Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones: system review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:2454-2465. [PMID: 23355158 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2757-7]

Single-Stage Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration and Cholecystectomy Versus Two-Stage Endoscopic Stone Extraction Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Patients With Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis: A Systematic Review

Gallbladder stones with common bile duct (CBD) stones can be managed by a single-stage laparoscopic approach with transcystic or transcholedochal CBD exploration and cholecystectomy or a two-stage approach with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Comparative outcomes between these approaches remain controversial. The objective was to compare single-stage laparoscopic CBD exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage ERCP stone removal followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for clearance of CBD stones, complications, length of stay, and costs. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized trials and observational studies comparing outcomes of interest between single and two-stage approaches. Meta-analyses using random effects models were conducted. Seven studies with 382 patients were included. The single-stage approach achieved higher stone clearance rates (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.12-2.08) with a shorter length of stay (mean duration: 3.5 days, 95% CI: -5.1 to -1.9 days) compared to the two-stage method. No significant difference was seen in complication rates (45% vs 40%, p=0.43) or costs ($19,000 vs $18,000, p=0.34). For patients with gallbladder and CBD stones, single-stage laparoscopic CBD exploration with cholecystectomy appears superior for stone clearance while comparable in safety and cost to a two-stage approach. Further randomized trials are warranted.

The Safety and Cost Analysis of Outpatient Laparoendoscopy in the Treatment of Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The advantages of single-stage treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis are well established, but the conditions for carrying out treatment on an outpatient basis require a review of concepts and practices of medical corporations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the practice of treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis by laparoendoscopy on an outpatient basis with cost analysis.

METHOD

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis treated by combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic choledocholithotomy from January 2015 to January 2019. After collecting data from physical and digital medical records, the patients were divided into two groups-AR (n = 42)-ambulatory regimen and HR (n = 28)-hospitalization regimen-which were compared in terms of demographic, clinical and treatment variables and their results, as well as in terms of costs.

RESULTS

The mean age of the AR group was lower than that of the HR group and the physical status of the AR patients was better when assessed according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) (p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups regarding the risk of choledocholithiasis (p = 0.99). For the AR group, the length of stay was shorter: 11.29 h × 65.21 h (p = 0.02), as was the incidence of postoperative complications assessed by applying the Clavien-Dindo classification: 3 (7.1%) × 11 (39.2%) (p < 0.01). The total mean costs were higher for the HR group (USD 2489.93) than the AR group (USD 1650.98) (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Outpatient treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis by laparoendoscopy is safe and viable for most cases, has a lower cost and can support the reorientation of training and practice of hepatobiliary surgeons.

Comparing One-Stage vs Two-Stage Approaches for the Management of Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The management of symptomatic choledocholithiasis remains a controversial issue. At present, the three most common management options for choledocholithiasis include a preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy and stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, then by either an intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy or a laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. The purpose of this study was to assess the consequences of the decision to pursue each of these three methods.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the existing data comparing these three management options. The literature from 2009 to 2021 pertaining to these three methods was reviewed for data on duct clearance, morbidity, mortality, recurrence rate, length of stay, and operative time. Next, we constructed decision trees for each method using a utility score analysis, and these utility scores were used to create a sensitivity analysis based on stone clearance rate.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography had a utility score of 0.9910, a stone clearance rate of 95.5%, a morbidity of 6.3%, and a mortality of 0.2%. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with laparoscopic cholecystectomy had a utility score of 0.9629, a stone clearance rate of 85.5%, a morbidity of 13.3%, and a mortality of 0.8%. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration had a utility score of 0.9882, a stone clearance rate of 88.3%, a morbidity of 12.9%, and a mortality of 0.3%.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that a laparoscopic cholecystectomy with an intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is associated with the best overall outcomes.

Destiny for Rendezvous: Is Cholecysto/Choledocholithiasis Better Treated with Dual- or Single-Step Procedures?

