A meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones

Initial Experience with Disposable Single-Use Cholangioscope During Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

Introduction: For patients with choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is more cost effective than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and results in shorter hospital length of stay. As LCBDE can be technically challenging to perform, utilizing a disposable single-use cholangioscope (DSUC) for LCBDE through a cystic ductotomy has several advantages, such as potentially avoiding a choledochotomy and expanding access to cholangioscopes as a DSUC is disposable and does not require infrastructure for cleaning or maintenance. Methods: An IRB-approved, retrospective chart review from 2021 to 2023 was conducted for patients who underwent concurrent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and LCBDE with a DSUC (SpyGlass™ Discover, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) for the management of choledocholithiasis diagnosed either preoperatively or during intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC). Primary endpoint was successful clearance of biliary duct stones. Results: Twelve patients with a mean age of 55.3 years (SD ±13.9) and mean body mass index of 33.8 (SD ±10.8) were found to have filling defects on IOC for LC and underwent LCBDE with DSUC. Of these, 10 patients had stones. Complete stone clearance was achieved in all 10 patients with various stone extraction maneuvers. The mean operative time was 189 minutes (SD ±63.6) and mean hospital length of stay postoperatively was 1 day (SD ±.8). Mean length of follow-up postoperatively was 26.9 (SD ±16.0) days. There were no intraoperative complications, no need for repeat procedures, and only one postoperative complication involving a superficial surgical site infection requiring oral antibiotics. Conclusions: LCBDE with a DSUC is safe and efficacious for clearing stones and identifying pathology of the CBD. Familiarity with this device is especially useful for surgeons who want to simultaneously manage choledocholithiasis at the same time as cholecystectomy to reduce hospital stay and overall cost.

Contemporary management of common bile duct stone: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Choledocholithiasis is a common presentation of symptomatic cholelithiasis encountered by the acute care surgeon. There is a wide spectrum of variation in management of this disease due to evolutions in laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques. Intricacies in management are related to the timing of diagnosis as well as locally available imaging modalities, surgical expertise, and ancillary advanced endoscopy and interventional radiological support. While individual patient demographics and institutional characteristics will determine management of choledocholithiasis, it is incumbent for the treating surgeon to be well versed in all manners of therapy currently available. The objective of this review is to provide an evidence-based summary of the contemporary management of choledocholithiasis.

Recurrence of common bile duct stones after choledocholithotomy in elderly patients: risk factor analysis and clinical prediction model development

Background

The reasons for the recurrence of common bile duct stones (CBDS) in elderly patients after choledocholithotomy are still unclear. This study aims to establish a prediction model for CBDS recurrence by identifying risk factors.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1804 elderly patients aged 65 years and above who were diagnosed to have CBDS and were admitted to Nanjing First Hospital between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2021. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 706 patients were selected for the final analysis. The patients were assigned to two groups according to the presence or absence of CBDS recurrence, and their clinical data were then statistically analyzed. Subsequently, a prediction model and nomogram were developed, evaluating effectiveness using the concordance index (C-index).

Results

Of the 706 elderly patients, 62 patients experienced CBDS recurrence after surgery, resulting in a recurrence rate of 8.8%. The multivariate Cox analysis showed that prior history of cholecystectomy (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.931, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.051-3.547, p = 0.034), white blood cell (WBC) count ≥11.0 × 109/L (HR = 2.923, 95% CI: 1.723-4.957, p < 0.001), preoperative total bilirubin (TBIL) level ≥ 36.5 mmol/L (HR = 2.172, 95% CI: 1.296-3.639, p = 0.003), number of stones ≥2 (HR = 2.093, 95% CI: 1.592-5.294, p = 0.001), maximum stone diameter ≥ 0.85 cm (HR = 1.940, 95% CI: 1.090-3.452, p = 0.024), and T-tube drainage (HR = 2.718, 95% CI: 1.230-6.010, p = 0.013) were independent risk factors of CBDS recurrence in elderly patients after choledocholithotomy. A postoperative CBDS recurrence prediction model was constructed with a C-index value of 0.758 (95% CI: 0.698-0.818) and internal validation value of 0.758 (95% CI: 0.641-0.875).

Conclusion

A history of cholecystectomy, WBC count ≥11.0 × 109/L, preoperative TBIL level ≥ 36.5 mmol/L, number of stones ≥2, maximum stone diameter ≥ 0.85 cm, and T-tube drainage are the independent risk factors of CBDS recurrence after choledocholithotomy in elderly patients. Our developed prediction model for CBDS recurrence has good predictive ability and can help predict the prognosis of patients with CBDS.

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).

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.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is preferred for selected elderly individuals with choledocholithiasis

Background

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure (LCBDE-PC) exhibits more benefits than other surgeries for patients with choledocholithiasis. It remains unclear whether it is feasible for and beneficial to elderly individuals. This study aimed to clarify and stratify elderly patients who would benefit from LCBDE-PC.

Methods

A retrospective study of 1240 patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent laparoscopic procedures between 2011 and 2019 was conducted. Patients were divided into the young group (<65 years old, n = 708) and the elderly group (≥65 years old, n = 532). Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure was successfully performed in 90.20% of the elderly and 94.20% of the young. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding reoperation, postoperative bile leakage, residual stones, drainage removal, and postoperative mortality. Compared with the young, the elderly had longer postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.035) and delayed postoperative eating time (p = 0.036) in the matched cohort. Independent risk factors for failed LCBDE-PC were preoperative pancreatitis (p = 0.018), year of the surgeon's experience (p = 0.008), preoperative C-reactive protein level (p = 0.034), preoperative total bilirubin (p = 0.021), impacted common bile duct (CBD) stones (p = 0.006), blood loss (p = 0.001), and edema of the CBD (p = 0.001). A novel nomogram for predicting failed LCBDE-PC in elderly individuals exhibited a sufficient discriminative ability according to the estimated area under the curve (AUC) of 0.869 (95% CI: 0.817-0.921, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is safe, feasible, and effective for elderly individuals with choledocholithiasis. Elderly patients with a high risk of failed LCBDE-PC should be cautious of undergoing LCBDE-PC.

