality occurred.

CONCLUSION

ERCP should still be considered the gold standard, although due to low short- and long-term morbidity rates, choledochotomy and hepaticojejunostomy represent effective surgical solutions for common bile duct stones.

Minimally invasive management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To update a 2018 meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy and safety of four surgical techniques in patients with concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), LC plus preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP), LC plus intraoperative ERCP (IntraERCP), and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP) were included. Primary and secondary outcomes were compared using odds ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs involved 3145 patients were included. Of these, 1188 (37.8%) underwent LC + PreERCP, 1183 (37.6%) LC + LCBDE, 689 (21.9%) LC + IntraERCP, and 85 (2.7%) LC + PostERCP. This analysis demonstrated that LC plus IntraERCP was the most likely approach to achieve technical success and reduce morbidity. No significant differences were observed between the four treatments concerning major morbidity, mortality, and operative time. LC plus LCBDE was effective for increasing biliary leak and conversion as well as decreasing postoperative hemorrhage and total costs. Additionally, LC plus PreERCP was associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis, while LC plus IntraERCP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity in operative time, hospital stay, and total costs (τ² > 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides evidence that LC plus IntraERCP appears to be the optimal strategy for patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones owing to its advantage in technical success and morbidity. LC plus LCBDE is associated with higher biliary leak and lower postoperative hemorrhage, whereas LC plus PreERCP is associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis.

Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for the management of patients with common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis

Background

Cholelithiasis is a frequently occurring disease in clinic. Due to changes in people's living environments, dietary habits and the aging population, cholelithiasis incidence is increasing. Currently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the preferred treatment for gallbladder stones, but the surgical method for patients with choledocholithiasis is controversial. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pERCP) is performed preoperatively, followed by LC as the general treatment method. However, pERCP still has some disadvantages, such as prolonged hospital stay, increased incidence of postoperative pancreatitis, and increased duration of anesthesia. Therefore, intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) is proposed.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of one-stage treatment and two-stage treatment for the management of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis.

Search strategy

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through October 2022. The search terms include cholangiolithiasis/bile duct stones/calculi, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/ERCP, endoscopic sphincterotomy/EST, laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy/LC.

Selection criteria

For the treatment of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis in adults, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LC with iERCP vs. pERCP followed by LC were conducted.

Data collection and analysis

Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers. We used Revman version 5.3 to analyze the collected data. The trials were grouped according to the evaluation results such as the overall mortality rate, overall morbidity rate, clearance rate of choledocholithiasis, incidence of pancreatitis, the length of hospitalization, and the length of operation.

Results

9 RCTs (950 participants) were included in this meta-analyses. The overall morbidity rate in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.79, p = 0.0008). The clearance rate of choledocholithiasis in LC + iERCP group was almost the same as that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI = 0.98-1.08, p = 0.28). The incidence of pancreatitis in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.29, 95% CI = 0.13-0.67, p = 0.004). The length of operation of the LC + iERCP group seems to be similar to that of the LC + pERCP group (MD: 16.63 95% CI = -5.98-39.24, p = 0.15). LC + iERCP group has a shorter length of hospitalization than that in LC + pERCP group (MD: -2.68 95% CI = -3.39--1.96, p < 0.00001). LC + iERCP group has lower postoperative second ERCP rate than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.57, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Our study suggest that LC + iERCP may be a better option than LC + pERCP in the management of patients with both cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. This procedure can reduce the overall incidence of postoperative complications, especially the occurrence of postoperative pancreatitis. It could shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce postoperative second ERCP rate.

One-stage approach to cholecystocholedocholithiasis treatment: a feasible surgical strategy for emergency settings and frail patients

BACKGROUND

Cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL) occurs in up to 18% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The two-stage treatment using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by LC is the treatment of choice for CCL. However, only 10 to 60% of patients have common bile duct (CBD) stones at the time of ERCP, thus exposing patients to unnecessary ERCPs, causing 3 to 15% of post-interventional pancreatitis. One-stage laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (LERV) is an alternative for the treatment of CCL. Given the selective top-to-bottom CBD cannulation, LERV reduces the risk of pancreatitis and failed CBD cannulation. Additionally, LERV is performed exclusively in patients presenting CBD stones at intraoperative cholangiography, avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Despite its advantages, considering the logistical burden of coordinating different specialties, LERV is performed in few centers. Here, we present the largest retrospective series of LERVs performed at our department, analyzing elective and emergency procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing LERV for CCL between January 2014 and December 2021 were included. LERV success rate, operative time, biliary outflow restoration rate, postoperative complications (POC), length of hospital stay (LOS), and recurrences were analyzed.

RESULTS

181 patients were included (61 elective LERVs, 120 emergency LERVs). We reported a 100% LERV success rate, a 97.79% biliary outflow restoration rate, a 0% conversion rate, a mean intraoperative time of 120.17 ± 31.35 min, and LOS of 4.00 ± 2.82 days. POC included 7 Clavien-Dindo type 1, 11 type 2, and 3 type 3 cases. Seven patients presented with CBD stone recurrence: 2 within 30 days after discharge, 3 within 6 months after discharge, and 2 patients at 1 year. No statistically significant difference was found between elective and emergency patients.