Biliary lithiasis is common worldwide, affecting almost 20% of the general population, though few experience symptoms. The frequency of choledocholithiasis in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be 10-33%, depending on patients' age. Unlike gallbladder lithiasis, the medical and surgical treatment of common bile duct stones is uncertain, having changed over the last few years. The prior gold standard treatment for cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis was open cholecystectomy with bile duct clearance, choledochotomy, and/or surgical sphincterotomy. In the last 10-15 years, new treatment approaches to the complex pathology of choledocholithiasis have emerged with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic surgery, and advanced diagnostic procedures. Although ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred mode of management, a single-step strategy (laparo-endoscopic rendezvous) has gained acceptance due to lesser morbidity and a lower risk of iatrogenic damage. Given the above, a tailored approach relying on careful evaluation of the disease is necessary in order to minimize complication risks and overall costs. Yet, the debate remains open, with no consensus on the superiority of laparo-endoscopic rendezvous to more conventional approaches.

2020 World Society of Emergency Surgery updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute calculus cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC) has a high incidence in the general population. The presence of several areas of uncertainty, along with the availability of new evidence, prompted the current update of the 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines on ACC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The WSES president appointed four members as a scientific secretariat, four members as an organization committee and four members as a scientific committee, choosing them from the expert affiliates of WSES. Relevant key questions were constructed, and the task force produced drafts of each section based on the best scientific evidence from PubMed and EMBASE Library; recommendations were developed in order to answer these key questions. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were reviewed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria (see https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ ). All the statements were presented, discussed and voted upon during the Consensus Conference at the 6th World Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery held in Nijmegen (NL) in May 2019. A revised version of the statements was voted upon via an online questionnaire until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The pivotal role of surgery is confirmed, including in high-risk patients. When compared with the WSES 2016 guidelines, the role of gallbladder drainage is reduced, despite the considerable technical improvements available. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) should be the standard of care whenever possible, even in subgroups of patients who are considered fragile, such as the elderly; those with cardiac disease, renal disease and cirrhosis; or those who are generally at high risk for surgery. Subtotal cholecystectomy is safe and represents a valuable option in cases of difficult gallbladder removal.

CONCLUSIONS, KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

ELC has a central role in the management of patients with ACC. The value of surgical treatment for high-risk patients should lead to a distinction between high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery. Further evidence on the role of clinical judgement and the use of clinical scores as adjunctive tools to guide treatment of high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery is required. The development of local policies for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended.

Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, the optimal technique for extracting common bile duct stones remains unclear. Recent studies have noted improved outcomes with single-stage techniques, such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); however only few studies have directly compared those two single-stage techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we retrospectively analyzed the postoperative outcomes of all patients who underwent single-stage LC for choledocholithiasis from 2005 to 2017. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, we stratified patients into two cohorts: those who underwent iERCP and LCBDE. Applying univariate techniques, we evaluated baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes for both cohorts. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality; our secondary outcomes included rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 1814 single-stage LC patients during our 13-year study period, 1185 (65.3%) underwent LCBDE; 629 (34.6%) underwent iERCP. Our univariate analysis showed that the two cohorts were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics, including demographics, preoperative comorbidities, laboratory values, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. 30-day postoperative morbidity (including infectious and noninfectious complications) and overall mortality between groups were low and comparable. The mean operative time was slightly longer with LCBDE (125.1 ± 62.0 min) than iERCP (113.5 ± 65.2 min; P < 0.001), however the mean hospital length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate were similar.

CONCLUSION

We found that both iERCP and LCBDE resulted in low, comparable rates of morbidity and mortality. Centers with readily available endoscopic expertise might favor iERCP for its ease of access and shorter operative time. However, LCBDE remains an appropriate technique for patients with choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention is unavailable.