A simulation curriculum for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, balloon sphincterotomy, and endobiliary stenting: Associations with resident performance and autonomy in the operating room

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is safe and effective for managing choledocholithiasis, but laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is rarely performed, which threatens surgical trainee proficiency. This study tests the hypothesis that prior operative or simulation experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is associated with greater resident operative performance and autonomy without adversely affecting patient outcomes.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study included 33 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in cases involving postgraduate years 3, 4, and 5 general surgery residents at a single institution during the implementation of a laparoscopic common bile duct exploration simulation curriculum. For each of the 33 cases, resident performance and autonomy were rated by residents and attendings, the resident's prior operative and simulation experience were recorded, and patient outcomes were ascertained from electronic health records for comparison among 3 cohorts: prior operative experience, prior simulation experience, and no prior experience.

RESULTS

Operative approach was similar among cohorts. Overall morbidity was 6.1% and similar across cohorts. The operative performance scores were higher in prior experience cohorts according to both residents (3.0 [2.8-3.0] vs 2.0 [2.0-3.0]; P = .01) and attendings (3.0 [3.0-4.0]; P < .001). The autonomy scores were higher in prior experience cohorts according to both residents (2.0 [2.0-3.0] vs 2.0 [2.0-2.0]; P = .005) and attendings (2.5 [2.0-3.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-2.0]; P = .001). Prior simulation and prior operative experience had similar associations with performance and autonomy.

CONCLUSION

Simulation experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was associated with greater resident operative performance and autonomy, with effects that mimic prior operative experience. This illustrates the potential for simulation-based training to improve resident operative performance and autonomy for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

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.

Comparison between Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) and Clavien-Dindo Classification for laparoscopic single-stage treatment of choledocholithiasis with concomitant cholelithiasis

PURPOSE

The Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) are both widely used methods for reporting postoperative complications. Several studies have compared the CCI® with the CDC in evaluating postoperative complications of major abdominal surgery. However, there are no published reports comparing both indexes in single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with cholecystectomy (LCBDE) for the treatment of common bile duct stones. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the CCI® and the CDC in evaluating the complications of LCBDE.

METHODS

In total, 249 patients were included. Spearman's rank test was used to calculate the correlation coefficient between CCI® and CDC with length of postoperative stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and mortality rates. Student t-test and Fisher's exact test were used to study, if higher ASA, age, larger surgical time, history of previous abdominal surgery, preoperative ERCP, and intraoperative cholangitis finding were associated with higher CDC grade or higher CCI® score.

RESULTS

Mean CCI® was 5.17 ± 12.8. CCI® ranges overlap among three CDC grades: II (20.90-36.20), IIIa (26.20-34.60), and IIIb (33.70-52.10). Age > 60 years, ASA ≥ III, and intraoperative cholangitis finding were associated with higher CCI® (p = 0.010, p = 0.044, and p = 0.031) but not with CDC ≥ IIIa (p = 0.158, p = 0.209, and p = 0.062). In patients with complications, LOS presented a significantly higher correlation with CCI® than with CDC (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

In LCBDE, the CCI® assesses better the magnitude of postoperative complications in patients older than 60 years, with a high ASA as well as in those who present intraoperative cholangitis. In addition, the CCI® correlates better with LOS in patients with complications.

[Modern minimally invasive technologies for the treatment of cholelithiasis]

Surgical community has not yet reached any consensus on the adequate treatment of gallstone disease with combined stones of the gallbladder and bile ducts. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic papillosphincterotomy (EPST) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCE) have been considered the optimal treatment method for the past thirty years. Thanks to improvement of technologies and experience in laparoscopic surgery, many centers in the world offer simultaneous treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis, i.e. LCE and laparoscopic choledocholithotomy. Transcystical and transcholedochal extraction of calculi from the common bile duct is the most common. Intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy are used to assess extraction of calculi while T-shaped drainage, biliary stent and primary suture of common bile duct are used to complete choledocholithotomy. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy is associated with certain difficulties, requires some experience in choledochoscopy and intracorporeal suturing of common bile duct. There are many unresolved issues regarding the choice of laparoscopic choledocholithotomy technique depending on the number and dimensions of stones, diameter of cystic duct and common bile duct. The authors analyze literature data on the role of modern minimally invasive interventions in the treatment of gallstone disease.

Surgical resident experience with common bile duct exploration and assessment of performance and autonomy with formative feedback

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is safe and effective for managing choledocholithiasis, but most US general surgeons have limited experience with CBDE and are uncomfortable performing this procedure in practice. Surgical trainee exposure to CBDE is limited, and their learning curve for achieving autonomous, practice-ready performance has not been previously described. This study tests the hypothesis that receipt of one or more prior CBDE operative performance assessments, combined with formative feedback, is associated with greater resident operative performance and autonomy.

METHODS

Resident and attending assessments of resident operative performance and autonomy were obtained for 189 laparoscopic or open CBDEs performed at 28 institutions. Performance and autonomy were graded along validated ordinal scales. Cases in which the resident had one or more prior CBDE case evaluations (n = 48) were compared with cases in which the resident had no prior evaluations (n = 141).

RESULTS

Compared with cases in which the resident had no prior CBDE case evaluations, cases with a prior evaluation had greater proportions of practice-ready or exceptional performance ratings according to both residents (27% vs. 11%, p = .009) and attendings (58% vs. 19%, p < .001) and had greater proportions of passive help or supervision only autonomy ratings according to both residents (17% vs. 4%, p = .009) and attendings (69% vs. 32%, p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Residents with at least one prior CBDE evaluation and formative feedback demonstrated better operative performance and received greater autonomy than residents without prior evaluations, underscoring the propensity of feedback to help residents achieve autonomous, practice-ready performance for rare operations.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: 8-Year Experience at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) is used to treat cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to investigate the safety, effectiveness and generalisability of LTCBDE in patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis based on our LTCBDE experience within 8 years.

METHODS

Four hundred patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis (including 62 of cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis with common bile duct no-dilatation) treated with LTCBDE at a single centre from January 2014 to February 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. They were divided into the first 200 and last 200 LTCBDE cases. The disease characteristics, cystic duct incision methods, surgical outcomes and follow-up data were analysed retrospectively. Each patient was followed up for > 3 months.

