10 years of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: A single tertiary institution experience

Efficacy and safety of double endoscopy combined with exploration in the treatment of elderly patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy in the treatment of elderly patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 114 patients admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to January 2023 was conducted. These patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with choledocholithiasis and were divided into an elderly group (≥ 60 years old) of 63 cases and a young and middle-aged group (< 60 years old) of 51 cases according to age. The efficacy and safety indicators of the two groups of patients were observed, and complications were followed up by telephone within 6 months after surgery. The follow-up deadline was June 2023.

RESULTS

Among the eligible patients (53 men, 61 women, average age 57 years), all were successfully operated, and 1 case was converted to laparotomy. The elderly and young and middle-aged groups were compared concerning hospitalisation time, bowel sound recovery time, and total postoperative complications, and the differences were statistically significant (P-values were 0.009, 0.006, and 0.039). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of patients in terms of hospitalisation costs, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, drainage tube removal time, conversion to laparotomy rate, and stone clearance rate (P-values > 0 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Strict adherence to surgical standards and enhanced postoperative care resulted in similar efficacy and safety results for double endoscopy combined with the exploration of treatment for elderly and young patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis.

Efficacy analysis of hybrid operating room-based laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of cholelithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis - A case-control study

Objective

The objective is to compare the therapeutic effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in hybrid operating room and ERCP + LC under traditional conditions in the treatment of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis.

Materials and Methods

Data of 82 patients with cholelithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis treated by our centre from November 2018 to March 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Amongst them, 40 patients treated with LC combined with intraoperative ERCP in a hybrid operating room were placed into Group A, and 42 patients treated with ERCP first followed by LC under traditional conditions were placed into Group B. The differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical success rate, stone clearance rate, pain score, exhaust time, ambulation time, post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, hospitalisation cost and other indicators between the two groups were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical success rate and stone clearance rate between the two groups (P > 0.05), while there were significant differences in post-operative pain score, exhaust time, ambulation time, length of hospital stay, hospitalisation cost and complications (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

LC combined with intraoperative ERCP in hybrid operating room for the treatment of cholelithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis has a better therapeutic effect than traditional ERCP followed by LC, which is worthy of further popularization. Notably, the reasonable selection should be made based on patients' own conditions and hospital facilities.

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.

A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Despite some evidence of improved survival with intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy, debate has raged about its benefit, in part because of its questionable benefit, time, and resources required to complete.

METHODS

An International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews-registered (ID CRD42018102154) meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from 2003 to 2018 was undertaken including search strategy "intraoperative AND cholangiogra* AND cholecystectomy." Articles scoring ≥ 16 for comparative and ≥ 10 for noncomparative using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included. A dichotomous random effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method performed on Review Manager Version 5.3 was carried out.

RESULTS

Of 2,059 articles reviewed, 62 met criteria for final analysis. The mean rate of intraoperative cholangiography was 38.8% (range 1.6%-96.4%).There was greater detection of bile duct stones during cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography compared with selective intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 3.28, confidence interval = 2.80-3.86, P value < .001). While bile duct injury during cholecystectomy was less with intraoperative cholangiography (0.39%) than without intraoperative cholangiography (0.43%), it was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.88, confidence interval = 0.65-1.19, P value = .41). Readmission following cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography was 3.0% compared to 3.5% without intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 0.91, confidence interval = 0.78-1.06, P value = .23).

CONCLUSION

The use of intraoperative cholangiography still has its place in cholecystectomy based on the detection of choledocholithiasis and the potential reduction of unfavorable outcomes associated with common bile duct stones. This meta-analysis, the first to review intraoperative cholangiography use, identified a marked variation in cholangiography use. Retrospective studies limit the ability to critically define association between intraoperative cholangiography use and bile duct injury.

During which period should we avoid cholecystectomy in patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the period during which we should avoid cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of electronic medical charts of 532 patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, between March 2013 and December 2017.

RESULTS

Approximately one-third of patients underwent the procedure between 4 and 30 days after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The conversion rate was 3.8%. The need for abdominal drainage and the finding of biliary tract injury after surgery were observed in 15.1% and 1.9% of patients, respectively. The length of stay was significantly shorter among patients undergoing surgery more than 30 days after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. These patients had a median length of stay of one day, whereas the median length of stay in the group undergoing the procedure between 4 and 30 days after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was 2 days.

CONCLUSION

The period during which we should avoid cholecystectomy is between 4 and 30 days after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations

Background

A history of abdominal biliary tract surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), and there are very few reports about laparoscopic procedures in patients with a history of abdominal biliary tract surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 227 consecutive patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations at our institution between December 2013 and June 2019. A total of 110 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE, and 117 consecutive patients underwent open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE). Patient demographics and perioperative variables were compared between the two groups.

Results

The LCBDE group performed significantly better than the OCBDE group with respect to estimated blood loss [30 (5–700) vs. 50 (10–1800) ml; p = 0.041], remnant common bile duct (CBD) stones (17 vs. 28%; p = 0.050), postoperative hospital stay [7 (3–78) vs. 8.5 (4.5–74) days; p = 0.041], and time to oral intake [2.5 (1–7) vs. 3 (2–24) days; p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences in the operation time [170 (60–480) vs. 180 (41–330) minutes; p = 0.067]. A total of 19 patients (17%) in the LCBDE group were converted to open surgery. According to Clavien’s classification of complications, the LCBDE group had significantly fewer postoperative complications than the OCBDE group (40 vs. 57; p = 0.045). There was no mortality in either group. Multiple previous operations (≥ 2 times), a history of open surgery, and previous biliary tract surgery (including bile duct or gallbladder + bile duct other than cholecystectomy alone) were risk factors for postoperative adhesion (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000, respectively).

Conclusion

LCBDE is ultimately the least invasive, safest, and the most effective treatment option for patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations and is especially suitable for those with a history of cholecystectomy, few previous operations (< 2 times), or a history of laparoscopic surgery.