The Efficiency of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration in Endoscopic Retrograde-Cholangiopancreatography-Limited Setting in a Peripheral University Hospital

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate complications and costs in patients treated with laparoscopic and open method for common bile duct (CBD) stones. Secondary aim is to compare the effectiveness, safety, and outcomes of these methods. In addition, it is aimed to review the feasibility of laparoscopic method in rural areas. Methods: Seventy-one patients were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups as open and laparoscopic surgical method. These groups were analyzed comparatively in terms of complications and costs. Subgroups were formed from patients who underwent T-tube drainage, primary closure, and biliary anastomosis as choledochotomy management. As a secondary outcome, these three subgroups were investigated in terms of complications and cost. Results: The cost was lower in open method compared to laparoscopic method (484$, 707$, P = .002). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between groups (P = .257). While the mean hospital stay was longer in the open group, the operation time was shorter (P = .002, P = .03). The mean length of hospital stay in the T-tube group was significantly higher than the primary closure (P = .001). The cost in the T-tube group was significantly higher than the primary closure and biliary anastomosis groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic CBD exploration by experienced surgeons in endoscopic retrograde-cholangiopancreatography-limited settings is an effective and safe method in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. This procedure should not be limited to reference centers and should be performed safely in rural areas by well-trained surgeons.

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.

Combined gastroscopic and choledochoscopic transabdominal nasobiliary drainage

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are a frequent problem in Chinese populations, and their incidence is particularly high in certain areas (Wang et al., 2013). In recent years, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have been the main surgical procedures for CBD stones, although each has different advantages and disadvantages in the treatment of choledocholithiasis (Loor et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2017). For patients with large stones, a dilated CBD, especially concurrent gallstones, LCBDE is the preferred and most economical minimally invasive procedure (Koc et al., 2013). However, a T-tube is often placed during LCBDE to prevent postoperative bile leakage; this is associated with problems such as bile loss, electrolyte disturbance, and decreased gastric intake (Martin et al., 1998). In addition, the T-tube usually must remain in place for more than a month, during which time the patient's quality of life is seriously compromised. Many skilled surgeons currently perform primary closure of the CBD following LCBDE, which effectively speeds up rehabilitation (Hua et al., 2015). However, even in sophisticated medical centers, the incidence of postoperative bile leakage still reaches ≥10% (Liu et al., 2017). Especially for a beginner, bile leakage remains a key problem (Kemp Bohan et al., 2017). Therefore, a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical approach to preventing bile leakage during primary closure of the CBD after LCBDE is still urgently needed.

[Laparoscopic rendezvous surgery for cholecystocholedocholithiasis]

OBJECTIVE

To present a modified technique of laparoscopic surgery (Rendezvous technique) for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 41 patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis who underwent hybrid single-stage laparoscopic surgery (Rendezvous technique) as an alternative to conventional two-stage approach.

RESULTS

Two (4.8%) patients had elevated serum amylase level without signs of pancreatitis in postoperative period. Other 2 patients required redo transpapillary intervention due to residual stones. Laparoscopic interventions were successful in 95.2% of cases.

2017 WSES and SICG guidelines on acute calcolous cholecystitis in elderly population

Background

Gallstone disease is very common afflicting 20 million people in the USA. In Europe, the overall incidence of gallstone disease is 18.8% in women and 9.5% in men. The frequency of gallstones related disease increases by age. The elderly population is increasing worldwide.

Aim

The present guidelines aims to report the results of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and Italian Surgical Society for Elderly (SICG) consensus conference on acute calcolous cholecystitis (ACC) focused on elderly population.

Material and methods

The 2016 WSES guidelines on ACC were used as baseline; six questions have been used to investigate the particularities in elderly population; the answers have been developed in terms of differences compared to the general population and to statements of the 2016 WSES Guidelines. The Consensus Conference discusses, voted, and modified the statements. International experts contributed in the elaboration of final statements and evaluation of the level of scientific evidences.

Results

The quality of the studies available decreases when we approach ACC in elderly. Same admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be suggested for elderly people with ACC; frailty scores as well as clinical and surgical risk scores could be adopted but no general consensus exist. The role of cholecystostomy is uncertain.