RESULTS

Four hundred patients underwent LTCBDE, including 188 males and 212 females aged from 15 to 91 years (average age: 56 years). LTCBDE was successful in 377 (94.3%) patients, while treatment was converted to laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube drainage in 23 (5.8%), owing to intraoperative choledochoscope insertion failure. The CBD diameter (10.89 ± 1.76 vs 9.97 ± 2.39, P < 0.05), cystic duct diameter (4.62 ± 1.03 vs 5.03 ± 1.29, P < 0.05), and operation time (164.60 ± 24.30 vs 135.34 ± 30.00, P < 0.05). Residual stones were found in six (1.5%) patients and removed during the second operation; post-operative bile leakage was found in one (0.3%) patient, who was discharged safely after the second operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase I LTCBDE is safe and effective in treating cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. With continuous technological advances, LTCBDE has been effectively promoted and applied.

Index admission vs elective laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a district general hospital experience over 6 years

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is relatively a new approach for clearing choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study is to assess the safety of this approach to clearing common bile duct (CBD) stones on an index admission including emergency setting.

METHODS

Retrospective data collection and analysis were carried out for 207 consecutive cases of LCBDE performed in Royal Cornwall Hospital over 6 years (2015-2020). Patients were divided into two groups (Index admission vs elective) then both groups compared.

RESULTS

A total of 207 cases of LCBDE were performed in our unit during the time period. One hundred twenty-two operations were performed on the index admission and 85 on a subsequent elective list. Mean operative time was 146 ± 64 min in the index admission group and 145 ± 65 min in the elective group (p = 0.913). Length of stay post-operatively was 3.3 ± 6.3 days in the index admission cases and 3.5 ± 4.6 days after elective cases. Successful clearance was achieved at the end of the operation in 116 patients in the index admission group, clearance failed in one case and negative exploration in 5 patients. In the elective group 83 patients had a successful clearance at the end of the operation, and 2 patients has had a negative exploration. Twelve patients (index admission group) and 8 patients of the elective cases required post-operative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to manage retained stones, recurrent stones and bile leak (p = 0.921). Three patients required re-operation for post-operative complications in each group.

CONCLUSION

Common bile duct exploration in index admission is safe with high success rate if performed by well-trained surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The incidence, operative difficulty and outcomes of staged versus index admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration for all comers: a review of 5750 patients

BACKGROUND

The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for emergency biliary admissions remains inconsistent with national and international guidelines. The perception that LC is difficult in acute cholecystitis and the popularity of the two-session approach to pancreatitis and suspected choledocholithiasis result in delayed management.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively maintained data in a unit adopting a policy of "intention to treat" during the index admission. The aim was to study the incidence of previous biliary admissions and compare the operative difficulty, complications and postoperative outcomes with patients who underwent index admission LC.

RESULTS

Of the 5750 LC performed, 20.8% had previous biliary episodes resulting in one admission in 93% and two or more in 7%. Most presented with biliary colic (39.6%) and acute cholecystitis (27.6%). A previous biliary history was associated with increased operative difficulty (p < 0.001), longer operating times (86.9 vs. 68.1 min, p < 0.001), more postoperative complications (7.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.002) and longer hospital stay (8.1 vs. 5.5 days, p < 0.001) and presentation to resolution intervals. However, conversion and mortality rates showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Index admission LC is superior to interval cholecystectomy and should be offered to all patients fit for general anaesthesia regardless of the presenting complaints. Subspecialisation should be encouraged as a major factor in optimising resource utilisation and postoperative outcomes of biliary emergencies.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: Our patient series over a period of 10 years

Aim

Laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) for Common bile duct (CBD) stones with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an alternative to open CBD exploration, in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). It is being performed at few centres with adequate surgical expertise. Herein, we present our experience of LCBDE with LC over a period of 10 years.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data of 121 consecutive patients was performed from February 2010 to November 2019, who underwent LC and LCBDE by choledochotomy in a single surgical unit. These included all patients with failed pre-operative ERCP.

Results

Out of 121 patients, LCBDE successfully cleared the CBD in 118, and three patients were converted to open surgery. All these patients underwent choledochotomy for adequate exploration of CBD. T-tube closure of CBD was performed in 103 patients and removed after a mean of 14.6 ± 2.4 days. Primary closure was performed in 15 patients. The mean hospital stay post-procedure was 3.4 ± 0.7 days. Complete ductal clearance was achieved in 115 patients, and residual stone fragments reported in three patients were removed by ERCP. None of the patients experienced biliary peritonitis, biliary fistula, pancreatitis or cholangitis. There was no 30-day mortality and no recurrent stones reported with a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 3.9 months.

Conclusion

With adequate surgical expertise, LCBDE is a feasible alternative to open surgery for CBD stones after failed ERCP with early recovery and low morbidity.

Laparo-endoscopic management of chole-choledocholithiasis: Rendezvous or intraoperative ERCP? A single tertiary care center experience

Introduction

The management of chole-choledocholithiasis remains a matter of debate to preserve minimal invasive management and different options have been proposed, with single- or two-stage approaches. Two techniques of single-stage approach are intraoperative ERCP and laparoscopic rendezvous, which have the great advantage of reducing the length of hospital stay with increased patient compliance. This retrospective study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of intraoperative ERCP and rendezvous technique for more than 15 years.

Materials and methods

Clinical records of 113 patients who underwent single-stage management for chole-choledocholithiasis between January 2003 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed using a prospectively maintained database. Patients were separated into two groups: those managed with intraoperative ERCP and those with rendezvous, and their intraoperative and postoperative parameters were compared. All patients were followed up for 6 months in an outpatient setting.