CONCLUSION

LERV is safe, representing a valid option even in emergency settings, thus enabling the management of CCL within a single procedure, consequently sparing additional anesthesia and decreasing post-ERCP complications.

EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones.

METHODS

We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions.

RESULTS

The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL ).

CONCLUSION

We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions.

GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER

IPGRP-2022CN170.

National clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease: 2021 recommendations from the Danish Surgical Society

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Gallstones are highly prevalent, and more than 9000 cholecystectomies are performed annually in Denmark. The aim of this guideline was to improve the clinical course of patients with gallstone disease including a subgroup of high-risk patients. Outcomes included reduction of complications, readmissions, and need for additional interventions in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease, acute cholecystitis, and common bile duct stones (CBDS).

METHODS

An interdisciplinary group of clinicians developed the guideline according to the GRADE methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were primarily included. Non-RCTs were included if RCTs could not answer the clinical questions. Recommendations were strong or weak depending on effect estimates, quality of evidence, and patient preferences.

RESULTS

For patients with acute cholecystitis, acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended (16 RCTs, strong recommendation). Gallbladder drainage may be used as an interval procedure before a delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with temporary contraindications to surgery and severe acute cholecystitis (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). High-risk patients are suggested to undergo acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy instead of drainage (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). For patients with CBDS, a one-step procedure with simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBDS removal by laparoscopy or endoscopy is recommended (22 RCTs, strong recommendation). In high-risk patients with CBDS, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is suggested to be included in the treatment (6 RCTs, weak recommendation). For diagnosis of CBDS, the use of magnetic resonance imaging or endoscopic ultrasound prior to surgical treatment is recommended (8 RCTs, strong recommendation). For patients with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, observation is suggested as an alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2 RCTs, weak recommendation).

CONCLUSIONS

Seven recommendations, four weak and three strong, for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease were developed. Studies for treatment of high-risk patients are few and more are needed.

ENDORSEMENT

The Danish Surgical Society.

Single-stage intraoperative ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus preoperative ERCP Followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

The optimal treatment strategy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. We conducted an up-to-date meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of the intra- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) + LC procedure with the traditional pre-ERCP +  laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) procedure in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to September 2020. Published randomized controlled trials comparing intra-ERCP + LC and pre-ERCP + LC were considered. This meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager Version 5.3, and outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 977 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding CBD stone clearance (RR = 1.03, P = .27), postoperative papilla bleeding (RR = 0.41, P = .13), postoperative cholangitis (RR = 0.87, P = .79), and operation conversion rate (RR = 0.71, P = .26). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the intra-ERCP + LC group (MD = -2.75, P < .05), and intra-ERCP + LC was associated with lower overall morbidity (RR = 0.54, P < .05), postoperative pancreatitis (RR = 0.29, P < .05) and cannulation failure rate (RR = 0.22, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-ERCP + LC was a safer approach for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. It could facilitate intubation, shorten hospital stay, and lower postoperative complications, especially postoperative pancreatitis, and reduce stone residue and reduce the possibility of reoperation for stone removal.

Endoscopic Stone Extraction followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Tandem for Concomitant Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Single-session endoscopic stone extraction (ESE) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has the best outcome in managing concomitant cholelithiasis (gallstone disease [GSD]) and choledocholithiasis (common bile duct stone [CBDS]). Traditional rendezvous technique with an intraoperative cholangiogram is associated with various technical (bowel distention, frozen Calot's triangle, limitation of intraoperative cholangiogram and so on) and logistical difficulties (lack of trained personnel and equipment for ESE in the operating room). We modified our approach of ESE-LC (tandem ESE-LC) to study the safety of the approach and overcome these disadvantages of the traditional rendezvous approach.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients with GSD and suspected CBDS from January 2017 to December 2019 was conducted. Tandem ESE-LC involves ESE and LC under the same general anaesthesia in a single day, while ESE is performed in the endoscopic suite using carbon dioxide insufflation, a balloon/basket was used for achieving bile duct clearance and the same was confirmed with an occlusion cholangiogram. Patients were then shifted to the operating room for LC. The primary outcome included bile duct clearance and safety of the procedure.

RESULTS

Of 56 patients assessed for eligibility, 42 were included in the study (median age: 53 years, 25 [60%] women). Biliary colic was the most common presenting symptom (n = 24, 57%), followed by acute cholecystitis (n = 11, 26%). The median number of stones and stone size was 1 (1-6) and 4 mm (3-10), respectively. All patients had successful bile duct clearance. Stenting was performed in 5 (12%) patients. Intraoperatively, Calot's dissection was difficult and frozen in 10 and 11 patients respectively. The cystic duct was short and wide in 13 (31%) patients. Subtotal cholecystectomy was performed in 6 (14%) patients. The median duration of postprocedural hospital stay was 1 (0-13) day. Three patients had tandem ESE-LC on a day-care basis. One patient had post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancretography pancreatitis, and another required percutaneous drainage for gall bladder fossa collection. No patient had retained CBDS at a median follow-up of 18 (3-28) months.