Discussion and conclusions

The evaluation of pro and cons for surgery or for alternative treatments in elderly suffering of ACC is more complex than in young people; also, the oldest old age is not a contraindication for surgery; however, a larger use of frailty and surgical risk scores could contribute to reach the best clinical judgment by the surgeon. The present guidelines offer the opportunity to share with the scientific community a baseline for future researches and discussion.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) with preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (pre-ERCP+LC) for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov until 1 July 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LCBDE+LC versus pre-ERCP+LC were included. The common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate, postoperative bile leakage, postoperative pancreatitis, morbidity, mortality, and overall hospital stay were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 1545 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 12 RCTs, seven confirmed and five did not confirm CBD stones preoperatively. The meta-analysis showed a significantly higher CBD stone clearance rate for pre-ERCP+LC than LCBDE+LC. A similar result was found in the subgroup analysis of patients with confirmed CBD stones. A significantly lower postoperative bile leakage rate was found for pre-ERCP+LC than LCBDE+LC in all 12 RCTs and in the subgroup of patients with confirmed CBD stones. However, a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis was found in pre-ERCP+LC and in the subgroup of patients with confirmed CBD stones. LCBDE+LC was superior to pre-ERCP+LC in terms of the overall hospital stay. No significant differences were found in morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-ERCP+LC is associated with a higher CBD stone clearance rate, lower postoperative bile leakage rate, and higher rate of pancreatitis. LCBDE+LC might help to shorten the hospital stay. Further studies on this topic are recommended.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis: a single series of 200 patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although the ideal management of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis is controversial, the two-stage approach, namely the common bile duct (CBD) clearance through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, remains the standard way of management. However, whenever feasible, the one-stage approach, using the so-called "laparoendoscopic rendezvous" (LERV) technique, offers some advantages, mainly reducing the hospital stay and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and the efficacy of the one-stage approach, and to compare our results with data from available large studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed our series of consecutive patients with cholecysto-choledocholitiasis treated by LERV from January 2003, to October 2016. Both elective and emergency cases were included. The primary end-point was the efficacy to obtain the CBD stones clearance. Secondary end-points were morbidity and mortality, operative time, conversion rate, and in-hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients underwent a LERV procedure for the intra-operative diagnosis by intra-operative cholangiogram of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis. In 187 patients (93.5%), it was possible to cannulate the cystic duct with the jag-wire. Success rate was 95%. Conversion rate was 3%. The mean operative time was 135 min and the mean in-hospital stay was 4 days. 29 (14.5%) were the early complications, six mild pancreatitis. Four patients required re-operation during the hospital stay. 11 patients (5.5%) developed late complications during a median follow-up of 57.7 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that LERV technique is a safe procedure with high success rates for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis. The major advantages include the single-stage treatment, the shorter hospital stay, and the lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

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.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus laparoscopic exploration for common bile duct stones in post-cholecystectomy patients: a retrospective study

Background and Objective

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are common in patients even after cholecystectomy. Besides endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is also applied. This study aims to compare clinical indications, therapeutic benefits and complications for these two managements.

Methods

From October 2012 to February 2015, 1072 consecutive patients were diagnosed as choledocholithiasis in our single hospital. Post-cholecystectomy patients who underwent ERCP or LCBDE were included. Clinical data were analyzed, such as success rate, complications, procedure duration, postoperative hospital stay, total cost and recurrence of ductal stones. Prior ERCP, previous biliary anatomic alteration surgeries and lost to follow up were the excluding criteria.

Results

141 patients were included according to the criteria, and 87 cases underwent ERCP and 54 cases underwent LCBDE. Age and sex distribution of patients were comparable between the two groups. The success rate for CBD stones clearance was 97.7% in the ERCP group, compared with 87.0% in the LCBDE group (p=0.03). The mean procedure duration was also significantly shorter in ERCP group (52.0±15.8 vs. 102.9±40.1 min; p<0.001). Postoperative hospital stay was similar (5.5±2.6 vs. 5.9±2.3 days; p=0.40). And no significant difference for postoperative complications (3.4% vs. 11.1%; p=0.15), total cost ($3787.1±1061.5 vs. $3983.54±1257.1, p=0.32), and the rate of bile duct stones recurrence (6.9% vs. 7.4%, p=1.00).

