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

Management of Gallstone Pancreatitis: A Review

Importance

Gallstone pancreatitis (GSP) is the leading cause of acute pancreatitis, accounting for approximately 50% of cases. Without appropriate and timely treatment, patients are at increased risk of disease progression and recurrence. While there is increasing consensus among guidelines for the management of mild GSP, adherence to these guidelines remains poor. In addition, there is minimal evidence to guide clinicians in the treatment of moderately severe and severe pancreatitis.

Observations

The management of GSP continues to evolve and is dependent on severity of acute pancreatitis and concomitant biliary diagnoses. Across the spectrum of severity, there is evidence that goal-directed, moderate fluid resuscitation decreases the risk of fluid overload and mortality compared with aggressive resuscitation. Patients with isolated, mild GSP should undergo same-admission cholecystectomy; early cholecystectomy within 48 hours of admission has been supported by several randomized clinical trials. Cholecystectomy should be delayed for patients with severe disease; for severe and moderately severe disease, the optimal timing remains unclear. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is only useful for patients with suspected cholangitis or biliary obstruction, although the concomitance of these conditions in patients with GSP is rare. Modality of evaluation of the common bile duct to rule out concomitant choledocholithiasis varies and should be tailored to level of concern based on objective measures, such as laboratory results and imaging findings. Among these modalities, intraoperative cholangiography is associated with reduced length of stay and decreased use of ERCP. However, the benefit of routine intraoperative cholangiography remains in question.

Conclusions and Relevance

Treatment of GSP is dependent on disease severity, which can be difficult to assess. A comprehensive review of clinically relevant evidence and recommendations on GSP severity grading, fluid resuscitation, timing of cholecystectomy, need for ERCP, and evaluation and management of persistent choledocholithiasis can help guide clinicians in diagnosis and management.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis in a patient with situs inversus totalis: A case report

Situs inversus complicates diagnosis and treatment due to the mirrored organ placement in relation to normal anatomy. This report describes a 78-year-old female patient with situs inversus totalis who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Utilizing the "French mirror technique" for port placement, the surgeon adeptly mirrored standard maneuvers with a 2-mm needle forceps in the left hand and a 5-mm forceps in the right in a reversed anatomical setting. This technique maintained familiar hand movements, despite the patient's unique anatomy. The surgeon applied transcystic ductal bile duct exploration, using choledochoscopy for duct exploration and a basket catheter for stone removal. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration through the transcystic ductal route are viable and effective for patients with situs inversus.

The Laparoscopy in Biliary Exploration Research and Training Initiative (LIBERTI) trial: simulator-based training for laparoscopic management of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is equivalent in safety and efficacy to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) while decreasing number of procedures and length of stay (LOS). Despite these advantages LCBDE is infrequently utilized. We hypothesized that formal, simulation-based training in LCBDE would result in increased utilization and improve patient outcomes across participating institutions.

METHODS

Data was obtained from an on-going multi-center study in which simulator-based transcystic LCBDE training curricula were instituted for attending surgeons and residents. A 2-year retrospective review of LCBDE utilization prior to LCBDE training was compared to utilization up to 2 years after initiation of training. Patient outcomes were analyzed between LCBDE strategy and ERCP strategy groups using χ2, t tests, and Wilcoxon rank tests.

RESULTS

A total of 50 attendings and 70 residents trained in LCBDE since November 2020. Initial LCBDE utilization rate ranged from 0.74 to 4.5%, and increased among all institutions after training, ranging from 9.3 to 41.4% of cases. There were 393 choledocholithiasis patients analyzed using LCBDE (N = 129) and ERCP (N = 264) strategies. The LCBDE group had shorter median LOS (3 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001). No significant differences in readmission rates between LCBDE and ERCP groups (4.7% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.33), or in post-procedure pancreatitis (0.8% v 0.8%, p > 0.98). In comparison to LCBDE, the ERCP group had higher rates of bile duct injury (0% v 3.8%, p = 0.034) and fluid collections requiring intervention (0.8% v 6.8%, p < 0.009) secondary to cholecystectomy complications. Laparoscopic antegrade balloon sphincteroplasty had the highest technical success rate (87%), followed by choledochoscopic techniques (64%).