CONCLUSION

Tandem ESE-LC is safe and effective method in managing concomitant GSD and CBDS.

Decision analysis of minimally invasive management options for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is controversial with the risks and benefits of one versus two-stage approaches debated. This study aims to perform decision analysis of minimally invasive laparo-endoscopic approaches.

METHODS

An advanced decision tree was constructed to compare pre, intra and post-operative ERCP and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in terms of primary ductal clearance and significant complications for patients intended to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomised controlled trials following a comprehensive literature search. Model uncertainties were extensively tested through deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. Utility outcomes were 1 and 0.5 for successful primary clearance without and with complications, respectively, and 0 for failure of primary clearance of the duct.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (n = 2697) were included in the analysis. At base case analysis, a laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach had the highest utility output (0.90; no complication probability: 0.87/complication probability 0.06). Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was ranked second with a utility output 0.87 (no complication probability: 0.82/complication probability 0.10). Pre-operative ERCP utility score was 0.84 (no complication probability: 0.78/ complication probability 0.11) and post-operative ERCP utility score was 0.78 (no complication probability: 0.71/complication probability 0.13). Monte Carlo analysis showed that laparo-endoscopic rendezvous and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration had an equal mean utility output of 0.57 (standard deviation 0.36; variance 0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.99 versus standard deviation 0.34; variance 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.98). Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous had a superior treatment selection frequency of 39.93% followed by laparoscopic bile duct exploration (36.11%), pre-operative ERCP (20.67%) and post-operative ERCP (2.99%).

CONCLUSION

One-stage approach to the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is superior to two-stage, in terms of primary clearance of the duct and risk of operative morbidity. Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach could offer marginal additional benefit but more high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

Recurrent ascending cholangitis with acute pancreatitis and pancreatic atrophy caused by a juxtapapillary duodenal diverticulum: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Intermittent combined pancreaticobiliary obstruction may lead to multiple episodes of ascending cholangitis and pancreatitis, usually due to choledocholithiasis or periampullary mass. However, one of the rare causes is periampullary or juxtapapillary duodenal diverticulum. Although duodenal diverticula are relatively common in the general population, the overwhelming majority are asymptomatic. Duodenal diverticula can cause combined pancreaticobiliary obstruction through multiple mechanisms such as stasis-induced primary choledocholithiasis, stasis-induced intradiverticular enterolith, or longstanding diverticulitis, causing stenosing fibrosing papillitis or a combination of more than one of these mechanisms. Herein, I report a case of Lemmel syndrome due to a combination of multiple mechanisms and review the available literature on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, and management of juxtapapillary duodenal diverticulum.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Multiple episodes of abdominal pain, jaundice, anorexia, fever, and significant unintentional weight loss.

DIAGNOSES AND INTERVENTIONS

Primary choledocholithiasis, recurrent ascending cholangitis, recurrent acute pancreatitis, and pancreatic atrophy due to giant juxtapapillary duodenal diverticulum, with unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography that was completely resolved after open transduodenal sphincteroplasty and septoplasty, transampullary and transcystic common bile duct exploration and stone extraction, and duodenal diverticular inversion.

OUTCOME

Complete resolution of combined pancreaticobiliary obstruction without recurrence for 2 years after surgery.

LESSONS

Surgeons should be aware of such rare syndromes to avoid misdiagnosis and delayed or inappropriate management. Furthermore, they should understand the different available operative options for cases that are refractory to endoscopic approach.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of 4 Combinations of Laparoscopic and Intraoperative Techniques for Management of Gallstone Disease With Biliary Duct Calculi: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

Several techniques are used for surgical treatment of gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi, but the safety and efficacy of these approaches have not been compared.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of 4 surgical approaches to gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI-Web of Science databases, articles published between 1950 and 2017 and searched from August 12, 2017, to September 14, 2017. Search terms used were LCBDE, LC, preoperative, ERCP, postoperative, period, cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic, retrograde, rendezvous, intraoperative, one-stage, two-stage, single-stage, gallstone, gallstones, calculi, stone, therapy, treatment, therapeutics, surgery, surgical, procedures, clinical trials as topic, random, and allocation in several logical combinations.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing at least 2 of the following strategies: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC); LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCDBE); LC plus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (IntraERCP); and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to show the probability that each approach would be the best for each outcome.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were the safety to efficacy ratio using overall mortality and morbidity rates as the main indicators of safety and the success rate as an indicator of efficacy. Secondary outcomes were acute pancreatitis, biliary leak, overall bleeding, operative time, length of hospital stay, total cost, and readmission rate.