Conclusions

For clearing CBD stones in patients after cholecystectomy, ERCP was more efficient and might be the first choice, while LCBDE might be beneficial for patients with large stones.

Efficacy of the Laparoendoscopic "Rendezvous" to Treat Cholecystocholedocholithiasis in 210 Consecutive Patients: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

The simultaneous laparoendoscopic "rendezvous" (LERV) represents an alternative to sequential or totally laparoscopic approaches for patients affected by cholecystocholedocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to analyze the results in a large series of 210 consecutive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2002 to 2016 all patients affected by cholecystocholedocholithiasis were treated with a standardized "tailored" LERV. The relevant technical features of the procedure were recorded. An analysis of feasibility, effectiveness in stone clearance, and safety was performed.

RESULTS

Among 214 patients with common bile duct stones, 210 were treated with LERV and 4 with open rendezvous approach. Intraoperative cholangiography confirmed common bile duct stones in 179 patients (85.2%) or sludge in 18 (8.5%) and in 98.9% stone clearance was obtained endoscopically. Endoscopic papilla cannulation was feasible in 161 patients (76.7%), whereas in 49 (23.3%) a transcystic guidewire was needed. The overall LERV feasibility was 96.6%. The conversion rate to open surgery was 3.3%. Minor morbidity was observed in 1.9% of cases, mortality in 0.47%, and the mean hospital stay was 4.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the high effectiveness of LERV. This approach to treat cholecystocholedocholithiasis should be preferred and therefore implemented where a strong collaboration between surgeons and endoscopists is possible.

Advances of recurrent risk factors and management of choledocholithiasis

Gallstone disease is a common and frequently occurring disease in human, and it is the main disease among the digestive system diseases. The incidence of gallstone disease in western countries is about 5%-22%, and common bile duct stones (CBDS) accounts for 8%-20%. CBDS easily lead to biliary obstruction, secondary cholangitis, pancreatitis, and obstructive jaundice, even endanger life. Therefore, it needs timely treatment once diagnosed. The recurrence of choledocholithiasis after bile duct stones clearance involves complicated factors and cannot be completely elaborated by a single factor. The risk factors for recurrence of choledocholithiasis include bacteria, biliary structure, endoscopic and surgical treatment, and inflammation. The modalities for management of choledocholithiasis are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic or open common bile duct exploration, dissolving solutions, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous radiological interventions, electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy. We compare the different benefits between surgery and ERCP. And finally, we make a summary of the current strategy for reducing the recurrence of CBDS and future perspectives for CBDS management.

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.

Single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is this strategy feasible in Australia?

Currently in Australasia, concomitant cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis are usually managed with two procedures: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and pre or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This approach exposes the patient to the risk of complications from the common bile duct stone(s) while awaiting ERCP, the risks of the ERCP itself (particularly pancreatitis) and the need for a second anaesthetic. This article explores the evidence for a newer hybrid approach, single stage LC and intraoperative ERCP (SSLCE) and compares this approach with the commonly used alternatives. SSLCE offers reduced rates of pancreatitis, reduced length of hospital stay and reduced cost compared with the two-stage approach and requires only one anaesthetic. There is a reduced risk of bile leak compared with procedures that involve a choledochotomy, and ductal clearance rates are superior to trans-cystic exploration and equivalent to the standard two-stage approach. Barriers to widespread implementation relate largely to operating theatre logistics and availability of appropriate endoscopic expertise, although when bile duct stones are anticipated these issues are manageable. There is compelling justification in the literature to gather prospective evidence surrounding SSLCE in the Australian Healthcare system.

2016 WSES guidelines on acute calculous cholecystitis

Acute calculus cholecystitis is a very common disease with several area of uncertainty. The World Society of Emergency Surgery developed extensive guidelines in order to cover grey areas. The diagnostic criteria, the antimicrobial therapy, the evaluation of associated common bile duct stones, the identification of “high risk” patients, the surgical timing, the type of surgery, and the alternatives to surgery are discussed. Moreover the algorithm is proposed: as soon as diagnosis is made and after the evaluation of choledocholitiasis risk, laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be offered to all patients exception of those with high risk of morbidity or mortality. These Guidelines must be considered as an adjunctive tool for decision but they are not substitute of the clinical judgement for the individual patient.