Results

A total of 68 (60%) patients were treated with intraoperative ERCP, while the remaining 45 (40%) were treated with rendezvous. There were no significant differences in terms of comorbidities. ERCP was performed with a median operative time of 145 min (104–168) and an endoscopic time of 27 min (15–36). Meanwhile, rendezvous was performed with a significantly lower operative [120 min (94–147)] and endoscopic time [15 min (12–22)]. No intraoperative complications were recorded. Patients treated with rendezvous had a significantly shorter median hospitality stay [4 (3–5) vs. 3 (2–4) days, p < 0.05]. No hospital readmissions or mortalities were observed in either group after 30 days. Ten mild pancreatitis cases were observed, mainly in the intraoperative ERCP group (9 vs. 1, p < 0.05), and all were treated conservatively. Only two patients treated with intraoperative ERCP developed biliary complications later on.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic rendezvous should be considered a preferable alternative to intraoperative ERCP for the treatment of patients with concomitant CBD stones and gallstones.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones After Cholecystectomy

Background: Few studies have focused on the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones after cholecystectomy, for which optimal treatment options remain unclear. Aims: To compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for CBD stone treatment after cholecystectomy. Materials and Methods: A total of 201 patients were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study, of whom 134 with ≤3 stones and a maximum stone diameter of <15 mm were classified as subgroup 1, and 67 with >3 stones or a maximum stone diameter of ≥15 mm were classified as subgroup 2. Perioperative characteristics were also analyzed. Results: ERCP subgroup 1 exhibited a shorter operative time (P < .001), postoperative hospital stay (P < .001), and lower incidence of bile leakage (P = .034) than LCBDE subgroup 1. ERCP subgroup 2 exhibited a shorter operative time (P < .001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < .001) than LCBDE subgroup 2. However, LCBDE subgroup 2 exhibited a greater rate of complete stone removal (P = .044) and a lower incidence of acute pancreatitis (P = .037) than ERCP subgroup 2. Conclusions: For treatment of CBD stones after cholecystectomy, ERCP was superior in cases involving ≤3 stones and a maximum stone diameter of <15 mm. Among those with >3 stones or maximum stone diameter of ≥15 mm, LCBDE demonstrated certain advantages.

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.

Impact of single-stage laparoscopic trans-cystic exploration on hospital procedures, admissions and length-of-stay in common bile duct stone clearance

BACKGROUND

Single-stage approach with bile duct exploration is considered the most efficient and cost-effective method of bile duct clearance. In Australia, apart from centres with subspecialty interests, notably in Brisbane, Queensland, a multi-stage approach with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used more frequently. We aim to evaluate the impact of single stage laparoscopic trans-cystic exploration (LTCE) versus multi-stage approach for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Medicare Benefits Schedule codings were used to identify patients who had the following procedures between December 2011 and December 2019: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and ERCP, LC and LTCE, LC and LTCE and ERCP. Primary outcomes were number of hospital procedures, admissions and additive length of stay (aLOS), the cumulative hospital stay from admission to discharge.

RESULTS

Of 607 patients, 204 (34%) patients received a single-stage LTCE, while 403 (66%) patients had a multi-stage approach. In the LTCE group, 82% (168) patients and 93% (190) patients had one procedure and one admission respectively for stone clearance (P = 0.001). The median aLOS was 4 days for LTCE versus 7 days for multi-stage approach (P = 0.001; 95% CI for difference - 3 to -2). In the multi-stage group, 16% (65) patients had three or more procedures and 49% (199) patients required two or more hospital admissions to achieve stone clearance.

CONCLUSION

LTCE for stone clearance can be successfully accomplished with reductions in hospital admissions, number of procedures and length of stay. This has further economic and health resource implications.

Contemporary management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a survey of Spanish surgeons

BACKGROUND

Concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones (CBDS) is a relatively frequent presentation. The optimal treatment remains controversial and the debate persists between two strategies. The one-stage approach: laparoscopic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been shown to be equally safe and more cost-effective than the more traditional two-stage approach: endoscopic retrograde cholangiography followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC). However, many surgeons worldwide still prefer the two-stage procedure. This survey evaluated contemporary management of CBDS in Spain and assessed the impact of surgeon and hospital factors on provision of LCBDE.

METHODS

A 25-item, web-based anonymous survey was sent to general surgeons members of the Spanish Surgeons Association. Descriptive statistics were applied to summarize results.

RESULTS

Responses from 305 surgeons across 173 Spanish hospitals were analyzed. ERCP is the initial approach for preoperatively suspected CBDS for 86% of surgeons. LCBDE is the preferred method for only 11% of surgeons and only 11% treat more than 10 cases per year. For CBDS discovered intraoperatively, 59% of respondents attempt extraction while 32% defer to a postoperative ERCP. The main reasons cited for not performing LCBDE were lack of equipment, training and timely availability of an ERCP proceduralist. Despite these barriers, most surgeons (84%) responded that LCBDE should be implemented in their departments.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP was the preferred approach for CBDS for the majority of respondents. There remains limited use of LCBDE despite many surgeons indicating it should be implemented. Focused planning and resourcing of both training and operational demands are required to facilitate adoption of LCBDE as option for patients.

Horseshoe kidney leading to ERCP failure; innovative use of guide wire during laparoscopic CBD exploration: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Horseshoe kidneys are the most common fusion defect of the kidneys, which amounts to about 0.25% of the population. They are usually asymptomatic and are often identified incidentally. The horseshoe kidney can push the second and third part of the duodenum anteriorly, leading to an altered CBD course. Choledocholithiasis is seen in approximately 10-15% of patients with cholelithiasis. Presently, the most preferred approach for managing CBD stones is ERCP. However, in ERCP failure cases, Laparoscopic CBD exploration is the primary treatment modality, with or without T-tube use, with all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

CASE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION

A 65-year-old female presented with complaints of pain in the right hypochondriac region for three months associated with nausea, jaundice, and loss of appetite and weight. Her USG abdomen showed cholelithiasis with dilated CBD with horseshoe kidney with severe hydronephrosis of the left kidney. They are usually asymptomatic and are often identified incidentally. In this patient, it was believed that the horseshoe kidney had pushed the second and third part of the duodenum anteriorly, leading to an altered CBD course leading to ERCP failure. MRCP confirmed cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis with dilated CBD of 11.3 mm with horseshoe kidney. ERCP was attempted but was unsuccessful due to non-visualization of the papilla due to overcrowding of duodenal folds. For patients with ERCP failure, laparoscopic CBD exploration is mandatory. For this patient, the CBD was cannulated with a guidewire, if needed, for repeat ERCP and was closed with T-tube in situ.

CONCLUSION

There are no particular preoperative indicators that can predict the failure of ERCP. However, in ERCP failure cases, laparoscopic CBD exploration (with or without T-tube use) is the primary treatment modality.