CONCLUSION

Simulator-based training in LCBDE results in higher utilization rates, shorter LOS, and comparable safety to ERCP plus cholecystectomy. Therefore, implementation of LCBDE training is strongly recommended to optimize healthcare utilization and management of patients with choledocholithiasis.

A proposed difficulty grading system for laparoscopic bile duct exploration: benefits to clinical practice, training and research

BACKGROUND

A gap remains between the mounting evidence for single session management of bile duct stones and the adoption of this approach. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) is limited by the scarcity of training opportunities and adequate equipment and by the perception that the technique requires a high skill-set. The aim of this study was to create a new classification of difficulty based on operative characteristics and to stratify postoperative outcomes of easy vs. difficult LBDE irrespective of the surgeon's experience.

METHODS

A cohort of 1335 LBDEs was classified according to the location, number and size of ductal stones, the retrieval technique, utilisation of choledochoscopy and specific biliary pathologies encountered. A combination of features indicated easy (Grades I and II A & B) or difficult (Grades III A and B, IV and V) transcystic or transcholedochal explorations.

RESULTS

78.3% of patients with acute cholecystitis or pancreatitis, 37% with jaundice and 46% with cholangitis had easy explorations. Difficult explorations were more likely to present as emergencies, with obstructive jaundice, previous sphincterotomy and dilated bile ducts on ultrasound scans. 77.7% of easy explorations were transcystic and 62.3% of difficult explorations transductal. Choledochoscopy was utilised in 23.4% of easy vs. 98% of difficult explorations. The use of biliary drains, open conversions, median operative time, biliary-related complications, hospital stay, readmissions, and retained stones increased with the difficulty grade. Grades I and II patients had 2 or more hospital episodes in 26.5% vs. 41.2% for grades III to V. There were 2 deaths in difficulty Grade V and one in Grade IIB.

CONCLUSION

Difficulty grading of LBDE is useful in predicting outcomes and facilitating comparison between studies. It ensures fair structuring and assessment of training and progress of the learning curve. LBDEs were easy in 72% with 77% completed transcystically. This may encourage more units to adopt this approach.

TAVAC: choledochoscopy disposable scopes, and the single-stage vs. two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have been published evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of clearing the common bile duct of stones using a single-stage approach (LCBDE + LC) versus a two-stage approach (ERCP followed by LC). These studies have demonstrated that a single-stage approach offers similar outcomes and morbidities as a two-stage approach, with the added benefit of a lower cost and shorter length of stays. However, it is significant we understand why LCBDE is not commonly performed currently and also the lapse in surgical trainee exposure and competence in LCBDE. This paper aims to address the lapse in surgical trainee exposure to LCBDE, evaluate the scopes currently available to perform LCBDE, and review current data evaluating the risks and benefits of single-stage versus two-stage approaches to.

METHODS

We utilized PubMed to analyze all publications related to the various disposable scopes utilized to perform choledochoscopy. We also discuss the need for disposable scopes and how this new market niche is transforming the choledochoscopy space.

RESULTS

We analyzed the data related to single-stage and two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis. We noted an overall shorter length of stay and also decreased costs in favor of a single-stage approach.

CONCLUSION

A single-stage LCBDE is the most cost-effective treatment option for choledocholithiasis in patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing a cholecystectomy. In addition, single-stage approach is associated with shorter length of stay. Knowledge of the available choledochoscopes and tools available to surgeons to perform choledochoscopy is significant. The evidence does support the use of disposable choledochoscope from a cost and cross-contamination perspective. Additionally, efforts should be made to incorporate LCBDE into the teaching paradigm of surgical training programs.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Holmium laser Lithotripsy and Laparoscopic Bile Duct Exploration for Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (LHLL) has been used to treat bile duct stones with unclear outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the LHLL and laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) efficacy and safety in treating bile duct stones.