Results

The 20 trials comprised 2489 patients (and 2489 procedures). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP had the highest probability of being the most successful (SUCRA, 87.2%) and safest (SUCRA, 69.7%) with respect to morbidity. All approaches had similar results regarding overall mortality. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LCBDE was the most successful for avoiding overall bleeding (SUCRA, 83.3%) and for the shortest operative time (SUCRA, 90.2%) and least total cost (SUCRA, 98.9%). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP was the best approach for length of hospital stay (SUCRA, 92.7%). Inconsistency was found in operative time (indirect estimate, 19.05; 95% CI, 2.44-35.66; P = .02) and total cost (indirect estimate, 17.06; 95% CI, 3.56-107.21; P = .04). Heterogeneity was observed for success rate (τ, 0.8), operative time (τ, >1), length of stay (τ, >1), and total cost (τ, >1).

Conclusions and Relevance

The combined LC and IntraERCP approach had the greatest odds to be the safest and appears to be the most successful. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LBCDE appears to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis but may be associated with a higher risk of biliary leak.

Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct

BACKGROUND

The management of gallbladder stones (lithiasis) concomitant with bile duct stones is controversial. The more frequent approach is a two-stage procedure, with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal from the bile duct followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous combines the two techniques in a single-stage operation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (the single-stage rendezvous technique) versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (two stages) in people with gallbladder and common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded Web of Science, and two trials registers (February 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that enrolled people with concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones, regardless of clinical status or diagnostic work-up, and compared laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy procedures in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We excluded other endoscopic or surgical methods of intraoperative clearance of the bile duct, e.g. non-aided intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or laparoscopic choledocholithotomy (surgical incision of the common bile duct for removal of bile duct stones).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised clinical trials with 517 participants (257 underwent a laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous technique versus 260 underwent a sequential approach), which fulfilled our inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. Trial participants were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy because of suspected cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Male/female ratio was 0.7; age of men and women ranged from 21 years to 87 years. The run-in and follow-up periods of the trials ranged from 32 months to 84 months. Overall, the five trials were judged at high risk of bias. Athough all trials measured mortality, there was just one death reported in one trial, in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group (low-quality evidence). The overall morbidity (surgical morbidity plus general morbidity) may be lower with laparoscopic rendezvous (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.20; participants = 434, trials = 4; I² = 28%; low-quality evidence); the effect was a little more certain when a fixed-effect model was used (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the two approaches on the failure of primary clearance of the bile duct (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.38; participants = 517; trials = 5; I² = 58%; very low-quality evidence). The effects of either approach on clinical post-operative pancreatitis were unclear (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; participants = 517, trials = 5; I² = 24%; low-quality evidence). Hospital stay appeared to be lower in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group by about three days (95% CI 3.51 to 2.50 days shorter; 515 participants in five trials; low-quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence that suggested longer operative time with laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (MD 34.07 minutes, 95% CI 11.41 to 56.74; participants = 313; trials = 3; I² = 93%). The Trial Sequential Analyses of operating time and the length of hospital stay indicated that all the trials crossed the conventional boundaries, suggesting that the sample sizes were adequate, with a low risk of random error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on mortality and morbidity. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous procedure may lead to longer operating times, but it may reduce the length of the hospital stay when compared with preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, no firm conclusions could be drawn because the quality of evidence was low or very low. If confirmed by future trials, these data might re-design the scenario of treatment of this condition, albeit requiring greater organisational effort. Future trials should also address issues such as quality of life and cost analysis.

Tokyo Guidelines 2018: surgical management of acute cholecystitis: safe steps in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (with videos)

In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo-biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail-out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail-out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvière's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous may be an effective alternative to a failed preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Background:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), remains the standard way of management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), a combined procedure for removing the gallbladder laparoscopically and clearing the common bile duct (CBD) endoscopically at the same time, could be an attractive alternative. The aim of this study was to compare LERV with classic ERCP in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

Methods:

886 patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis were treated either with the LERV technique (90 patients), or with the 2-stage approach, which includes preoperative ERCP followed by LC (796 patients). The primary endpoint was any difference in the success of CBD cannulation and clearance; secondary endpoints were the detection of differences in morbidity (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis [PEP]), and the feasibility of the two approaches.

Results:

Successful cannulation of the CBD was more frequent with conventional ERCP compared with the LERV technique (89.8% vs. 75.5%, P=0.0001). LERV appears to be as effective as conventional ERCP for complete CBD clearance (85.5% vs. 82.8%, P<0.1). None of the patients in the LERV group had an episode of clinical PEP, whereas in the conventional ERCP group there were 23 episodes of PEP and one death. The median amylase level was higher in patients undergoing conventional ERCP group compared to patients in LERV group.

Conclusion:

Classic ERCP has a higher rate of successful CBD cannulation and a similar rate of CBD clearance compared to LERV.