Outcomes of laparoscopic bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis with small common bile duct

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LCBDE) is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm. However, for patients with small CBD (CBD diameter ≤ 8 mm), endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the preferred treatment at present, but it also has some drawbacks associated with a series of complications, such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, cholangitis, and duodenal perforation. To date, few studies have been reported that support the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.

AIM

To investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.

METHODS

A total of 257 patients without acute cholangitis who underwent LC + LCBDE for cholecystolithiasis from January 2013 to December 2018 in one institution were reviewed. The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. According to whether the diameter of CBD was larger than 8 mm, 257 patients were divided into large CBD group (n = 146) and small CBD group (n = 111). Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for clinical differences. The demographics, intraoperative data, short-term outcomes, and long-term follow-up outcomes for the patients were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

In total, 257 patients who underwent successful LC + LCBDE were enrolled in the study, 146 had large CBD and 111 had small CBD. The median follow-up period was 39 (14-86) mo. For small CBD patients, the median CBD diameter was 0.6 cm (0.2-2.0 cm), the mean operating time was 107.2 ± 28.3 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBD stones (CBDS), CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (6/111), 3.60% (4/111), 1.80% (2/111), and 0% (0/111), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.4 ± 3.6 d. For large CBD patients, the median common bile duct diameter was 1.0 cm (0.3-3.0 cm), the mean operating time was 115.7 ± 32.0 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBDS, CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (9/146), 1.37% (2/146), 6.85% (10/146), and 0% (0/146), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.7 ± 2.7 d. After propensity score matching, 184 patients remained, and all preoperative covariates except diameter of CBD stones were balanced. Postoperative bile leak occurred in 11 patients overall (5.98%), and no difference was found between the small CBD group (4.35%, 4/92) and the large CBD group (7.61%, 7/92). The incidence of CBDS recurrence did not differ significantly between the small CBD group (2.17%, 2/92) and the large CBD group (6.52%, 6/92).

CONCLUSION

LC + LCBDE is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis patients with small CBD and did not increase the postoperative bile leak rate compared with chole-docholithiasis patients with large CBD.

Coledocolitiasis y exploración laparoscópica de la vía biliar. Un estudio de cohorte

Introducción. La coledocolitiasis es la presencia de cálculos en las vías biliares. En la mayoría de los casos se trata mediante la colangio pancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica y menos comúnmente por intervención quirúrgica laparoscópica. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir una cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes sometidos a exploración laparoscópica de la vía biliar. Métodos. Se incluyeron pacientes intervenidos entre los años 2014 y 2018, en dos instituciones de nivel III en Cali, Colombia, referidos para valoración por cirugía hepato-biliar, por dificultad para la extracción de los cálculos por colangio pancreatografia retrograda endoscópica, debido al tamaño, la cantidad, o la dificultad para identificar o canular la papila duodenal. Resultados. De los 100 pacientes incluidos, se encontró que el 72 % fueron mujeres, con rango de edad entre 14 y 92 años. Al 39 % de los pacientes se les extrajo un solo cálculo y al 16 % 10 cálculos. Un 12 % presentaron cálculos gigantes (mayores de 2,5 cm de ancho) y un 44 % presentaron litiasis múltiple. Al 69 % de los pacientes se les realizó colecistectomía. El porcentaje de éxito de limpieza de la vía biliar por laparoscopia fue del 95 %. Discusión. La exploración laparoscópica de la vía biliar es una técnica posible, reproducible, segura y con excelentes resultados para el manejo de la coledocolitiasis.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is beneficial for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) is considered a contraindication to laparoscopic surgery. Whether LCBDE-PC is feasible and beneficial for patients with PUAS remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of LCBDE-PC for patients with PUAS.

METHODS

From June 2011 to September 2019, 1167 patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures for choledocholithiasis were reviewed retrospectively. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients with and without PUAS in un-matched and matched cohorts.

RESULTS

LCBDE-PC was performed successfully in 88.3% of patients with PUAS, and 92.5% of patients without PUAS (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that PUAS was not a risk factor that affected successful performance of LCBDE-PC. Although a higher rate of conversion to open surgery and longer operative time were observed in patients with PUAS, no significant differences were found between patients with and without PUAS in multivariate and propensity score analysis (P > 0.05). A predictive nomogram for LCBDE-PC failure was developed based on potential predictors from the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model. Successful performance of LCBDE-PC was associated with operative time. A linear regression model for operative time showed impacted stone in the CBD and intraoperative laser use was the most important factor in determining the operative time.

CONCLUSION

LCBDE-PC is feasible and beneficial for patients with PUAS. However, patients with PUAS with a high possibility of LCBDE-PC failure from the nomogram and a longer operative time from the linear regression model should be cautious when undergoing LCBDE-PC.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the patients with difficult biliary stones: 8 years of experiences at a single institution and literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has gained wide popularity for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. However, it remains unclear whether LCBDE is a better alternative option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. Thus, the aim of the present study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LCBDE for these patients by retrospectively analyzing our data and combing with literature review.

METHODS

Between September 2011 and February 2019, 1064 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital were reviewed. The clinical data of patients with difficult biliary stones were selected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of these patients, 334 cases were confirmed with difficult biliary stones, and the overall complete stone clearance rate was 98.8% (330/334). 34 cases (10.2%) were performed with laser lithotripsy. A total of 296 patients (88.6%) underwent primary closure of common bile duct, and T-tube drainage was indwelled in 38 patients (11.4%). No bile duct injury, bleeding, perforation and surgery-related deaths were observed. The overall morbidity rate was 6.6%. 16 cases (4.8%) occurred in bile leakage with primary closure procedure, and all of them were managed successfully with conservative therapy. The median follow-up period was 9 months with stone recurrence occurring in 9 patients (2.7%). There was no evidence of bile duct stricture in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that LCBED is a considerable safe and effective option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. A randomized clinical trial is needed to further evaluate the benefit of LCBDE in this subgroup.