METHODS

The correlational studies were searched databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify eligible studies from inception to July 2022. The dichotomous and continuous outcomes were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software helped in data analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1,890 patients, primarily from China, were included. The results indicated that operation time (WMD = - 26.94; 95% CI:(- 34.30, - 19.58); P < 0.00001), estimated blood loss (WMD = - 17.97; 95% CI: (- 22.94, - 13.00); P = 0.002), rate of residual stone (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: (0.10, 0.23); P < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (WMD = - 2.88; 95% CI:(- 3.80, - 1.96); P < 0.00001) and time to bowel function recovery (WMD = - 0.59; 95% CI: (- 0.76, - 0.41); P < 0.00001) had statistically significant differences between the two groups. In postoperative complications, biliary leakage (RD = -0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.05, -0.00); P = 0.02), infection (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.09,- 0.03); P < 0.00001) and Hepatic injury (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.11, - 0.01); P = 0.02) revealed statistically significant differences. However, no significant differences were observed in biliary damage (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.06) and hemobilia (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis indicated that LHLL could be more effective and safer than LBDC. However, these results should be confirmed with a larger sample size and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration to treat choledocholithiasis in situs inversus patients: A technical review

Situs inversus (SI) is a rare congenital condition characterized by a mirror-image transposition of the major visceral organs. Since the 1990s, more than one hundred SI patients have been reported to have successfully undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In these cases, the major problem is to overcome is the left-right condition for right-handed surgeons. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), an alternative to treat patients with bile duct stones, has shown equivalent efficacy and is less likely to cause pancreatitis than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Recent updated meta-analyses revealed that a shorter postoperative hospital stay, fewer procedural interventions, cost-effectiveness, a higher stone clearance rate, and fewer perioperative complications are additional advantages of LCBDE. However, the technique is technically demanding, even for skilled laparoscopic surgeons. Conducting LCBDE in patients with difficult situations, such as SI, is more complex than usual. We herein review published SI patients with choledocholithiasis treated by LCBDE, including our own experience, and this paper focuses on the technical aspects.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Current management of concomitant cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones

The management policy of concomitant cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis is based on a one- or two-stage procedure. It basically includes either laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LCBDE) in the same operation or LC with preoperative, postoperative and even intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ERCP-ES) for stone clearance. The most frequently used worldwide option is preoperative ERCP-ES and stone removal followed by LC, preferably on the next day. In cases where preoperative ERCP-ES is not feasible, the proposed alternative of intraoperative rendezvous ERCP-ES simultaneously with LC has been advocated. The intraoperative extraction of CBD stones is superior to postoperative rendezvous ERCP-ES. However, there is no consensus on the superiority of laparoendoscopic rendezvous. This is equivalent to a traditional two-stage procedure. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation reduces recurrence. LCBDE and intraoperative ERCP have similar good outcomes. The risk of recurrence after ERCP-ES is greater than that after LCBDE. Laparoscopic ultrasonography may delineate the anatomy and detect CBD stones. The majority of surgeons prefer the transcductal instead of the transcystic approach for CBDE with or without T-tube drainage, but the transcystic approach must be used where possible. LCBDE is a safe and effective choice when performed by an experienced surgeon. However, the requirement of specific equipment and advanced training are drawbacks. The percutaneous approach is an alternative when ERCP fails. Surgical or endoscopic reintervention for retained stones may be needed. For asymptomatic CBD stones, ERCP clearance is the first-choice method. Both one-stage and two-stage management are acceptable and can ensure improved quality of life.