Efficiency and Safety of One-Step Procedure Combined Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Eretrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Treatment of Cholecysto-Choledocholithiasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

We aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of one-step procedure combined endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for treatment of patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. A prospective randomized study was performed on 63 consecutive cholecysto-choledocholithiasis patients during 2008 and 2011. The efficiency and safety of one-step procedure was assessed by comparing the two-step LC with ERCP + endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Outcomes including intraoperative features, postoperative features (length of stay and postoperative complications) were evaluated. One- or two-step procedure of LC with ERCP + EST was successfully performed in all patients, and common bile duct stones were completely removed. Statistical analyses showed that length of stay and pulmonary infection rate were significantly lower in the test group compared with that in the control group (P < 0.05), whereas no statistical difference in other outcomes was found between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The one-step procedure of LC with ERCP + ESTis superior to the two-step procedure for treatment of patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis regarding to the reduced hospital stay and inhibited occurrence of pulmonary infections. Compared with two-step procedure, one-step procedure of LC with ERCP + EST may be a superior option for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis patients treatment regarding to hospital stay and pulmonary infections.

Comparison of one stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intra-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus two-stage pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of pre-operatively diagnosed patients with common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for symptomatic gallstone disease is one of the most common surgical procedures. Concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones are detected with an incidence of 4-20% and the ideal management is still controversial. The frequent practice is to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy pre-operatively (POES) followed by LC, to allow subsequent laparoscopic or open exploration if POES fails. However, POES has shown different drawbacks such as need for two hospital admissions, need of two anesthesia inductions, higher rate of pancreatitis, and longer hospital stay. Hence, an intra-operative endoscopic sphincerotomy (IOES) has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 1 stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with IOES versus 2-stage POES followed by LC for the management of pre-operatively known cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search terms bile duct stones/calculi, ERCP, endoscopic sphincterotomy, laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), and laparoscopic ductal clearance/choledochotomy/exploration were used. A comprehensive hand-based search of reference lists of published articles and review articles was performed to ensure inclusion of all possible studies and exclude duplicates.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing 1 stage LC combined with IOES versus 2-stage POES followed by LC for the management of pre-operatively known cholecystocholedocholithiasis in adults.

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

Three reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were entered in revman version 5.3. The trials were grouped according to the outcome measure assessed such as success rate of CBD stone clearance, incidence of pancreatitis, overall morbidity, and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 629 patients in 5 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The success rate of CBD clearance (IOES = 93%, POES = 92%) was the same in both groups (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.45-0.97; p = 0.60). Findings showed that IOES was associated with less pancreatitis (0.6%) than POES (4.4%) (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.06-0.67; p = 0.01; I ² = 43%). The incidence of overall morbidity was lower in the IOES group (6%) than the POES group (11%) (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.96; p = 0.03; I ² = 20%). The mean days of hospital stay for IOES group (M = 3.52, SD = 1.434, N = 5) was significantly less than the POES group (M = 6.10, SD = 2.074, N = 5), t(8) = 2.29, p <= 0.051.

CONCLUSION

IOES is at par with two-stage POES in terms of CBD clearance, with less incidence of post-operative pancreatitis, overall morbidity, and less hospital stay.

Endoscopic versus laparoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims: Overall, 5 % to 15 % of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis have concomitant bile duct stones, and the incidence of choledocholithiasis increases with age. There is no clear consensus on the best therapeutic approach (endoscopic versus surgical). Patients and methods: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was performed to compare three treatment options for patients with choledocholithiasis at the National Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Havana, Cuba from November 2007 to November 2011. The patients were randomized in three groups. Group I: patients who underwent intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) to confirm the choledocholithiasis followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) associated with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), group II: patients who underwent preoperative ERCP followed by LC during the same hospital admission and group III: patients who underwent IOC to confirm the choledocholithiasis followed by LC associated with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Results: A total of 300 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis were included in the trial and were randomized. As a result, a total of 134 patients were diagnosed with the presence of choledocholithiasis and treated during the study period. There were no significant differences in success rates of ductal stone clearance, but retained stone, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were better in group I. Conclusions: Intraoperative ERCP/ES shows a higher rate of common bile duct stones clearance, a shorter hospital stay, and lower morbidity, but further research with a larger study population is necessary to determine the additional benefits of this procedure. The results to date suggests that in appropriate patients, single-stage treatments are the best options.

Intraoperative ERCP for management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The introduction of minimally invasive techniques in management of biliary problems added new procedures for treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL). This study presents the results of intraoperative ERCP (IOERCP) during LC as a single-session minimally invasive procedure for management of patients who have preoperatively diagnosed CBD stones.

METHODS

The database of patients presented to our center by CCL between October 2007 and December 2015 who were treated by LC and IOERCP was collected and analyzed. CBD stones were diagnosed using clinical data, laboratory tests and abdominal sonogram. MRCP was requested for doubtful cases. In the first cases ERCP was done using rendezvous technique, but in late cases standard ERCP immediately after completion of LC under the same anesthesia was used. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data were recorded, analyzed and reported. Data reported include success/failure rate, complications, conversion to open surgery, operative details and incidence of residual CBD stones.