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.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for patients with a history of prior biliary surgery: a comparative study with an open approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is increasingly being used to treat choledocholithiasis. However, few studies have examined the treatment of recurrent common bile duct stones (CBDS) in patients with a history of prior biliary surgery. The current research aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open common bile duct exploration in patients with a history of prior biliary surgery.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and August 2019, 162 patients with recurrent CBDS after prior biliary surgery who underwent surgical management in our institution were enrolled in this study. The demographic, intraoperative and postoperative data were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Among these 162 patients, 72 underwent laparoscopic approach (LCBDE group), and 90 underwent open surgery (open common bile duct exploration group). The LCBDE group was associated with significantly lower overall complication rate, incision infection rate and blood loss compared to open common bile duct exploration group (all P < 0.05). Moreover, the laparoscopic approach significantly reduced the length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05). However, the operative time, stone clearance rate, and stone recurrence rate were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). The conversion rate of the laparoscopic approach was 6.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE is superior to open procedure in terms of blood loss, hospital stay, overall complication and incision infection in patients with a history of prior biliary surgery, and it should be considered as a safe and effective treatment if it is performed by an experienced surgeon.

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.

SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for large common bile duct stones: a non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is the first choice of treatment for large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Recently, single-operator cholangioscopy (SpyGlass system) has been introduced widely in referral and large medical centers. Several studies have reported favorable results for treatment of large CBD stones guided by SpyGlass. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy LCBDE for treatment of large CBD stones.

METHODS

From August 2015 to August 2018, 157 patients with large bile duct stones who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into two groups: SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy (Group A) and LCBDE (Group B). The efficacy and complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Although the first-session stone removal rate in Group A was significantly lower than that in Group B, Group A was not inferior to Group B in terms of total stone removal rate. Compared with Group B, Group A had shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The short-term complication rates were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical efficacy of SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy for the treatment of large CBD stones is not inferior to that of LCBDE, and it is less invasive. SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy is an important option for treatment of large CBD stones.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus surgery for choledocholithiasis - A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is no consensus on the best treatment option for choledocholithiasis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and common bile duct surgery (CBDS) for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERCP and CBDS in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. MEDLINE and EMBASE were the used databases. RCTs assessing mortality, bile duct clearance failure, complications, or length of hospital stay were considered eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects model, through the Mantel-Haenszel method for binary outcomes and through the inverse variance method for continuous outcomes. The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO platform (CRD42017073196).

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs (2466 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence of significant difference between interventions regarding mortality (risk ratio - RR=1.31, 95% confidence interval - 95% CI=0.60-2.85, p=0.49), bile duct clearance failure (RR=1.17, 95% CI=0.86-1.59, p=0.31), complications (RR=0.99, 95% CI=0.82-1.20, p=0.94) and length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference - MD=1.06, 95% CI=-0.62-2.73, p=0.22). Sensitivity analyses failed to demonstrate significant changes in results compared to the main analyses. The quality of the evidence was considered to be low.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of significant difference between ERCP and CBDS for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Many studies have failed to demonstrate significant differences between single- and two-staged approaches for the management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones in terms of post-operative morbidity. However, none of these studies paid specific attention to the differences between the methods of accessing the bile duct during laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to report outcomes of transcystic versus transductal laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) from our experience of over four hundred cases.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 416 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at a single-centre between 1998 and 2018 was performed. Data collected included pre-operative demographic information, medical co-morbidity, pre-operative investigations, intra-operative findings (including negative choledochoscopy rates, use of holmium laser lithotripsy and operative time) and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

Transductal LCBDE via choledochotomy was achieved in 242 patients (58.2%), whereas 174 patients (41.8%) underwent transcystic LCBDE. Stone clearance rates, conversion to open surgery and mortality were similar between the two groups. Overall morbidity as well as minor and major post-operative complications were significantly higher in the transductal group. The main surgery-related complications were bile leak (5.8% vs 1.1%, p = 0.0181) and pancreatitis (7.4% vs 0.6%, p = 0.0005). Median length of post-operative stay was also significantly greater in the transductal group.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the largest single study to date comparing outcomes from transcystic and transductal LCBDE. Where possibly, the transcystic route should be used for LCBDE and this approach can be augmented with various techniques to increase successful stone clearance and reduce the need for choledochotomy.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of single-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus two-stage ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy six-to-eight weeks later: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTİON: Currently, the management of cholelithiasis in combination with choledocholithiasis involves endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by cholecystectomy. However, recently, early surgical approaches are becoming more common, even in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. METODS: Patients diagnosed as having cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis between October 2017 and May 2019 were prospectively enrolled in the study in a randomized manner. Patients undergoing ERCP + LC (laparoscopic cholecystectomy) in the same session were assigned to group A (n = 39), those undergoing ERCP + LC in the same hospitalization period were assigned to group B (n = 43), and patients who underwent delayed cholecystectomy after ERCP were included in group C (n = 37). RESULT: A total of 119 patients (47 females and 72 males) were included in the study and divided into three groups. Statistical comparisons of the study groups showed a significant difference between the three groups in terms of the length of hospital stay (days) and total cost (p < 0.001). The total cost was significantly higher for patients in group C in comparison with those in groups A and B (p < 0.001). Compared with patients in groups A and B, there was statistically significant difference in the length of hospital stay for patients in group C (p < 0.001). CONCLUSİONS: Single-stage ERCP plus LC is a safe and feasible strategy for the management of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis, offering advantages of cost, shorter hospital stay, and total anesthesia time. The major advantage of ERCP and LC performed in the same session and during the same hospitalization is the absence of the risk of recurrent episodes of acute cholecystitis, which occur with delayed cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been becoming more and more popular in patients with symptomatic choledocholithiasis. However, the safety and effectiveness of LCBDE in elderly patients with choledocholithiasis is still uncertain. This meta-analysis is aimed to appraise the safety and feasibility of LCBDE for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies comparing elderly patients and younger patients who underwent LCBDE for common bile duct stone were reviewed and collected from the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were stone clearance rate, overall complication rate, and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were operative time, conversion rate, pulmonary complication, bile leakage, reoperation, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate.

RESULTS

Nine studies, including two prospective studies and seven retrospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 2004 patients in this meta-analysis, including 693 elderly patients and 1311 younger patients. There was no statistically significant difference between elderly patients and younger patients regarding stone clearance rate (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.42-1.26; p = 0.25), overall complication rate (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.94-1.82; p = 0.12), and mortality rate (OR 2.80; 95% CI 0.82-9.53; p = 0.10). Similarly, the operative time, conversion rate, bile leakage, reoperation, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate showed no significant difference between two groups (p > 0.05). While elderly patients showed high risk for pulmonary complication (OR 4.41; 95% CI 1.78-10.93; p = 0.001) compared with younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Although there is associated with higher pulmonary complication, LCBDE is still considered as a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis.