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration during pregnancy: a multi-center case series and literature review

BACKGROUND

The physiological changes of pregnancy increase the risk of gallstone formation and choledocholithiasis. Traditionally, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been the main approach for managing choledocholithiasis during pregnancy, but recent progress in laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) has demonstrated this technique as a safe and effective alternative option.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study of all patients who underwent LBDE during pregnancy from five centers with proven experience in LBDE between January 2010 and June 2020 was performed. The primary endpoint was to analyze the role of LBDE during pregnancy and to further characterize its position as a safe and effective alternative for the management of choledocholithiasis. A systematic review of the published literature relating to LBDE during pregnancy until February 2022 was also performed.

RESULTS

Five institutions reported performing LBDE during pregnancy in 8 patients. Median surgical time was 75 min (range: 60-140 min). The bile duct was cleared successfully in all patients, and the median hospital stay was 2 days (range: 1-3 days). The literature review identified a total of 7 patients with a successful CBD clearance rate of 86%. There were no major maternal, fetal, or pregnancy-related complications in any of the total 15 patients included. The symptomatic common bile duct lithiasis with deranged liver function tests was the most frequent indication (n=7).

CONCLUSION

LBDE during pregnancy appears to be safe and effective. More evidence reporting outcomes of LBDE during pregnancy is needed before any strong recommendations can be made.

Safety and Feasibility of Primary Closure Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Treatment of Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage following laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration may lead to T-tube displacement and water-electrolyte disorders, affecting patients' quality of life. In particular, biliary peritonitis may develop in a small number of patients after T-tube removal, requiring reoperation. This prospective cohort study was performed to investigate the safety and feasibility of primary closure following laparoscopic CBD exploration for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Patients who were treated for choledocholithiasis by laparoscopic CBD exploration with primary closure from January 2019 to March 2022 comprised the PC group (n = 145). Patients who were treated for choledocholithiasis by laparoscopic CBD exploration with T-tube drainage during this period comprised the TD group (n = 153). Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The TD and PC groups showed significant differences in the operation time (124.6 ± 40.8 vs. 106 ± 36.4 min, P = 0.000) and postoperative hospital stay (7.1 ± 2.6 vs. 5.9 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.000). No significant difference was observed in terms of blood loss, the ratio of conversion to laparotomy, and postoperative parameters. Preoperative albumin and total bilirubin levels were the risk factors of bile leakage after surgery. No patients developed CBD stricture or carcinogenesis, The rates of residual and recurrent stones in the TD and PC groups were 1.97% vs. 1.40% and 1.31% vs. 1.40%, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 1.000 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure following laparoscopic CBD exploration is safe and feasible for selected patients with choledocholithiasis.

The single-stage management of bile duct stones is underutilised: A prospective multicentre cohort study with a literature review

Backgrounds/Aims

Bile duct stones (BDS) can be managed either prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or with laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) at the time of LC. The latter is underutilised. The aim of this study was to use the dataset of the previously performed CholeS study to investigate LBDE hospital volumes, LBDE-to-LC rates, and LBDE outcomes.

Methods

Data from 166 United Kingdom/Republic of Ireland hospitals were used to study the utilisation of LBDE in LC patients.

Results

Of 8,820 LCs performed, 932 patients (10.6%) underwent preoperative ERCP and 256 patients (2.9%) underwent LBDE. Of the 256 patients who underwent LBDE, 73 patients (28.5%) had undergone prior ERCP and 112 patients (43.8%) had undergone prior magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Fifteen (9.0%) of the 166 included hospitals performed less than five LBDEs in the two-month study period. LBDEs were mainly performed by upper gastrointestinal surgeons (84.4%) and colorectal surgeons (10.0%). Eighty-seven percent of the LBDEs were performed by consultants and 13.0% were performed by trainees. The laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 12.5%. The median operation time was 111 minutes (range: 75-155 minutes). Median hospital stay was 6 days (range: 4-11 days) for emergency LBDEs and 1 day (range: 1-4 days) for elective LBDEs. Overall morbidity was 21.5%. Bile leak rate was 5.3%. Thirty-day readmission and mortality rates were 12.1% and 0.4%, respectively.