RESULTS

The study was conducted on 346 patients who had CCL. The mean age was 34.7 years, and 298 of them were females. The most common presentation was abdominal pain (98.5 %) and jaundice (64.9 %). Fifteen patients were excluded, and IOERCP was not done due to negative IOC results in 10 patients and conversion to open surgery in 5 patients. IOERCP was tried in the remaining 331 patients. The mean operative time was 55 min, and the mean hospital stay was 2.4 days. Major complications had been reported in 13/323 patients (4.0 %). Failure of CBD clearance was reported in 8 patients (2.4 %) with a success rate of 97.6 %. Thirty-day follow-up was possible in 142 patients, and there was a residual CBD stone in one patient and wound infection in another one.

CONCLUSIONS

IOERCP during LC is a safe and effective option for management of CCL.

'Single-Sitting' Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Endoscopic Removal of Common Bile Duct Stone for Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis: a Feasibility Study

'Single-sitting' laparoscopic cholecystectomy followed by endoscopic common bile duct clearance is emerging as a viable option for management of cholelithiasis and concomitant choledocholithiasis. The only disadvantage of the procedure is logistical since it requires co-ordination between two teams-the surgeons and the endoscopists. This limitation can be overcome in centres where both the procedures are performed by one team. With a considerable experience in endoscopy, we conducted a prospective study in a select group of patients to assess the feasibility of this single-sitting approach. The study included 38 patients with a radiological diagnosis of choledocholithiasis or jaundice at presentation. After laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the patients were turned prone and subjected to endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram, sphincterotomy and extraction of the common bile duct stone. The procedure was successful in 33 (87 %) of patients. The mean procedure time and hospital stay were 2 h, 20 min and 2 days, respectively. None of the patients had any major complications. We conclude that in a select group of patients, single-sitting laparoscopic cholecystectomy followed by endoscopic clearance of the common bile duct stone is safe and effective.

Impact of early clamping of T tube during laparoscopic choledocholithotomy on liver function in patients with calculous obstructive jaundice

AIM: To evaluate the impact of early clamping of T tube during laparoscopic choledocholithotomy on liver function in patients with calculous obstructive jaundice.

METHODS: Ninety-six patients with calculous obstructive jaundice who underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration were randomly divided into two groups: A (n = 46, non-early clamping of T tube) and B (n = 50, early clamping of T tube). The changes of postoperative serum liver function indexes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: In both groups, glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT), glutamic pyruvic transaminase (GPT), total bilirubin (TBIL), direct bilirubin (DBIL), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (γ-GT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were higher on day 1 after operation than preoperative values (P > 0.05). GPT, GOT, TBIL, DBIL, ALP and γ-GT on day 1 were significantly higher in group B than in group A (P < 0.05). On day 3, the above parameters were lower than those on day 1 in both groups, and there were no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). On day 7, all the above parameters returned to or were close to normal values in both groups, and there were no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Early clamping of T tube during laparoscopic choledocholithotomy does not significantly affect liver function recovery in patients with calculous obstructive jaundice.

Application of duodenoscopic balloon nasobiliary exploration to therapeutic laparoscopy for treatment of cholecystolithiasis with stones in the small-diameter common bile duct: Analysis of 59 cases

AIM: To present our experience with the management of cholecystolithiasis with stones in the small-diameter common bile duct by using duodenoscopic balloon nasobiliary exploration (LDBNE) during the course of therapeutic laparoscopy.

METHODS: The clinical data for 59 cholecystolithiasis patients with stones in the small-diameter common bile duct (0.2-0.8 cm) who underwent laparoscopic duodenoscopic papillotomy, balloon nasobiliary exploration and cholelithotomy (LDBNE) from April 2010 to July 2015 at the Second People's Hospital of Chengdu City were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS: LDBNE was performed in 59 cases, and the gallbladder was successfully removed in all the 59 cases. The common bile duct stones were removed by duodenoscopic papillotomy in 42 (71.2%) cases and by balloon nasobiliary in 11 (18.6%) cases. Five (8.5%) cases were converted to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Residual stone after duodenoscopic papillotomy was noted in 1 (1.7%) case. Bile leakage developed in 1 (1.7%) case and was cured by patent drainage and nasobiliary drainage postoperatively. Three (5.1%) cases developed mild pancreatitis and were conservatively cured. The rate of overall postoperative complications was 8.5% (5/59). No perforation of the intestine or bile duct, bleeding, severe pancreatitis or death occurred.

CONCLUSION: Application of duodenoscopic balloon nasobiliary exploration to therapeutic laparoscopy for treatment of cholecystolithiasis with stones in the small-diameter common bile duct is safe and effective.

Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: A useful tool in the hands of the hepatobiliary surgeon

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for patients with gall bladder stones (GS) and common bile duct stones (CBDS).

METHODS: Patients treated for GS with CBDS were included. LC and intraoperative transcystic cholangiogram (TCC) were performed in most of the cases. Intraoperative ERCP was done for cases with proven CBDS.

RESULTS: Eighty patients who had GS with CBDS were included. LC was successful in all cases. Intraoperative TCC revealed passed CBD stones in 4 cases so intraoperative ERCP was performed only in 76 patients. Intraoperative ERCP showed dilated CBD with stones in 64 cases (84.2%) where removal of stones were successful; passed stones in 6 cases (7.9%); short lower end stricture with small stones present in two cases (2.6%) which were treated by removal of stones with stent insertion; long stricture lower 1/3 CBD in one case (1.3%) which was treated by open hepaticojejunostomy; and one case (1.3%) was proved to be ampullary carcinoma and whipple’s operation was scheduled.

CONCLUSION: The hepatobiliary surgeon should be trained on ERCP as the third hand to expand his field of therapeutic options.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive techniques for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of patients with symptomatic gallstones and possible or proven common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstones is still evolving. Today a number of options exist: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pre-op ERCP), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and postoperative ERCP (post-op ERCP). This meta-analysis was done to compare these management options and determine if any single option was clearly superior.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using several electronic databases. The search revealed 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six comparing pre-op ERCP with LCBDE, five comparing pre-op ERCP with IOES, two comparing IOES with LCBDE and two comparing post-op ERCP with LCBDE, comprising a total of 1992 patients.

RESULTS

The pre-op ERCP group had a significantly higher incidence of ERCP related complications (odds ratio: 2.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-4.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence provided by this meta-analysis suggests that both of these approaches would appear comparable. To fully address which would be the better approach would require an RCT as discussed above.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Management of complicated duodenal diverticula

The duodenum is the second most common location of intestinal diverticula after the colon. Duodenal diverticulum (DD) is usually located in the second portion of the duodenum (D2), close to the papilla. Most duodenal diverticula are extraluminal and acquired rather than congenital; more rare is the congenital, intraluminal diverticulum. DD is usually asymptomatic and discovered incidentally, but can become symptomatic in 1% to 5% of cases when complicated by gastroduodenal, biliary and/or pancreatic obstruction, by perforation or by hemorrhage. Endoscopic treatment is the most common first-line treatment for biliopancreatic complications caused by juxtapapillary diverticula and also for bleeding. Conservative treatment of perforated DD based on fasting and broad-spectrum antibiotics may be offered in some selected cases when diagnosis is made early in stable patients, or in elderly patients with comorbidities who are poor operative candidates. Surgical treatment is currently reserved for failure of endoscopic or conservative treatment. The main postoperative complication of diverticulectomy is duodenal leak or fistula, which carries up to a 30% mortality rate.

Minimally invasive treatment of cholecysto-choledocal lithiasis: The point of view of the surgical endoscopist

The rate of choledocholithiasis in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be approximately 10%-33%, depending on the patient’s age. Development of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Laparoscopic Surgery and improvement of diagnostic procedures have influenced new approaches to the management of common bile duct stones in association with gallstones. At present available minimally-invasive treatments of cholecysto-choledocal lithiasis include: single-stage laparoscopic treatment, perioperative endoscopic treatment and endoscopic treatment alone. Published data evidence that, associated endoscopic-laparoscopic approach necessitates increased number of procedures per patient while single-stage laparoscopic treatment is associated with a shorter hospital stay. However, current data does not suggest clear superiority of any one approach with regard to success, mortality, morbidity and cost-effectiveness. Considering the variety of therapeutic options available for management, a critical appraisal and decision-making is required. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/EST should be adopted on a selective basis, i.e., in patients with acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis, severe biliary pancreatitis, ampullary stone impaction or severe comorbidity. In a setting where all facilities are available, decision in the selection of the therapeutic option depends on the patients, the number and size of choledocholithiasis stones, the anatomy of the cystic duct and common bile duct, the surgical history of patients and local expertise.

Synchronous vs sequential laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

AIM: To compare synchronous laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and sequential LC combined with EST for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHODS: A total of 150 patients were included and retrospectively studied. Among these, 70 were selected for the synchronous operation, in which the scheme was endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combined with EST during LC. The other 80 patients were selected for the sequential operation, in which the scheme involved first cutting the papillary muscle under endoscopy and then performing LC. The indexes in the two groups, including the operation time, the success rate, the incidence of complications, and the length of the hospital stay, were observed.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the numbers of patients, sex distribution, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, serum bilirubin, γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, mean diameter of common bile duct stones, and previous medical and surgical history (P = 0.54, P = 0.18, P = 0.52, P = 0.22, P = 0.32, P = 0.42, P = 0.68, P = 0.70, P = 0.47 and P = 0.57). There was no significant difference in the surgical operation time between the two groups (112.1 ± 30.8 min vs 104.9 ± 18.2 min). Compared with the sequential operation group, the incidence of pancreatitis was lower (1.4% vs 6.3%), the incidence of hyperamylasemia (1.4% vs 10.0%, P < 0.05) was significantly reduced, and the length of the hospital stay was significantly shortened in the synchronous operation group (3 d vs 4.5 d, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: For treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis, synchronous LC combined with EST reduces incidence of complications, decreases length of hospital stay, simplifies the surgical procedure, and reduces operation time.

A 10-year study of rendezvous intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Rendezvous intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (RV-IOERC), also called guidewire-facilitated IOERC, is one of the single-stage options available for managing common bile duct stones (CBDS) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The objective of this study is to investigate procedure-related complications in IOERC patients and stone clearance.

METHODS

All patients who underwent IOERC between January 2000 and December 2009 were identified from the local registry of Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge. Medical charts and ERC reports were studied, and descriptive statistics were obtained. Outcomes were procedure-related complications, especially post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), stone clearance, and mortality.

RESULTS

307 patients were identified. In 264 of the patients, the rendezvous cannulation technique was successful (86 %); in the remaining 43 patients, conventional cannulation technique was necessary. In total, PEP occurred in seven patients (2.28 %). One of the PEP patients was in the rendezvous cannulated group (0.37 %), whereas six patients developed PEP in the nonrendezvous group (13.95 %, p < 0.001). The primary stone clearance rate was 88.27 % (271/307). There was no mortality within 90 days in the series.

CONCLUSIONS

IOERC with RV cannulation technique for management of CBDS during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has a low PEP rate and a high stone clearance rate, making it a safe and feasible method for removing CBDS. However, the technique requires logistics to perform IOERC in the operating theater. The present data suggest that IOERC with RV cannulation is superior to conventional cannulation with respect to risk of PEP.

Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones: system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conducting preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (POES) versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES).

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases for prospective, randomized, controlled trials related to safety and effectiveness of POES versus IOES. Relative risk ratios (RRs) were estimated with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. We considered the following outcomes: clearance rate, postprocedural complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Five trials with 631 patients (318 with POES, 313 with IOES) were analyzed. Although the overall rates of common bile duct stone clearance were similar between POES and IOES (RR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.91-1.01; p = 0.13), the failure rate of common bile duct cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was significantly higher for IOES (RR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.23-5.26; p = 0.01). The pooled RR after POES for overall complication rates was similar to that for IOES (RR 1.56, 95 % CI 0.94-2.59; p = 0.09). However, compared with IOES, the RR risk of ERCP-related complications was significantly higher for POES (RR 2.27, 95 % CI 1.18-4.40, p = 0.01), especially in the patients at high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. There was no significant difference in morbidity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy or required subsequent open surgery between the two groups. In the subgroup analyses, the RR risks of post-ERCP pancreatitis were significantly higher for POES (RR 4.85, 95 % CI 1.41-16.66, p = 0.01), and mean hospital stay was longer in the POES group (RR 2.22, 95 % CI 1.98-246; p < 0.01). However, the rates of bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis, and gastric ulceration did not differ significantly between POES and IOES.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to the stone clearance and overall complication rates, POES is equal to IOES in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones. However, IOES is associated with a reduced incidence of ERCP-related pancreatitis and results in a shorter hospital stay.

Intraoperative endoscopist-controlled guide wire cannulation technique sphincterotomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) is considered superior to preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and other treatment modalities for management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Here we describe the method and results of our technique of IOES in the supine position during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using a guide wire cannulation (intraoperative supine endoscopic sphincterotomy by endoscopist-controlled guide wire cannulation) [ISEEG] technique).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of the outcome for 36 patients undergoing LC with IOES (ISEEG technique) for acute biliary colic and jaundice with suspicion of choledocholithiasis.

RESULTS

On confirmation of CBD stones by intraoperative cholangiogram, CBD catheterization was successful in 34/36 (94.44%) patients with successful stone clearance in all of them by the ISEEG technique demonstrating 100% efficacy for stone clearance; the remaining 2 patients needed conversion to open surgery. The median time for the ISEEG technique during intraoperative sphincterotomy was 9 minutes (range, 7-23 minutes). Average hospital stay was 4.8 days (range, 2-15 days). At the 1-month follow-up, all patients were biliary symptom-free. Three of 36 patients (8.33%) had mild postoperative pancreatitis. There was no procedure-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

LC coupled with the ISEEG technique performed by an expert endoscopist is an effective single-stage minimally invasive treatment for CBD stones with good efficacy, good stone clearance rates, and low morbidity.

Management of common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era

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

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

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

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intraoperative versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Most patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones are treated by preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (POES) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Recently, intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been suggested as an alternative treatment.

METHODS

Data from randomized clinical trials related to safety and effectiveness of IOES versus POES were extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

RESULTS

Four trials with 532 patients comparing IOES with POES were included. There were no deaths. There was no significant difference in rates of ampullary cannulation (RR 1·01, 0·97 to 1·04; P = 0·70) or stone clearance by ES (RR 0·99, 0·96 to 1·02; P = 0·58) between the groups. The proportion of patients with at least one post-ES complication, including pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis or gastric ulcer, was significantly lower in the IOES group (RR 0·37, 0·18 to 0·78; P = 0·009). There was no significant difference in morbidity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy or requirement for open operation between the groups. Mean hospital stay was 3 days shorter in the IOES group: mean difference - 2·83 (-3·66 to - 2·00) days (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones, IOES is as effective and safe as POES and results in a significantly shorter hospital stay.