Comparison on the Efficacy of Three Duct Closure Methods after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis

Background

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is currently the best approach for complex cases of choledocholithiasis or the cases of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on the optimal duct closure method after LCBDE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 3 duct closure methods after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

Material/Methods

In this analysis, 189 patients with choledocholithiasis underwent LCBDE between June 2014 and December 2018. According to different duct closure methods, these patients were divided into T-tube drainage (TTD) group (n=66), common suture group (n=64) and barbed suture group (n=59). The operation time, suturing time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, tube-carried time, length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, pre- and post-operative common bile duct (CBD) diameters were all compared among the 3 groups. Six months after discharge, the incidence of complications and recurrent stones was observed.

Results

The operation time, suturing time, and amount of intraoperative bleeding in barbed suture group were both significantly less than those in the common suture group and the TTD group (P<0.01). When compared with the TTD group, the suturing time, tube-carried time, and LOS were decreased markedly in the common suture group and the barbed suture group (P<0.01). The post-operative CBD diameters in the 3 groups were all significantly larger than the pre-operative CBD diameters (P<0.01). There was no statistical significance among the 3 groups regarding the incidence of complications and recurrent stones (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Barbed suture shortened the suturing time, operation time, tube-carried time, and LOS, and lessened the amount of intraoperative bleeding in patients with choledocholithiasis after LCBDE. It was more effective than the common suture and TTD.

Holmium laser lithotripsy improves the rate of successful transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Purpose

Transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) seems safer than transductal LCBDE and is associated with fewer biliary complications. It has traditionally been limited to smaller bile duct stones however. This study aimed to assess the ability of laser-assisted bile duct exploration by laparoendoscopy (LABEL) to increase the rate of successful transcystic LCBDE in patients with bile duct stones at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Patients undergoing LCBDE between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Baseline demographic and medical characteristics were recorded, as well as intra-operative findings and post-procedure outcomes. Standard LCBDE via the transcystic route was initially attempted in all patients, and LABEL was only utilised if there was failure to achieve transcystic duct clearance. The transductal route was utilised for failed transcystic extraction.

Results

One hundred and seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent LCBDE; 119 (66.5%) underwent unaided transcystic extraction, 29 (16.2%) required LABEL to achieve transcystic extraction and 31 (17.3%) failed transcystic extraction (despite the use of LABEL in 7 of these cases) and hence required conversion to transductal LCBDE. As such, LABEL could be considered to increase the rate of successful transcystic extraction from 66.5% (119/179) to 82.7% (148/179). Patients requiring LABEL were however more likely to experience major complications (CD III–IV 5.6% vs 0.7%, p = 0.042) although none were specifically attributable to the laser intra-operatively.

Conclusions

LABEL is an effective adjunct to LCBDE that improves the rate of successful transcystic extraction.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration in the Emergency Is as Effective and Safe as in Elective Setting

BACKGROUND

Emergent laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) has been reported to be on the increase in some institutions, reflecting the growing confidence with the technique. However, no study has focused on the outcomes of LTCBDE in the non-elective setting. The aim of this study is to investigate whether LTCBDE can be performed effectively and safely in the emergency.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 500 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis subjected for LTCBDE at the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires from January 2009 to January 2018. Procedures were classified according to the setting as emergent or elective. Demographic data and perioperative parameters were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Throughout the period comprised, 500 patients were admitted for choledocholithiasis and gallstones. A single-step treatment combining LTCBDE and laparoscopic cholecystectomy was attempted: 211 (42.2%) were performed electively and the 289 (57.8%) as an emergency. There was no significant difference in the success rate of LTCBDE (93.9% versus 93.8%, p = 0.975) for the two groups. The operative time was slightly longer in the emergency group (122 ± 63 versus 106 ± 53 min, p = 0.002). Postoperative recovery was slower in the emergency group, as reflected by a higher rate of prolonged postoperative stay (21.1% vs 5.7%, p < .001). The rates of postoperative complications were similar between groups (2.8% vs 5.9%, p = 0.109).

CONCLUSION

Emergent LTCBDE can be performed with equivalent efficacy and morbidity when compared to an elective procedure. Patients undergoing emergent procedures have longer procedures and hospital stays.

One-stage laparoscopic procedure versus two-stage procedure in the management of common bile duct stones in patients aged 75 and more

INTRODUCTION

The management strategy for common bile duct stones (CBD) in patients over 75years is a real challenge that requires balancing the efficacy of a multiplicity of procedures against their own morbidity. The objective is to compare one-stage surgical treatment versus the two-stage combination of endoscopy and surgery in terms of efficacy of clearing the CBD of stones and the morbidity and mortality in elderly patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study included eighty-two patients over 75years of age with symptomatic CBD stones who presented between 2010 and 2017. Patients were treated either by one-stage surgery alone (S group, n=40) or by sequential endoscopy and surgery (ES group, n=42).

RESULTS

Immediate and 30-day mortality, morbidity and duration of hospitalization were comparable. The failure rate for clearing CBD lithiasis was significantly higher in the ES group (26.2% vs. 7.5%, P=0.038, 95% CI). In multivariate analysis, two-stage treatment and multiple CBD stones were associated with a significantly higher risk of failure. Fewer anesthetic procedures were needed in the S group. Twelve patients (14.4%) had multiple stones packing the CBD (>3 stones); four were treated with choledocho-duodenal anastomosis and eight with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal with 100% and 50% efficacy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The "surgery alone" attitude compared to 2-stage endoscopic and surgical management is associated with better efficacy in terms of clearing the CBD of lithiasis and requires fewer anesthetic procedures in elderly subjects while being comparable in terms of morbidity and mortality. In patients whose CBD is packed with multiple stones, choledocho-duodenal anastomosis is an alternative to endoscopy for management of choledocholithiasis.

