A UK survey on variation in the practice of management of choledocholithiasis and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (ALiCE Survey)

Moving the needle for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: defining obstacles for the path forward

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed very commonly but laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is performed infrequently. We aimed to determine the most significant barriers to performing LCBDE and to identify the highest yield interventions to facilitate adoption.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A national survey was designed by content experts, who regularly perform LCBDE. The survey was distributed by email to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma memberships. Non-U.S. surgeon responses were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

Seven hundred twenty six practicing surgeons responded to the survey, 543 of which were US surgeons who perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Only 27% of respondents preferred to manage choledocholithiasis with LCBDE. Their technique of choice was choledochoscopy (70%). Despite this, 36% of surgeons did not have access to a choledochoscope or were unsure if they did. Seventy percent of surgeons who performed LCBDE did not have supplies readily available in a central stocking location. Only 8.5% of surgeons agreed that routine LCBDE would impact their referral relationship with gastroenterology. About half the respondents (47%) considered LCBDE worth the time, but only 25% knew about reimbursement for the procedure. Almost all (85%) of surgeons understood that LCBDE results in shorter length of stay compared to ERCP.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a quarter of the surgeons performing cholecystectomy perform LCBDE. Multiple barriers contribute to low LCBDE utilization. Increasing availability of appropriate equipment, a dedicated supply cart, and teaching fluoroscopic LCBDE interventions may address limitations and increase adoption. These efforts may also increase efficiency, minimizing perceived time and skill restraints. Although many surgeons understand LCBDE decreases length of stay, they are unaware of surgeon-specific LCBDE financial benefits. Systematically addressing these barriers may increase LCBDE adoption, improve patient care, and decrease healthcare costs.

Upfront Laparoscopic Management of Common Bile Duct Stones: What Are the Risk Factors of Failure?

BACKGROUND

Treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) includes laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with either laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) or perioperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The main objective of this study was to identify predictive factors for the failure of upfront and exclusive surgical treatment by LCBDE.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective study on patients with CBDS and operated for LC between 2007 and 2019. The use of intra- or postoperative endoscopy for CBD clearance within 6 months after surgery was considered as failure of LCBDE. Predictors for the failure of LCBDE were investigated and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among 222 operated patients, LCBDE was successfully performed in 173 patients (78%) and 49 (22%) required ERCP with sphincterotomy (intraoperative (n=29) or postoperative (n=20)). Independent risk factors for surgical failure were male sex (OR: 2.525 (1.111-5.738); p=0.027), anesthesia induction time ≥ 4 p.m. (OR: 4.858 (1.731-13.631); p=0.003), pediculitis (OR: 4.147 (1.177-14.606); p=0.027), and thin CDB < 4mm (OR: 11.951 (3.562-40.097), p< 0.0001). Age, ASA score, cystic anatomy, presence of cholecystitis, and the surgeon's experience were not identified as predictors for surgical failure. A general anesthesia number >1 (6% vs. 33%; p < 0.0001), length of initial stay (6 [1-42] vs. 8 [2-27], p=0.012), total length of hospitalization (6 [1-45] vs. 9 [2-27]; p=0.010), and the rate of emergency readmissions (3.5% vs. 12.2%; p=0.027) were significantly higher in the LCBDE failure group.

CONCLUSIONS

Upfront LCBDE for CBDS was associated with improved outcomes compared to intra-/postoperative ERCP recourse. Male sex, pediculitis, thin CBD, and surgery later than 4 p.m were associated with LCBDE failure and the need for endoscopic treatment.

REGISTRATION NUMBER AND AGENCY

The present retrospective study was approved by our local ethics committee and was declared on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04467710).

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.

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.

Indian Survey on Management of Choledocholithiasis—Opportunities for Improvement and Future Studies

Background In clinical practice, decision about management of choledocholithiasis is driven by availability of resources and expertise, patients and healthcare professional preferences. This survey is aimed to describe the approach of physicians and surgeons for the management of choledocholithiasis.

Method A 36-question online survey was conducted using Google Forms on various aspects of management of choledocholithiasis.

Results The responses from 323 participants were included, of which 202 (62.54%) were physicians and 121 (37.46%) were surgeons. The proportion of responders who do not follow American or European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines is associated with increasing age and experience of responders (p = 0.0001), while place of work (private vs. teaching) and broad specialty (physician vs surgeon) are not associated (p >0.05). For patients with high likelihood of choledocholithiasis, 123 (38.1%) participants prefer to do endoscopic ultrasound/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (EUS/MRCP) rather than directly performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/intraoperative cholangiography (ERCP/IOC). For intermediate likelihood, MRCP is more commonly preferred compared with EUS, due to local availability (44%), expertise (39.6%), healthcare professionals preference (30.7%), and patients preference (17.3%). For difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones, short biliary sphincterotomy with large balloon sphincteroplasty (59.4%), followed by laparoscopic CBD exploration are commonly used approaches. Prophylactic CBD stent placement after ERCP and CBD clearance is common practice. Preoperative ERCP followed by cholecystectomy is more preferred approach than cholecystectomy and CBD exploration.

Conclusion There is considerable variability in the management of choledocholithiasis. The practices such as use of EUS/MRCP for high likelihood group, use of prophylactic CBD stent placement after ERCP and CBD clearance, and use of single stage approach especially in patient with intermediate likelihood group should be addressed in future studies.