Diagnosis and treatment of cholelithiasis: A review based on meta-analyses

Cholelithiasis is common disease whose diagnosis and treatment are important for doctors. Nowadays, main diagnostic methods include X-ray, ultrasonography, CT and MRI. Major treatments are surgical and endoscopic approaches. With evidence based medicine developing, more and more meta-analyses, which provide much best evidence, are reported. By means of summarizing these meta-analyses, we provide the best evidence for clinicians to update their knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of cholelithiasis.

An analysis of omitting biliary tract imaging in 668 subjects admitted to an acute care surgery service with biochemical evidence of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

No consensus exists for the timing and utility of biliary imaging in patients with preoperative concern for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Admissions to an acute care surgery service with evidence of choledocholithiasis undergoing same-admission cholecystectomy without preoperative or intraoperative imaging were identified. One-way analysis of variance on the log-transformed outcomes, with the Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison procedure, were used to compare means between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 668 patients with elevated but downtrending liver enzymes underwent cholecystectomy without preoperative or intraoperative imaging. Thirty-eight patients (5.7%) had postoperative biliary imaging, of whom 22 (3.3%) had definite choledocholithiasis. One case of postoperative cholangitis occurred which required readmission and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with no long-term morbidity. Presenting liver enzymes were significantly higher in the group found to have retained stones postoperatively than those without retained stones.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with biochemical evidence of choledocholithiasis who downtrend preoperatively can be safely managed by cholecystectomy with omission of biliary tract imaging.

Transcystic or transductal stone extraction during single-stage treatment of choledochocystolithiasis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Choledochocystolithiasis can be managed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) or laparoscopically by transcystic (TC) or transductal (TD) stone extraction.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically review safety and effectiveness of combined endoscopic/laparoscopic management versus total laparoscopic management for choledochocystolithiasis with specific emphasis on TC versus TD stone extraction.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched systematically to identify trials on combined endoscopic/laparoscopic and total laparoscopic management for choledochocystolithiasis. Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration was divided into TD and TC approach. Primary outcomes were successful stone clearance from CBD, postoperative/procedural morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Eight randomized trials with 965 patients were included. Successful bile duct clearance varied between 52.6 and 97 % in the ERCP groups, 80.4 and 100 % in the TC groups, and 58.3 and 100 % in the TD groups. There were more bile leaks after TD stone extraction (11 %) than after ERCP (1 %) and TC stone extraction (1.7 %). Total morbidity varied between 9.1 and 38.3 % in the ERCP groups, 7 and 10.5 % in the TC groups, and 18.4 and 26.7 % in the TD groups. Methodological and statistical heterogeneity among the trials precluded a meaningful meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stone clearance rates are comparable between the three modalities, but TD stone extraction is associated with a higher risk of bile leaks and should only be performed by highly experienced surgeons. TC stone extraction seems a more accessible technique with lower complication rates. If unsuccessful, per- or postoperative endoscopic stone extraction is a viable option.

Early versus delayed laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stone-related nonsevere acute cholangitis

It is undetermined when and how laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) should be used in patients with common bile duct (CBD) stone-related nonsevere acute cholangitis. We aimed to evaluate the effect of LCBDE on the clinical outcome of those patients within (early) or beyond (delayed) 72 hours of emergent admission. Surgery-related complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and total cost, as well as demographic and clinical parameters were compared between the two groups. Finally, 3 and 5 patients in early and delayed LCBDE group, respectively, had retained stones, which were removed by choledochoscopy before T-tube was removed. Each group had 3 patients who developed biliary leak, which was conservatively cured by the drainage. Shorter LOS and less total cost were observed in early group compared to the late one (13.34 ± 4.48 vs. 18.32 ± 9.13, p < 0.05; 17712 ± 5446.63 vs. 21776 ± 7230.41 ¥RMB, p < 0.05). Improvement of cholangitis was achieved in all patients with LCBDE. None of the patients developed stricture of the CBD after LCBDE. To conclude, both early and delayed LCBDE are safe and effective for the treatment of CBD stone-related nonsevere acute cholangitis during emergent admissions. Early LCBDE may be superior to delayed procedure due to the shorter LOS and less cost.