Conclusions

The single-stage approach to managing BDS was underutilised. An additional prospective study with a longer study period is needed to verify this finding.

Novel advances in surgery for Gallstone Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Examine recent advances in the treatment of patients with complex gallstone disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been shown to be an effective and safe treatment for choledocholithiasis, resulting in decreased hospital length of stay and costs when compared with ERCP plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Novel simulator-based curricula have recently been developed to address the educational gap that has resulted in an underutilization of LCBDE. Patients with cholecystitis who are too ill to safely undergo LC have traditionally been treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided gallbladder drainage is a novel definitive treatment for such patients and has been shown to result in decreased complications and hospital readmissions compared to PC. The management of symptomatic gallstone disease during pregnancy has evolved over the last several decades. While it is now well established that laparoscopic procedures under general anesthesia are safe throughout a pregnancy, recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the third trimester specifically may result in higher rates of preterm labor when compared with non-operative management. Finally, indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence cholangiography is a novel imaging modality that has been used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and may offer better visualization of biliary anatomy during dissection when compared with traditional intraoperative cholangiography. A number of recent technological, procedural, educational, and research innovations have enhanced and expanded treatment options for patients with complex gallstone disease.

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

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

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is safe and feasible for patients with non-severe acute cholangitis

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) have been confirmed in elective settings. However, the suitability of primary closure after LCBDE in the treatment of patients with non-severe acute cholangitis in emergency settings remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to explore the safety and feasibility of LCBDE with primary closure in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with gallbladder stones treated by LCBDE with primary closure at our institution from January 2015 to April 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. These patients were divided into two groups: emergency group (patients with non-severe acute cholangitis) and elective group (patients without acute cholangitis). The demographic and perioperative data of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two patients received LCBDE combined with primary closure during this period, including 70 in the emergency group and 52 in the elective group. Baseline characteristics were balanced in both groups, except for higher levels of white blood cells (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and albumin in the emergency group. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. Compared to the elective group, the emergency group had a longer operation time (P = 0.011), and more estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of conversion (2.9% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.507), use of baskets (84.2% vs. 78.8%, P = 0.481), use of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) (2.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 1.000), or postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.214). The incidence of postoperative complications was comparable between the two groups. During the follow-up period, none of the patients experienced biliary stricture, and 1 case of stone recurrence occurred in the elective group.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with primary closure for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe acute cholangitis has the equivalent efficacy and morbidity to elective surgery. Primary closure after LCBDE is a safe and feasible option for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe acute cholangitis.

Inpatient Choledocholithiasis Management: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Management Algorithms

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis is commonly encountered. It is frequently managed with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (either preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative relative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective method to manage inpatient choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A decision tree model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a ceiling willingness to pay threshold assumed of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Model parameters were determined through review of published literature and institutional data. Costs were from the perspective of the healthcare system with a time horizon of 1 year. Sensitivity analyses were performed on model parameters.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was cost-effective, resulting in 0.9909 quality-adjusted life years at an expected cost of $18,357. Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography yielded more quality-adjusted life years (0.9912) at a higher cost ($19,717) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,789,025, exceeding the willingness to pay threshold. Both preoperative and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies were eliminated for being both more costly and less effective. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective if the probability of successful biliary clearance was above 0.79, holding all other variables constant. If its base cost remained below $18,400 and intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography base cost rose above $18,200, then laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is the most cost-effective method to manage choledocholithiasis. Efforts to ensure availability of local expertise and resources for this procedure are warranted.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis

Although the feasibility of T-tube drainage after emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been reported, the safety and effectiveness of primary closure (PC) after LCBDE in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis (AC) remain uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of PC after LCBDE in patients with non-severe AC. Consecutive choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC who were treated with a laparoscopic approach at our institution between January 2014 and March 2021 were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups (PC group and T-tube group) based on the way of closure of the common bile duct. The baseline characteristics and perioperative data between the two groups were compared. A total of 230 patients who underwent LCBDE met the inclusion criteria, and there were 94 patients in the PC group and 126 patients in the T-tube group. Baseline data were balanced between the two groups, except that there was less acute cholecystitis in the PC group than in the T-tube group (P = 0.027). Compared to the T-tube group, the PC group had a shorter operation time (P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), less use of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) (P = 0.001), shorter time of drainage removal (P < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) and residual stones (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of conversion (4.3 vs. 4.4%, P = 1.000), intraoperative transfusion (0.0 vs. 0.7%, P = 1.000), use of basket (71.2 vs. 69.9%, P = 0.816), postoperative bleeding (1.1 vs. 0.7%, P = 1.000), biliary leakage (4.3 vs. 3.7%, P = 1.000), incision infection (1.1 vs. 2.2%, P = 0.649), pneumonia (2.1 vs. 1.4%, P = 1.000), or cholangitis (1.1 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.651). No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. During the follow-up period, no biliary stricture occurred in the two groups, and two patients in the T-tube group were found to have stone recurrence. PC after LCBDE in choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC shows superior clinical outcomes to T-tube drainage in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, time of drainage removal, postoperative hospital stay, and residual stones. PC is a safe and feasible treatment for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC after LCBDE.

Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones. However, the choice of primary duct closure (PDC) or T-tube drainage (TTD) technique after LCBDE is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of PDC and TTD after LCBDE. METHODS: Studies published before May 1, 2021 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to screen out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies to compare PDC with TTD. Meta-analyses of fixed effect and random effect models were performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 1865 patients were enrolled in six RCTs and ten cohort studies. Regarding RCTs, the PDC group was significantly better than the TTD group in terms of operation time, total postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses (all P<0.05). Based on cohort studies of the subgroup, the PDC group had shorter operation time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, less intraoperative blood loss, and limited total postoperative complications. Statistically, there were no significant differences in bile leakage, retained stones, stone recurrence, bile duct stricture, postoperative pancreatitis, other complications, or postoperative exhaust time between the TTD and PDC groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, compared with TTD, PDC is safe and effective, and can be used as the first choice after transductal LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy with primary closure for the management of acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones

Background

T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for patients with acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDSs). The outcomes after LCBDE with primary closure in patients with CBDS-related acute cholangitis are unknown. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LCBDE with primary closure for the management of acute cholangitis caused by CBDSs.

Methods

Between June 2015 and June 2020, 368 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis, who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + LCBDE in our department, were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 193 patients with CBDS-related acute cholangitis underwent LC + LCBDE with primary closure of the CBD (PC group) and 62 patients underwent LC + LCBDE followed by T-tube placement (T-tube group). A total of 113 patients who did not have cholangitis were excluded. The clinical data were compared and analyzed.

Results

There was no mortality in either group. No significant differences were noted in morbidity, bile leakage rate, retained CBD stones, or readmission rate within 30 days between the two groups. Compared with the T-tube group, the PC group avoided T-tube-related complications and had a shorter operative time (121.12 min vs. 143.37 min) and length of postoperative hospital stay (6.59 days vs. 8.81 days). Moreover, the hospital expenses in the PC group were significantly lower than those in the T-tube group ($4844.47 vs. $5717.22). No biliary stricture occurred during a median follow-up of 18 months in any patient. No significant difference between the two groups was observed in the rate of stone recurrence.

Conclusions

LCBDE with primary closure is a safe and effective treatment for cholangitis caused by CBDSs. LCBDE with primary closure is not inferior to T-tube drainage for the management of CBDS-related acute cholangitis in suitable patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Porcine Aorto-Renal Artery (PARA) model for laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration: the evolution of a training model to meet new clinical needs

BACKGROUND

The transcystic approach to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration has gained popularity for the single-stage management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones. Our team previously described the use of a porcine aorta segment to simulate the common bile duct during laparoscopic skill training.

METHODS

With the advent of the transcystic approach as a contender for the first-line technique of accessing the common bile duct, we present an evolution of the laparoscopic training model using a Porcine Aorta-Renal Artery (PARA) specimen to simulate the structural integrity, dimensions and spatial distribution of both the human cystic and common bile ducts.

RESULTS

This training model allows the use of a choledochoscope for transcystic exploration of the biliary tree. It combines fidelity and reproducibility required for a simulated training model to offer experience in laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration. Validation of the model was demonstrated by 21 surgeons who completed a questionnaire after performing the simulated procedure. In all sections assessing reliability, face validity and content validity of the model, mean rating scores were between 4 and 5 out of five (good or excellent).

CONCLUSIONS

We present the evolution of an established training model for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration which focusses the attention on the transcystic approach to the common bile duct and the use of lithotripsy techniques. The need for such a model reflects the shift in the current practice of the laparoendoscopic management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones from transductal to transcystic approach.

Medium and long-term complications difference between laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic sphincterotomy against choledocholithiasis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct stone (CBDS) is typically manifested with abdominal pain, chills, fever, and jaundice. Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) are currently the main minimally invasive methods for the treatment of CBDS. However, there are few studies about the differences of medium and long-term complication after EST or LTCBDE. Therefore, we will conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review to systematically evaluate the difference of medium and long-term complications between EST and LTCBDE against CBDS.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of EST or LTCBDE against CBDS will be searched in several English and Chinese databases with the following vocabularies: "laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration," "endoscopic sphincterotomy," "choledocholithiasis," "common bile duct stone" until December, 2020. Two reviewers will independently conduct the literature extraction, risk of bias assessment, and statistical analysis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The study will help to systematically evaluate the difference of medium and long-term complication between EST and LTCBDE against CBDS.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5U7SA.

The ABCdE score for PREdicting Lithotripsy Assistance during transcystic Bile duct Exploration by Laparoendoscopy (PRE-LABEL)

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are reported in ~ 15% of patients who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. Prior to lithotripsy techniques, transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) was limited to smaller CBD stones. The addition of lithotripsy to LCBDE increases cost, operative time and staffing requirements. Predicting which patients might require lithotripsy would be useful in operative planning. The primary aim was to investigate clinical variables for predicting lithotripsy assistance during transcystic bile duct exploration by laparoendoscopy (PRE-LABEL). Secondary aims were to develop and validate a predictive scoring tool.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent transcystic LCBDE at a single centre in the UK was performed to investigate clinical variables for PRE-LABEL and develop a scoring tool (ABCdE score: age, bilirubin, CBD diameter, ERCP). Binary logistic regression was used to investigate which independent variables (predictors) were associated with lithotripsy assistance during transcystic LCBDE. The ABCdE score was applied to both UK and Spain patient cohorts to determine its sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.

RESULTS

From 8 pre-operative clinical variables analysed, age ≤ 40 years, bilirubin > two-times upper limit of normal, CBD diameter ≥ 10 mm and ERCP failure of stone extraction were independent predictors of requiring lithotripsy during transcystic LCBDE and formed the ABCdE score. The hazard ratios were 2.87, 3.79, 2.78 and 10.06, respectively. An ABCdE score ≥ 2 resulted in 71% sensitivity, 81% specificity and 79% accuracy in predicting lithotripsy during LCBDE (UK cohort). Validation using a contemporary cohort from Spain yielded similar sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the only study to date reporting independent predictors of requiring lithotripsy assistance during transcystic LCBDE. ABCdE score ≥ 2 can highlight patients that may require lithotripsy in order to avoid failure of transcystic LCBDE and therefore avoid choledochotomy or post-operative ERCP.