Clinical role of frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium YAG laser lithotripsy for removal of difficult biliary stones in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

The optimal methods for patients with difficult biliary stones remain under debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium YAG (FREDDY) laser lithotripsy for removing difficult biliary stones during laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

METHODS

Between March 2013 and January 2015, 42 consecutive patients with difficult biliary stones who underwent LCBDE with FREDDY laser lithotripsy were included in this study. The clinical data of all patients were retrospectively collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Bile ducts were completely cleared in all patients. The complications related to laser lithotripsy were not noted. A total of 38 patients (90.5%) underwent primary closure of common bile duct, and T-tube drainage was applied to four patients (9.5%). No bile duct injury, bleeding and perforation were observed. There were no post-operative surgery-related deaths. Bile leakage occurred in four patients (9.5%) with primary closure procedure, and all of them were managed successfully with conservative therapy. The median follow-up period was 42.8 months, with no evidence of bile duct stricture and stone recurrence in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The LCBDE combined with FREDDY laser lithotripsy appear to be effective and safe for the treatment of difficult biliary stones.

Prevalence and Predictors of Unnecessary Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Two-Stage Endoscopic Stone Extraction Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUNDS

A two-stage procedure involving endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), followed by cholecystectomy, is one of the primary treatments of concomitant gallstones and choledocholithiasis. However, negative findings on ERCP and migrating gallstones after cholecystectomy are major concerns. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of unnecessary ERCP and to develop and validate a predictive nomogram using preoperative factors in patients who underwent a two-stage procedure.

METHODS

Consecutive 931 patients were treated with the two-stage procedure for evident gallstones and suspected choledocholithiasis. After the cholecystectomy, a cholangiogram was performed to confirm the absence of the migrating gallstones. The patients were divided into derivation (n = 652) and validation (n = 279) cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 26.5% (247/931) patients had unnecessary ERCP (negative choledocholithiasis, 14.6%; migrating gallstones, 11.9%). No stones on images (P < 0.001), total bilirubin < 1.2 mg/dL (P = 0.006), and common bile duct diameter < 8.0 mm (P = 0.004) were independent factors associated with negative finding on ERCP with a validated nomogram area under the curve (AUC) of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.80). For migrating gallstones after cholecystectomy, radiolucent gallstones (P < 0.001), gallstone size ≤ 6.4 mm (P = 0.001), cystic duct stones (P < 0.001), gallbladder wall thickness ≥ 3.2 mm (P = 0.003), and low-lying cystic duct (P < 0.001) were independent factors with a validated nomogram AUC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.68-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

About one fourth of the patients may have unnecessary ERCP in the two-stage procedure. Based on our nomogram using preoperative factors, high-risk patients who are more likely to perform unnecessary ERCP could be considered for the one-stage procedure.

Surgical (Open and laparoscopic) management of large difficult CBD stones after different sessions of endoscopic failure: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

For complicated common bile duct stones (CBDS) that cannot be extracted by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), management can be safely by open or laparoscopic CBD exploration (CBDE). The study aimed to assess these surgical procedures after endoscopic failure.

Methods

We analyzed 85 patients underwent surgical management of difficult CBDS after ERCP failure, in the period from 2013 to 2018.

Results

Sixty-seven (78.8%) and 18(21.2%) of our patients underwent single and multiple ERCP sessions respectively. An impacted large stone was the most frequent cause of ERCP failure (60%). Laparoscopic CBDE(LCBDE), open CBDE(OCBDE) and the converted cases were 24.7% (n = 21), 70.6% (n = 60), and 4.7% (n = 4) respectively. Stone clearance rate post LCBDE and OCBDE reached 95.2% and 95% respectively, Eleven (12.9%) of our patients had postoperative complications without mortality. By comparing LCBDE and OCBDE; there was a significant association between the former and longer operative time. On comparing, T-tube and 1ry CBD closure in both OCBDE and LCBDE, there was significantly longer operative time, and post-operative hospital stays in the former. Furthermore, in OCBDE group, choledocoscopy had an independent direction to 1ry CBD repair and significant association with higher stone clearance rate, shorter operative time, and post-operative hospital stay.

Conclusion

Large difficult CBDS can be managed either by open surgery or laparoscopically with acceptable comparable outcomes with no need for multiple ERCP sessions due to their related morbidities; furthermore, Open choledocoscopy has a good impact on stone clearance rate with direction towards doing primary repair that is better than T-tube regarding operative time and post-operative hospital stay.

•

Large difficult CBD stones can be managed either by open surgery or laparoscopically with acceptable comparable outcomes.

•

No need for multiple ERCP sessions due to their related morbidities.

•

Open choledocoscopy has a good impact on stone clearance rate with direction towards doing primary repair.

•

Primary repair is better than T-tube regarding operative time and post-operative hospital stay.

Surgical (Open and laparoscopic) management of large difficult CBD stones after different sessions of endoscopic failure: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

For complicated common bile duct stones (CBDS) that cannot be extracted by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), management can be safely by open or laparoscopic CBD exploration (CBDE). The study aimed to assess these surgical procedures after endoscopic failure.

Methods

We analyzed 85 patients underwent surgical management of difficult CBDS after ERCP failure, in the period from 2013 to 2018.

Results

Sixty-seven (78.8%) and 18(21.2%) of our patients underwent single and multiple ERCP sessions respectively. An impacted large stone was the most frequent cause of ERCP failure (60%). Laparoscopic CBDE(LCBDE), open CBDE(OCBDE) and the converted cases were 24.7% (n = 21), 70.6% (n = 60), and 4.7% (n = 4) respectively. Stone clearance rate post LCBDE and OCBDE reached 95.2% and 95% respectively, Eleven (12.9%) of our patients had postoperative complications without mortality. By comparing LCBDE and OCBDE; there was a significant association between the former and longer operative time. On comparing, T-tube and 1ry CBD closure in both OCBDE and LCBDE, there was significantly longer operative time, and post-operative hospital stays in the former. Furthermore, in OCBDE group, choledocoscopy had an independent direction to 1ry CBD repair and significant association with higher stone clearance rate, shorter operative time, and post-operative hospital stay.

Conclusion

Large difficult CBDS can be managed either by open surgery or laparoscopically with acceptable comparable outcomes with no need for multiple ERCP sessions due to their related morbidities; furthermore, Open choledocoscopy has a good impact on stone clearance rate with direction towards doing primary repair that is better than T-tube regarding operative time and post-operative hospital stay.