Surgeons, ERCP, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: do we need a standard approach for common bile duct stones?

BACKGROUND

Variation exists in the management of choledocholithiasis (CDL). This study evaluated associations between demographic and practice-related characteristics and CDL management.

METHODS

A 22-item, web-based survey was administered to US general surgeons. Respondents were classified into metropolitan or nonmetropolitan groups by zip code. Univariate tests and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine factors associated with CDL management preferences.

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 32,932 surgeons; 9902 performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy within the last year; 750 of 771 respondents had a valid US zip code and were included in the analysis. Mean practice time was 18 ± 10 years, 87% were male, and 83% practiced in a metropolitan area. For preoperatively known CDL, 86% chose preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Those in metropolitan areas were more likely to select preoperative ERCP than those in nonmetropolitan areas (88 vs. 79%, p < 0.001). For CDL discovered intraoperatively, 30% selected laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) as their preferred method of management with no difference between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (30 vs. 26%, p = 0.335). The top reasons for not performing LCBDE were: having a reliable ERCP proceduralist available, lack of equipment, and lack of comfort performing LCBDE. Factors associated with preoperative ERCP were: metropolitan status, selective intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), and availability of a reliable ERCP proceduralist. Those who perform selective IOC were 70% less likely to prefer LCBDE (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.57, p < 0.001). Those with a reliable ERCP proceduralist available were 90% less likely to prefer LCBDE (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.26, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of respondents preferred ERCP for the management of CDL. Having a reliable ERCP proceduralist available, use of selective IOC, and metropolitan status were independently associated with preoperative ERCP. Postoperative ERCP was preferred for managing intraoperatively discovered CDL. Many surgeons are uncomfortable performing LCBDE, and increased training may be needed.

Single-stage vs. two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up

AIM

The preferred approach to the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones is uncertain, with single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBD exploration vs. two-stage preoperative endoscopic CBD clearance followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy being debated. To address this, a prospective randomized study which compared these two management strategies was undertaken.

METHODS

Between Jan 2002 and Dec 2005, patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones diagnosed by preoperative ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were randomized to single-stage vs. two-stage treatment. In a single-stage group, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBD exploration were undertaken at the same operation, whereas in a two-stage group, endoscopic stone clearance was followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy 2-5 days later. Early treatment success and complications and longer-term follow-up for the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-one patients were enrolled in the trial, 110 in the single-stage group and 111 in the two-stage group. There was no significant difference in the success rate of CBD clearance (93.6 vs. 94.6%, p = 0.76) or the complication rates (3.6 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.527) between the groups. However, at longer-term follow-up, recurrent CBD stones were seen more often in the two-stage group (9.5 vs. 2.1%, p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

The single-stage and two-stage approaches were equally effective in achieving initial clearance of CBD stones. However, recurrent CBD stones occurred more commonly in patients who had undergone two-stage treatment with initial endoscopic stone clearance, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopy in cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

Gallstone disease is one of the most common problems in the gastroenterology and is associated with significant morbidity. It may present as stones in the gallbladder (cholecystolithiasis) or in the common bile duct (choledocholithiasis). At the end of the 1980s laparoscopy was introduced and first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 1985. The laparoscopic technique for removing the gallbladder is the current treatment of choice, although indications for open surgery exist. To perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy as safe as possible multiple safety measures were developed. The gold standard for diagnosing and removing common bile duct stones is Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The surgical treatment option for choledocholithiasis is laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration. If experience is not available, than ERCP followed by elective cholecystectomy is by far the best therapeutic modality. The present review will discuss the use, benefits and drawbacks of laparoscopy in patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis.