Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus T-tube. J Surg Res. 2014;189:249-254. [PMID: 24746254 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.055]

The efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary duct closure for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis

Cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis represents a prevalent disease. At present, regarding the management of the common bile duct (CBD), T-tube drainage (TTD) and primary duct closure (PDC) emerge as two prominent approaches for biliary tract repair after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE). Here, retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical records of 157 patients who underwent LCBDE at our hospital between January 2019 and January 2022. All patients were categorized into the PDC group or the TTD group based on the chosen CBD treatment approach. A comparative assessment was made across demographic factors, preoperative conditions, surgical particulars, and postoperative complications. The results showed that PDC is recommended for patients with a limited number of small stones, particularly when the CBD is in the 10-15 mm diameter range.

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).

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.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure could be safely performed among elderly patients with choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

For patients with choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is preferred over open surgery. Whether primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) should be performed upon completion of choledochotomy remains unclear, and the corresponding indications for primary closure of the common bile duct have yet to be fully identified. This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of primary closure of CBD among elderly patients (≥ 70 years) after LCBDE.

METHODS

Patients with choledocholithiasis who had undergone LCBDE with primary closure of the CBD between July 2014 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Included patients were assigned into two groups (Group A: ≥70 years and Group B: <70 years) according to age. Group A was compared with Group B in terms of preoperative characteristics, intraoperative results and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operative time for Group A was 176.59 min (± 68.950), while the mean operative time for Group B was 167.64 min (± 69.635) (P = 0.324). The mean hospital stay after surgery for Group A was 8.43 days (± 4.440), while that for Group B was 8.30 days (± 5.203) (P = 0.849). Three patients in Group A experienced bile leakage, while bile leakage occurred in 10 patients in Group B (3.8% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.781). Group A was not significantly different from Group B in terms of postoperative complications and 30-day mortality except pneumonia (P = 0.016), acute cardiovascular event (P = 0.005) and ICU observation (P = 0.037). After a median follow-up time of 60 months, 2 patients in Group A and 2 patients in Group B experienced stone recurrence (2.5% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.612). One patient in Group A experienced stenosis of the CBD, while stenosis of the CBD occurred in 5 patients in Group B (1.3% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.937).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure of CBD upon completion of LCBDE could be safely performed among patients ≥ 70 years.

[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.

The Outcome and Safety in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Primary Suture versus T-Tube Drainage: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Sometimes, after choledochotomy, the common bile duct is closed with T-tube drainage for several weeks to prevent postoperative complications such as biliary fistula and stricture. But there has been controversy over the advantages of primary suture versus T-tube drainage. The purpose of our meta-analysis in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is to appraise the efficacy and safety of T-tube drainage and primary suture.

Methods

The literatures were searched by Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, OVID, and EMBASE between the year January 1, 2001 and February 28, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.

Results

Fourteen studies with 1,549 patients (827 vs. 722) were included in our study. The primary suture group had significant lesser operative time (P ≤ 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (P ≤ 0.001), hospital expenses (P ≤ 0.001), intraoperative bleeding (P=0.001), and postoperative complications (P=0.006) than the T-tube drainage group. In postoperative bleeding (P=0.289), bile leakage (P=0.326), and bile duct stricture (P=0.750), there was no statistical difference. In the primary suture group, using single-arm synthesis, the bile leakage rate and the bile duct stricture rate were 0.07 vs. 0.04 and 0.00 vs. 0.00 in interrupted suture and continuous suture groups. The bile duct stricture rate was same in both groups, and the bile leakage rate was lower in the interrupted suture group. But the difference was not significant.

Conclusion

The primary suture group had several advantages, including lesser operative time, postoperative complications, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay, and hospital expenses. In bile leakage and bile duct stricture, the difference between the two groups was not significant. In the primary suture group, interrupted suture and continuous suture groups had similar bile leakage rate and bile duct stricture rate.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The clinical effect of primary duct closure and T-tube drainage: A propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones, selecting primary duct closure (PDC) or T-tube drainage (TTD) following choledochotomy remains controversial. This study aims to explore the clinical effects of PDC and TTD after LCBDE.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 348 patients with choledocholithiasis treated with LCBDE from January 2016 to October 2020. All patients were divided into PDC (225 cases) and TTD (123 cases) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. We compared operative parameters and outcomes.

RESULTS

After matching (n = 116/group), no significant difference was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05) regarding intra-abdominal infection, incision infection, bile leakage, and retained stones. In terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative exhaust time, postoperative antibiotic use time, and postoperative abdominal drainage time, PDC group was obviously superior to TTD group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Primary closure following LCBDE is considered a safe and effective alternative to T-tube drainage.

Laparoscopic surgery for gallstones or common bile duct stones: A stably safe and feasible surgical strategy for patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery

Backgrounds/Aims

A history of upper abdominal surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in patients with and without previous upper abdominal surgery.

Methods

In total, 131 patients with previous upper abdominal surgery and 64 without upper abdominal surgery underwent LC or LCBDE between September 2017 and September 2021 at the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. Patients with previous upper abdominal surgery were divided into four groups: group A included patients with previous right upper abdominal surgery who underwent LC (n = 17), group B included patients with previous other upper abdominal surgery who underwent LC (n = 66), group C included patients with previous right upper abdominal surgery who underwent LCBDE (n = 30), and group D included patients with previous other upper abdominal surgery who underwent LCBDE (n = 18). Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The preoperative liver function indexes showed no significant difference between the observation and control groups. For patients who underwent LC, groups A and B had more abdominal adhesions than the control group. One case was converted to open surgery in each of groups A and B. There was no statistical difference in operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and drainage volume. For patients who underwent LCBDE, groups C and D had more estimated blood loss than the control group (group C, 41.33 ± 50.84 vs. 18.97 ± 13.12 ml, p = 0.026; group D, 66.11 ± 87.46 vs. 18.97 ± 13.12 ml, p = 0.036). Compared with the control group, group C exhibited longer operative time (173.87 ± 60.91 vs. 138.38 ± 57.38 min, p = 0.025), higher drainage volume (296.83 ± 282.97 vs. 150.83 ± 127.04 ml, p = 0.015), and longer postoperative hospital stay (7.97 ± 3.68 vs. 6.17 ± 1.63 days, p = 0.021). There was no mortality in all groups.

Conclusions

LC or LCBDE is a safe and feasible procedure for experienced laparoscopic surgeons to perform on patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.

Comparative study of three common bile duct closure techniques after choledocholithotomy: safety and efficacy

PURPOSE

T-tube drainage, primary closure, and biliary stenting are the common bile duct closure methods. There is great debate on the optimal duct closure technique after common bile duct exploration. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the three commonest common bile duct closure methods after common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stone for future generalization.

METHODS

In this analysis, 211 patients with common bile duct stone underwent common bile duct exploration from January 2016 to December 2020. The patients were divided according to common bile duct closure techniques into three groups, including the T-tube drainage group (63 patients), primary duct closure group (61 patients), and antegrade biliary stenting group (87 patients).

RESULTS

The incidence of overall biliary complications and bile leak were statistically significantly lower in the biliary stenting group than in the other two groups. Also, hospital stays, drain carried time, return to normal activity, re-intervention, and re-admission rates were statistically significantly lower in the biliary stenting group than in the other two groups. There were no statistically significant differences regarding operative and choledochotomy time, retained and recurrent stone, stricture, biliary peritonitis, cholangitis, and the cost among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We state that the biliary stenting procedure should be the preferred first option for common bile duct closure after common bile duct exploration when compared with T-tube drainage and primary duct closure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov PRS (Approval No. NCT04264299).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Is Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Safe For The Oldest old patients?

Background

This study aimed to identify the risk factors for postoperative complications of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in the oldest old patients aged 80 years or older.

Methods

From March 2001 to October 2020, 363 patients underwent LCBDE with stone removal. Based on their ages, they were divided into two groups, those younger than 80 years (n=240) and those 80 years old or older (n=123). We compared patient demographics, disease characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications based on these groups.

Results

The older group had a higher proportion of patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 (p<0.001) and the American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status classification ≥3 (p<0.001). In addition, the older group had longer postoperative hospital stays than younger group (7.5±6.1 days vs. 6.2±3.9 days, p=0.013). However, there were no significant differences between groups according to the postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 20.3%, p=0.130). According to multivariate analysis, the risk factors for postoperative complications were Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 (odds ratio [OR]=2.307; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.162–4.579; p=0.017) and operative time >2 hours (OR=3.204; 95% CI, 1.802–5.695; p<0.001).

Conclusion

In patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index <5 and operation time <2 hours, LCDBE with stone removal can be considered safe for the oldest old patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Gallbladder Preservation: An Innovative Technique for Primary Common Bile Duct Stones

Background: Primary common bile duct (CBD) stones can be treated with laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE), during which cholecystectomy is routinely performed. For patients without gallstones, we have developed a new procedure, LCBDE with gallbladder preservation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the management of LCBDE with gallbladder preservation at our institution. Methods: Retrospective analysis the clinical data of 105 patients with primary CBD stones. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, preoperative risk factors, and postoperative complications were evaluated. Results: All patients were divided into two groups depending on the presence of gallstones: the primary CBD stone coexistence gallstones group (Group A, n = 15) and the primary CBD stones absence gallstones group (Group B, n = 90). Complete stones clearance was achieved in all patients. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications rates and mortality between the two groups. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.2 days for Group A and 4.1 days for Group B (P = .03). Conclusion: This study found that LCBDE with gallbladder preservation can effectively and safely treat primary CBD stones without gallbladder stones.

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

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

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

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

Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years' experience of a single institution

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment of choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis remains controversial. Common surgical methods vary among endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), laparoscopic transductal common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with or without T-tube drainage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical methods and to determine the appropriate procedure for patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

From January 2013 to January 2019, a total of 1555 consecutive patients diagnosed with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis who underwent surgical treatment in Tongji Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Total 521 patients with intrahepatic bile duct stones underwent LC + LCBDE + T-Tube were excluded from the analysis. At last, 1034 patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into three groups according to their surgical methods: preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC (ERCP + LC group, n = 275), LC + LCBDE + intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) + primary duct closure (Tri-scope group, n = 479) and LC + laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration (LTCBDE group, n = 280). Clinical records, operative findings and postoperative follow-up were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in three groups. Common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate was 97.5% in ERCP + LC group, 98.7% in Tri-scope group, and 99.3% in LTCBDE group. There were no difference in terms of demographic characteristics, biochemistry findings and presentations, but the Tri-scope group had the biggest diameter and amount of stones and diameter of CBD, the LTCBDE group had the least CBD stones and the biggest diameter of cystic gall duct (CGD). ERCP + LC group have the longest hospital stay (14.16 ± 3.88 days vs 6.92 ± 1.71 days vs 10.74 ± 5.30 days, P < 0.05), also has the longest operative time than others (126.08 ± 42.79 min vs 92.31 ± 10.26 min, 99.09 ± 8.46 min, P < 0.05). Compared to ERCP + LC group, LTCBDE group and Tri-scope group had lower postoperation-leukocyte, shorter surgery duration and hospital stay (P < 0.05). Compared to the Tri-scope group, the LTCBDE group had the shorter hospital stay, extubation time and operation time and less intraoperative bleeding. There were less postoperative complications in LTCBDE group (1.1%) compared to the ERCP + LC group (3.6%) and Tri-scope group (2.2%). Follow-up time was 6 to 72 months. Four patients in ERCP + LC group and 5 in Tri-scope group reported recurrent stones.

CONCLUSION

All the three surgical methods are safe and effective. Tri-scope approach and LTCBDE approach have superiority to preoperative ERCP + LC. LC + LTCBDE shows priority over Tri-scope approach, but should be performed in selected patients. LC + LCBDE + T-Tube can be an alternative management if the other three procedures were failed. The surgeons should choose the most appropriate surgical procedure according to the preoperative examination results and intraoperative situation.

Comparison of Primary Suture and T-Tube Drainage After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined with Intraoperative Choledochoscopy in the Treatment of Secondary Common Bile Duct Stones: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Objective: To compare the safety and feasibility of T-tube drainage and primary suture after laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy in the treatment of secondary choledocholithiasis. Methods: The clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic choledochoscopy combined with choledochoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for secondary choledocholithiasis from June 2015 to June 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the different treatment method of common bile duct (CBD) incision, the patients were divided into a T-tube drainage group and a primary suture group. The preoperative clinical characteristics, results of preoperative liver function tests (LFTs), LFTs on the first day after the operation and the fourth day after the operation, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, and times of postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in preoperative clinical data, preoperative LFTs, and postoperative complications between the two groups (P > .05). However, primary suture demonstrated significant advantages (P < .05) in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and other related factors. Bilirubin levels on the first day after the operation and the fourth day after the operation between the two groups suggested that T-tube drainage reduces bilirubin in the short term, but that long-term bilirubin draining is similar between the two strategies. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that choledochal diameter less than 8 mm was an independent risk factor for bile leakage. Conclusions: Laparoscopy combined with intraoperative choledochoscopic CBD exploration is superior to T-tube drainage in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay. The ability of reducing bilirubin by traditional T-tube drainage is indeed better than that of primary suture in the early stage after operation, but there is no difference in long-term outcome between the two groups. Choledochal diameter ≤8 mm was an independent risk factor for bile leakage. To summarize, LCBDEs primary suture for secondary choledocholithiasis is safe and feasible.

Primary Suture of the Common Bile Duct: Continuous or Interrupted?

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of continuous suture and interrupted suture in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis. Materials and Methods: The data of 125 patients with choledocholithiasis treated with LCBDE in our department from January 2017 to January 2019 were retrospectively collected and divided into two subgroups: the continuous suture group (n = 56) and the interrupted suture group (n = 69). The operation duration, time to suture, intraoperative blood loss, extubation time, hospital stay, total hospitalization expenses, preoperative and postoperative diameters of the common bile duct (CBD), and the occurrence rate of postoperative complications were all compared between the two groups. Results: The operative duration, time to suture, and intraoperative blood loss in the continuous suture group were less compared with those in the interrupted suture group (P < .05). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups considering extubation time, hospital stay, total hospitalization expenses, and the occurrence rate of postoperative complications (P > .05). The postoperative CBD diameters in both groups were significantly larger than the preoperative CBD diameters (P < .05). Conclusions: The continuous suture technique shortened the operative duration, time to suture, and reduced intraoperative blood loss. It proves to be an effective and safe method in patients diagnosed with CBD stones.

Can T-tube drainage be replaced by primary suture technique in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered the best treatment and has the advantages of being minimally invasive for common bile duct (CBD) stones, the choice of T-tube drainage (TTD) or primary duct closure (PDC) after LCBDE is still controversial. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare the superiority of PDC versus TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

All potential studies which compare the surgical effects between PDC with TTD were electronically searched for in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library databases up to November 2019. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

In total, six randomized controlled trials with 604 patients (307 in the PDC group and 297 in the TTD group) were included in the current meta-analysis. As compared with the TTD group, the pooled data showed that PDC group had shorter operating time (WMD = -24.30; 95% CI = -27.02 to -21.59; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%; p < 0.88), less medical expenditure (WMD = -2255.73; 95% CI = -3330.59 to -1180.86; p < 0.0001; I² = 96%; p < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (OR = -2.88; 95% CI = -3.22 to -2.54; p < 0.00001; I² = 60%; p < 0.03), and lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.78; p = 0.77; I² = 0%; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning bile leakage (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.53; p = 0.42; I² = 0%; p = 0.90) and retained stones (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.36 to 2.52; p < 0.93; I² = 0%; p < 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with PDC should be performed as a priority alternative compared with TTD for choledocholithiasis.

Primary Closure Versus T-Tube Drainage Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration in Patients With Previous Biliary Surgery

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been recently introduced for management of CBD stone in patients with previous biliary surgery history. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of primary closure in patients with previous biliary surgery history compared to T-tube drainage. Eighty patients with previous biliary surgery history including laparoscopic cholecystectomy, open cholecystectomy, or open common bile duct exploration were enrolled in the retrospective study. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the methods of choledochotomy closure. Group A: patients with primary closure after LCBDE (n = 51); group B: patients with T-tube drainage after LCBDE (n = 29). Group A exhibited a shorter postoperative hospital stay and lower hospitalization expenses compared to group B. There was no significant difference in conversion rate to open surgery, operating time, intraoperative blood loss, bile leakage rate, overall complication rate, and stone recurrence rate between the 2 groups. Biliary stricture was not observed in the 2 groups during the follow-up period. Primary closure following LCBDE is safe and effective for the management of CBD stones in patients with previous biliary surgery history.

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.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is safe for management of choledocholithiasis in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is one of the minimally invasive options for choledocholithiasis. Primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) upon completion of laparoscopic choledochotomy is safe in selected patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of primary closure of CBD after LCBDE in patients aged 70 years or older.

METHODS

A total of 116 patients (51 males and 65 females) who suffered from choledocholithiasis and underwent primary closure of the CBD (without T-tube drainage) after LCBDE from January 2003 to December 2017 were recruited. They were classified into two groups according to age: group A (≥70 years, n = 56), and group B (<70 years, n = 60). The preoperative characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 172.02 min for group A and 169.92 min for group B (P = 0.853). The mean hospital stay was 7.40 days for group A and 5.38 days for group B (P < 0.001). Bile leakage occurred in two patients in group A and one in group B (3.57% vs 1.67%, P = 0.952). There were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative complications and mortality between the two groups. At median follow-up time of 60 months, stone recurrence was detected in one patient in group A and two in group B (1.79% vs 3.33%, P = 1.000). Stenosis of CBD was not observed in group A and slight stenosis in one patient in group B (0 vs 1.67%, P = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

Primary closure of the CBD upon completion of laparoscopic choledochotomy is safe and feasible in elderly patients ≥70 years old.

Primary closure with knotless barbed suture versus traditional T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a single-center medium-term experience

Objective

Primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is a technical challenge. The present study was performed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this surgical method.

Methods

This retrospective study of surgical efficacy and safety involved 79 patients who underwent primary CBD closure with a knotless unidirectional barbed suture or traditional T-tube drainage after LCBDE for CBD stones.

Results

The average suturing time, operation time, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the primary closure group than T-tube group. There were no significant differences in the mean diameter of the CBD, number of stones, or incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. No patients developed recurrence of CBD stones during the median follow-up of 21.5 months.

Conclusions

After LCBDE and intraoperative choledochoscopy, primary closure with knotless unidirectional barbed sutures is a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with cholelithiasis and concurrent CBD stones. This is especially true when the CBD is dilated more than 8 mm.

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is feasible for elderly patients: 5-Year experience at a single institution

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been demonstrated safety and effective for patients with gallbladder stones and extrahepatic bile duct stones, however few studies reported its suitability for the treatment of elderly patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the safety and feasibility of primary closure after LCBDE in the treatment of elderly patients.

METHODS

408 out of 499 patients with Gallbladder stones complicated with choledocholithiasis who were undergone LCBDE and primary closure were divided into two groups: Group A (<65 years old, n = 249) and Group B (≥65 years old, n = 159) and the related clinical data were compared and analyzed by statistical method.

RESULTS

Pre-operative American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of elderly patients was significantly higher than the younger patients (P < 0.05). In both groups, the positive rate of Choledocholithiasis and bile sludge at exploration, number of stones in CBD, utilization rate of Electro-hydraulic lithotripsy, estimated blood loss, successful duct clearance, the rate of postoperative bile leakage, postoperative bile duct stricture, reoperation, stone recurrence, and other postoperative complications showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). There were also no statistical differences between both groups in time to removal of drainage, postoperative hospital stay, readmission within 30 days and mortality (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

It is safe and feasible to treat the elderly patients with common bile duct stones under the premise of strict surgical indications, skilled laparoscopic procedures and accurate endoscopic suture techniques.

Comprehensive and innovative techniques for laparoscopic choledocholithotomy: A surgical guide to successfully accomplish this advanced manipulation

Surgeries for benign diseases of the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) are classified as lithotomy (i.e., choledocholithotomy) or diversion (i.e., choledochojejunostomy). Because of technical challenges, laparoscopic approaches for these surgeries have not gained worldwide popularity. The right upper quadrant of the abdomen is advantageous for laparoscopic procedures, and laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy is safe and feasible. Herein, we summarize tips and pitfalls in the actual procedures of choledocholithotomy. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with primary closure of the transductal incision and transcystic C-tube drainage has excellent clinical outcomes; however, emergent biliary drainage without endoscopic sphincterotomy and preoperative removal of anesthetic risk factors are required. Elastic suture should never be ligated directly on the cystic duct. Interrupted suture placement is the first choice for hemostasis near the EHBD. To prevent progressive laceration of the EHBD, full-layer interrupted sutures are placed at the upper and lower edges of the transductal incision. Cholangioscopy has only two-way operation; using dedicated forceps to atraumatically grasp the cholangioscope is important for smart maneuvering. The duration of intraoperative stone clearance accounts for most of the operative time. Moreover, dedicated forceps are an important instrument for atraumatic grasping of the cholangioscope. Damage to the cholangioscope requires expensive repair. Laparoscopic approach for choledocholithotomy involves technical difficulties. I hope this document with the visual explanation and literature review will be informative for skillful surgeons.

T-Tube Use After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

Background and Objectives:

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been verified to be an effective technique in treating choledocholithiasis, and T-tube insertion has been widely performed after LCBDE. With growing doubts regarding the effectiveness and safety of T-tube drainage (TTD), it has been suggested to replace such with primary duct closure (PDC). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of PDC compared with TTD after LCBDE.

Methods:

The PubMed, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were used to accomplish a systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials and pro-/retrospective cohort studies that compared PDC alone or PDC combined with biliary drainage stenting (PDC+BD) with TTD after LCBDE. A subgroup analysis was established to compare PDC+BD with TTD. RevMan 5.3 was used for the statistical analysis.

Results:

A total of 2552 patients from 26 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio supported PDC, which yielded lower postoperative overall morbidity and incidence of bile leak and bile peritonitis and shorter surgical time and postoperative hospital stay when compared with TTD. In the subgroup analysis, PDC+BD showed significantly better results in terms of postoperative overall morbidity, incidence of bile leak and bile peritonitis, surgical time, and postoperative hospital stay than did TTD. PDC and PDC+BD showed no difference in the incidence of recurrent stones and biliary stricture during the long-term follow-up period compared with TTD.

Conclusion:

PDC alone or PDC+BD is superior to TTD as a duct-closure method after LCBDE.

Technical Aspects of Bile Duct Evaluation and Exploration: An Update

Consensus guidelines recommend patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and suspected choledocholithiasis have common bile duct exploration (CBDE) at the time of cholecystectomy to prevent downstream problems. Despite superiority of single-stage cholecystectomy with CBDE, 2-stage precholecystectomy/postcholecystectomy with endoscopic clearance of the duct is commonly practiced. This is related to inadequate training in minimally invasive techniques, lack of technical support for efficient and safe CBDE, and surgeons' inexperience with complex biliary pathologic condition. This article provides a framework for evaluating and treating patients with CBD pathologic condition with an emphasis on technical aspects of CBDE and preoperative planning and preparation.

Human fibrin sealant reduces post-operative bile leakage of primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with choledocholithiasis

Context:

Primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) without drainage is considered a suitable approach after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE); however, the risk of post-operative bile leakage is high. Up to now, it has not been clear whether human fibrin sealant can reduce post-operative bile leakage of the primary suture.

Aims:

In this study, we evaluated the role of human fibrin sealant in primary closure of the CBD after LCBDE.

Subjects and Methods:

Patients with choledocholithiasis who had undergone primary duct closure of the CBD after LCBDE were divided into two groups according to whether fibrin sealant was used.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Fisher's exact test or the Chi-square test was used for categorical variables to calculate frequencies and percentages between the groups. The Student's t-test was used to compare the means of the continuous variables between the groups.

Results:

The human fibrin sealant group had a lower rate of post-operative bile leakage compared to the other group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in additional parameters such as operative time, post-operative stay duration, time to drain removal, bile duct stenosis, acute allergic reaction and overall mortality.

Conclusions:

Human fibrin sealant can reduce post-operative bile leakage in primary closure of CBD after LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis.

The reasonable drainage option after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the treatment of choledocholithiasis

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a reasonable drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Data of 350 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE in our hospital from January 2014 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients were divided into three groups according to different drainage types after LCBDE, including T-tube group with 116 cases, primary closure (PC) group with 114 cases and stent insertion group with 120 cases. Operative parameters and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The operative time was no significant difference between the T-tube group (106.71 ± 5.19 min), PC group (105.46 ± 5.77 min) and stent insertion group (106.88 ± 5.91 min) (F = 2.175, P = 0.115). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the stent insertion group (5.62 ± 0.70 d) than in the T-tube group (7.79 ± 0.85 d) and PC group (7.60 ± 0.80 d) (F = 279.649, P = 0.000). The hospitalization cost was significantly less in the stent insertion group (19,432.78 ± 661.74 yuan) than in the T-tube group (22,059.90 ± 697.98 yuan) and PC group (21,927.20 ± 772.02 yuan) (F = 512.492, P = 0.000). The incidence of postoperative biliary-specific complications was 2.59% (3/116 cases) in the T-tube group, 2.63% (3/114 cases) in the PC group, and 0% (0/120 cases) in the stent insertion group, but this difference was not statistically significant (χ² = 3.177, P = 0.204). The return to normal levels of postoperative liver function tests (LFTs) was significantly faster in the stent insertion group and T-tube group than in the PC group (P < 0.05). The number of 314 patients were followed up for a median time of 20 months (range from 1-48 months), and no biliary stricture, cholangitis or stone recurrence occurred in these patients during that time.

CONCLUSIONS

Stent insertion shows better results when compared with T-tube drainage and primary duct closure in terms of postoperative hospital stay and hospitalization cost. It is the prior option for the choledochotomy closure after LCBDE in suitable patients.

Should T-Tube Drainage be Performed for Choledocholithiasis after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been verified to be a comparatively effective treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and it has been previously proposed that the primary duct closure (PDC) technique, in which the bile duct can directly be sutured in only 1 step compared with the T-tube drainage (TTD), can be deemed a choice after LCBDE; however, the conventional TTD performance is controversial in the minimally invasive surgery era. On the basis of the above-mentioned point, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess the different effects between TTD and PDC after LCBDE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, literature search was conducted to screen out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare PDC with TTD. The analyzed outcome variables included overall morbidity, biliary-specific morbidity (retained stones, biliary leak, biliary peritonitis), other morbidities, operating time, postoperative hospital stay, reintervention (surgery, endoscopy/radiology), and median hospital expenses.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, there are 4 RCTs qualifying for inclusion, including 396 patients in all (222 in PDC and 214 in TTD). With respect to postoperative overall morbidity (P<0.05), biliary peritonitis (P<0.05), surgery time (P<0.05), length of stay (P<0.05), and median hospital expenses (P<0.05), PDC presented remarkably better results than TTD (P<0.05). Statistically, no remarkable distinction was found between the 2 groups as to biliary-specific morbidity, retained stones, biliary leak, other morbidities, or reintervention (radiology/endoscopy, surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, there was no evidence provided for clinical benefits of using TTD after LCBDE. Therefore, TTD should not routinely be performed after LCBDE. However, multicenter, large sample size, RCTs should be conducted to clarify this issue.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with choledochoduodenostomy in a patient with situs inversus totalis

A 50-year-old female presented to us with features of obstructive jaundice. Investigations revealed cholelithiasis with single large impacted calculus in the common bile duct (CBD) and significant dilatation of extrahepatic biliary tree. Incidentally, the patient was also detected to have situs inversus totalis (SIT). Attempt at extraction of the calculus in the CBD by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography failed, and a 7F stent was placed. The patient was subjected to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, CBD exploration with the extraction of the offending calculus and laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy (LCDD). The patient had an uneventful recovery and is since discharged. PubMed search did not reveal LCDD in SIT as a procedure reported in literature to the best of our knowledge.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous upper abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Although patients with previous upper abdominal surgery are no longer considered as a contraindication in laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for these patients is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LCBDE for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventeen patients with common bile duct stones who underwent LCBDE in our institution from January 2010 to September 2017 were enrolled in the retrospective study. They were divided into two groups: group A, with previous upper abdominal surgery (n = 50) and group B, without previous upper abdominal surgery (n = 167). Patients' demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Group A exhibited a longer operative time compared to group B (179.7 ± 61.5 vs. 156.0 ± 46.8 min, p = 0.014). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (123.9 ± 99.5 vs. 99.5 ± 84.7 mL, p = 0.087), postoperative hospital stay (7.4 ± 2.6 vs. 6.8 ± 2.3 d, p = 0.193), and overall complication rate (8.0 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.732) between the two groups. There was no mortality in both groups. The initial stone clearance rate showed no significant difference between the two groups (98.0 vs. 98.2%, p = 1.000), and the final stone clearance rate was 100% in both groups (p = 1.000). The stone recurrence rate had no significant difference between the two groups (2.0 vs. 2.4%, p = 1.000). The conversion rate was comparable between group A and group B (6.0 vs. 4.8%, p = 0.718).

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery. The keys of this procedure are carefully separating the adhesions and clearly exposing the common bile duct, and using a variety of methods to remove the stones.

Various approaches of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus primary duct closure for choledocholithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct (CBD) stones may occur in up to 3%-14.7% of all patients with cholecystectomy. Various approaches of laparoscopic CBD exploration plus primary duct closure (PDC) are the most commonly used and the best methods to treat CBD stone. This systematic review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the various approaches of laparoscopic CBD exploration plus PDC for choledocholithiasis.

DATA SOURCES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) (case-control studies or cohort studies) were searched from Cochrane library (until Issue 2, 2015), Web of Science (1980-January 2016), PubMed (1966-January 2016), and Baidu search engine. After independent quality assessment and data extraction, meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and 18 NRCTs were included. When compared with choledochotomy exploration (CE) plus T-tube drainage (TTD) (CE + TTD), CE plus PDC (CE + PDC) and CE + PDC with biliary drainage (BD) (CE + PDC + BD) had a lower rate of postoperative biliary peritonitis (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.88; P < 0.05; OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.84; P < 0.05; respectively) where T-tubes were removed more than 3 weeks. The operative time of CE + PDC was significantly shorter (WMD = -24.82; 95% CI: -27.48, -22.16; P < 0.01) than that of CE + TTD in RCTs. Cystic duct exploration (CDE) plus PDC (CDE + PDC) has a lower rate of postoperative complications (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67; P < 0.01) when compared with CE + PDC. Confluence part micro-incision exploration (CME) plus PDC (CME + PDC) has a lower rate of postoperative bile leakage (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.74; P < 0.05) when compared with CE + PDC.

CONCLUSION

PDC with other various approaches are better than TTD in the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

Laparoscopic Exploration Can Salvage Recurrent Common Bile Duct Stone after Cholecystectomy

Conventionally, patients suffered from recurrent common bile duct (CBD) stone after cholecystectomy are suggested to be treated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography. This study was designed to explore the feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) as a salvage procedure for recurrent CBD calculi after cholecystectomy. A retrospective review was conducted of data from 65 patients who underwent LCBDE for recurrent CBD calculi after cholecystectomy from January 2011 to July 2015. LCBDE was successfully carried out in 61 cases, with a successful rate of 93.8 per cent. Three cases required open conversion because of serious abdominal adhesion, and one case for intraoperative bleeding. Postoperative bile leakage occurred in two cases, and bile peritonitis developed in one case; all these three patients with complications were fully cured by conservative treatment. A postoperative retained CBD stone was found in one patient, which was extracted with endoscopic sphincterotomy. Furthermore, it was found that the mean operative time and length of postoperative hospital stay were much shorter in primary closure group (n = 49) than in T-tube drainage group (n = 12), and the hospital expense was also lower in primary closure group. We suggest that LCBDE could be a novel approach as a salvage procedure for the recurrent CBD stone after cholecystectomy, and we prefer to intraoperative primary closure of CBD if possible.

Strategies of minimally invasive treatment for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a kind of common and multiple diseases. In recent years, traditional laparotomy has been challenged by a minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review, the therapeutic method, effect, and complications of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones by combining our practical experience were summarized as follows. (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, the operation may be selected by laparoscopic liver resection, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy. (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, the surgical approach can be selected as follows: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, LC plus laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration, LC plus LCBDE, and T-tube drainage or primary suture. (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross section, LCBDE, EST, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be used. According to the abovementioned principle, the minimally invasive treatment approach combined with the surgical technique and equipment condition will be significant in improving the therapeutic effect and avoiding the postoperative complications or hidden dangers of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Comparative Study of Three Bile Duct Closure Methods Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

There are three choledochotomy closure methods available following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: T-tube insertion, antegrade stenting, and primary choledochorrhaphy. We reviewed the experience of 12 years at our center searching for the optimal closure technique.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospectively 146 patients that underwent one of the three closure methods from February 2004 to March 2016. Hospital stay, need for readmission, incidence of early and long-term complications, and biliary leakage development and their clinical impact were determined for each technique.

RESULTS

Hospital stay was more prolonged, and need for readmission was higher in the T-tube group. Nine patients of the T-tube group (17.3%), 5 patients (8.6%) of the antegrade stenting group, and 1 patient of the primary suture group (2.8%) developed Dindo-Clavien ≥3 complications (P = .076). The incidence of biliary leakage was 3.8%, 8.6%, and 16.7% for the T-tube group, antegrade stenting group, and primary suture group, respectively. There was no grade C biliary fistula in the primary suture group, and all grade B leaks in these patients were only due to prolonged duration. The T-tube removal caused adverse events in 21.1% of the patients, and complications directly related with stents occurred in 9.6%.

CONCLUSION

Antegrade stents or T-tube insertion do not provide any added value for choledochotomy closure but are charged with specific morbidity. On the contrary, despite biliary leaks being more frequent after primary suture, they are of little clinical consequence and may be managed on an outpatient basis.

Primary Closure Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined with Intraoperative Choledochoscopy and D-J Tube Drainage for Treating Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess the clinical short-term results of a primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) combined with intraoperative choledochoscopy and D-J tube drainage for choledocholithiasis treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty-five patients (14 women and 11 men) who underwent LCBDE with primary duct closure and D-J tube drainage for choledocholithiasis were retrospectively enrolled. The D-J tube (4.7F×14 cm) was removed using a duodenoscope if there was no bile leakage. Before discharge, patients were examined for blood amylase. After discharge or D-J tube removal, all patients were routinely assessed for complications. RESULTS Mean operating time was 135±46 min (range, 78-195 min). Mean intraoperative blood loss was 71±24 mL (range, 25-110 mL). Total hospital stay was 6-9 days (mean, 8.04±1.37 days). Two patients experienced intraoperative bile leakage, which was stopped with re-suturing. None of these patients experienced postoperative bile leaks. Three patients had slight elevation of serum amylase before discharge but without pancreatitis signs. The successful clearance rate of stones was 100%. During 1-year follow-up, no recurrence or severe complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS A primary closure following LCBDE combined with intraoperative choledochoscopy and D-J tube drainage is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis treatment.

Appropriate Patient Selection Is Essential for the Success of Primary Closure After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is being increasingly used for management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Primary CBD closure has been reported to have better short-term outcomes compared to T-tube placement. However, primary CBD closure cannot be performed in all patients.

AIM

This study aims to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LCBDE with primary CBD closure in appropriately selected patients and compare them with T-tube drainage.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCBDE in our department from June 2011 to October 2014 was performed. Primary closure was performed in 52 patients (group A), and a T-tube was placed in 33 patients (group B). Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, postoperative stay, complications, and long-term follow-up data were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was much longer in group A compared to group B (113.92 vs. 95.92 min, p = 0.032). The overall complication rate (9.6 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.701) and hospital stay (4 vs. 5.11 days, p = 0.088) were similar in both groups. No patient required conversion to the open procedure. Bile leakage was more frequent in group A (5.78 vs. 0%, p = 0.279), but this was not statistically significant. All three patients with bile leakage were treated successfully by conservative measures and gradual drain withdrawal. On long-term follow-up, recurrent stones were detected in two patients in group A. No patient was found to develop CBD stricture.

CONCLUSION

LCBDE and primary CBD closure has excellent short- and long-term outcomes when performed in appropriately selected patients.

Risk factors for bile leakage after primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely adopted because of the efficacy and safety in treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, the risk factors for bile leakage, the most common complication after primary closure, has not been clarified yet.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent LCBDE with primary closure after choledochotomy between Feb. 2012 and Jun. 2016 was performed. Risk factors for bile leakage were identified by logistic regression inculding demographic factors, preoperative condition and surgical details.

Results

Between Feb. 2012 and Jun. 2016, a total of 265 LCBDE procedures were applied in our hospital and 141 patients with primary closure were included in this study. Bile leakage occurred in 11.3% (16/141) of these patients, and happened more frequently in patients with slender CBD (<1 vs ≥1 cm, 31.6% vs 7.0%, p = 0.04) and those managed by inexperienced surgeons (initial 70 cases vs later cases, 17.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04). After multivariable regression, the diameter of CBD [OR 95% CI, 3.799 (1.081–13.349), p = 0.04] and experience of surgeons [OR 95% CI, 4.228 (1.330–13.438), p = 0.03] were significantly related to bile leakage.

Conclusion

Slender CBD and inexperienced surgeons were the high risk factors for bile leakage after primary closure following LCBDE.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a safe and definitive treatment for elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct (CBD) stone is one of the most common diseases among elderly people. In recent decades, there are numerous studies regarding the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Elderly patients are often regarded as high-risk patients because they are more likely to present with age-specific deterioration of organ function and coexisting chronic diseases, which may reduce their tolerance of laparoscopic surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis is now widely accepted as the treatment for CBD stone, its appropriateness for the treatment of elderly patients or those with coexisting high-risk patients has not been well established. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to analyze the safety and efficacy of LCBDE in elderly patients.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and November 2015, 376 patients underwent LCBDE in our center. Based on their ages, they were divided into two groups, and a retrospective study was performed. By making comparisons between younger group who were younger than 70 years (n = 253) and elderly group who were 70 years old or older (n = 123), the demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory data, operative parameters and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Before operation, elderly patients had more coexisting chronic diseases and risk factors, such as arterial hypertension, heart diseases, pulmonary diseases and previous abdominal surgery (P < 0.05). In both groups, LCBDE was equally successful with a high clearance rate (100 % in elderly patients vs. 98.8 % in younger group, P = 0.554). Besides, the operating time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, total costs and overall complication showed no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). There was no major bile duct injury or death in either group.

CONCLUSION

Although elderly patients are frequently confronted with coexisting disorders, LCBDE can be considered as a safe and effective technique in choledocholithiasis treatment for elderly patients.

Micro-Incision of the Cystic Duct Confluence in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Elderly Patients with Choledocholithiasis

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are common in elderly patients. The laparoscopic transcystic approach with micro-incision of the cystic duct confluence in common bile duct exploration (LTM-CBDE) is a modified laparoscopic transcystic approach. Its safety and efficacy have not been studied in elderly patients with secondary choledocholithiasis. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of LTM-CBDE in elderly (≥65 years) patients with secondary choledocholithiasis and compares the results with those in younger patients. In this retrospective analysis, 128 patients underwent LTM-CBDE from March 2007 to December 2013. The patients were divided into two groups according to age: the elderly group consisted of 50 patients aged ≥65 years and the younger group consisted of 78 patients aged <65 years. The preoperative morbidity rate, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, previous abdominal operations, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, open conversion rate, postoperative complication rate, residual stone rate, recurrence rate and mortality were compared in both groups. The preoperative morbidity (41 vs. 28) and ASA score (2.5 ± 0.7 vs. 1.8 ± 0.6) were higher in the elderly group (P = 0.000, in both groups). No significant differences in previous abdominal operations, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, open conversion rate, postoperative complication rate, residual stone rate, recurrence rate and mortality (P > 0.05) were found between the two groups from March 2007 to December 2013. LTM-CBDE is a safe and effective treatment procedure for elderly patients with secondary choledocholithiasis. For suitable patients, we recommend LTM-CBDE as the treatment of choice.

Intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage over primary closure of the common bile duct for choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis: a cohort study of 211 cases

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) was often used for preoperative biliary drainage in cases like cholangiocarcinoma or acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis, reports on endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) over primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) are limited. This study compares outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) + intraoperative ENBD + primary closure of CBD with equivalent patients who underwent preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and subsequent LC.

METHODS

From January 2013 to December 2015, 829 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis underwent surgery in our department. 211 patients underwent LC + LCBDE + intraoperative ENBD + primary closure of CBD (group A) and 117 preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC (group B). A total of 501 patients (355 who underwent T-tube drainage and 146 who underwent transcystic exploration) were excluded from the analysis. Clinical records, operative findings, and postoperative follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Age and sex distribution, comorbidity, presentations, CBD diameter, and size and number of stones were similar in the two groups, and there was no postoperative mortality. Duration of surgery in group A was shorter (83 vs. 104 min, P < 0.01), as was postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 9 days, P < 0.01). Average operative expenditure in group A was less than that of group B ($ 3816 vs. $ 4015, P < 0.01). The success rate in group A was higher (100 vs. 91%, P < 0.01). Ten patients in group B converted to LCBDE. The postoperative complication rate was higher in group B but without significant difference (1.9 vs. 4.2%, P = 0.29). Median follow-up time was 24 (3-28) months (n = 302 patients). Two patients in group B reported residual stones.

CONCLUSION

LC + LCBDE + intraoperative ENBD + primary closure of CBD should have priority over preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC for choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis.

Role of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in the management of choledocholithiasis

Surgical fraternity has not yet arrived at any consensus for adequate treatment of choledocholithiasis. Sequential treatment in the form of pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is considered as optimal treatment till date. With refinements in technique and expertise in field of minimal access surgery, many centres in the world have started offering one stage management of choledocholithiasis by LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Various modalities have been tried for entering into concurrent common bile duct (CBD) [transcystic (TC) vs transcholedochal (TD)], for confirming stone clearance (intraoperative cholangiogram vs choledochoscopy), and for closure of choledochotomy (T-tube vs biliary stent vs primary closure) during LCBDE. Both TC and TD approaches are safe and effective. TD stone extraction is involved with an increased risk of bile leaks and requires more expertise in intra-corporeal suturing and choledochoscopy. Choice depends on number of stones, size of stone, diameter of cystic duct and CBD. This review article was undertaken to evaluate the role of LCBDE for the management of choledocholithiasis.

Long-term Outcome of Primary Closure After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined With Choledochoscopy

BACKGROUND

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered to be a safe alternative to T-tube drainage on the basis of the short-term outcome. However, little published data exist regarding the biliary complications at the long-term follow-up of primary closure versus T-tube drainage following LCBDE. Hence, the aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcome of primary closure after LCBDE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 142 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE combined with choledochoscopy for CBD stones. After LCBDE, the choledochotomy was closed by primary closure (group P) in 91 patients (64.1%) and with T-tube drainage (group T) in 51 patients (35.9%). The data on operative outcome and long-term biliary complications were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was significantly shorter in group P than group T (168.9 ± 50.1 min for group P vs. 198.0 ± 59.6 min for group T, P = 0.002). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in group P than in group T (8.59 ± 6.0 d for group P vs. 14.96 ± 5.4 d for group T, P = 0.001). Postoperative bile leak occurred in 2 patients (2.2%) in group P and 1 patient (2.0%) in group T. With a mean follow-up of 48.8 months, the stone recurrence rate in group P and group T were 4.4% and 5.9%, respectively (P = 0.722). During the follow-up period, there was no sign of biliary stricture or other biliary complications in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term follow-up data on primary closure after LCBDE indicated a low incidence of recurrent stones, and no biliary strictures. Thus, primary closure after LCBDE with choledochoscopy is considered to be a safe and effective alternative to T-tube drainage in terms of long-term outcome.

Innovative technique of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: A comparative study

AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (nSIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of conventional laparoscopic CBDE (CL-CBDE).

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent CL-CBDE or nSIL-CBDE for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones between January 2000 and December 2014. For performing nSIL-CBDE, a needlescopic grasper was also inserted through a direct puncture below the right subcostal line after introducing a single-port through the umbilicus. The needlescopic grasper helped obtain the critical view of safety by retracting the gallbladder laterally and by preventing crossing or conflict between laparoscopic instruments. The gallbladder was then partially dissected from the liver bed and used for retraction. CBD stones were usually extracted through a longitudinal supraduodenal choledochotomy, mostly using flushing a copious amount of normal saline through a ureteral catheter. Afterward, for the certification of CBD clearance, CBDE was performed mostly using a flexible choledochoscope. The choledochotomy site was primarily closed without using a T-tube, and simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.

RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE. Of these patients, 20 underwent CL-CBDE and 20 underwent nSIL-CBDE. The operative time for nSIL-CBDE was significantly longer than that for CL-CBDE (238 ± 76 min vs 192 ± 39 min, P = 0.007). The stone clearance rate was 100% (40/40) in both groups. Postoperatively, the nSIL-CBDE group required less intravenous analgesic (pethidine) (46.5 ± 63.5 mg/kg vs 92.5 ± 120.1 mg/kg, P = 0.010) and had a shorter hospital stay than the CL-CBDE group (3.8 ± 2.0 d vs 5.1 ± 1.7 d, P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that nSIL-CBDE could be safe and feasible while improving cosmetic outcomes when performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques.

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

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of single-stage [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)+laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)] vs. two-stage management [preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)+LC] for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.

METHODS

RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for data extraction were identified from electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library) up to August 2014. The relevant congressional proceedings were also searched. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures, length of hospital stay, total operative time, and hospitalization charges. The outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.2.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, which included 1130 patients, were identified for analysis in our study. The meta-analysis revealed that the common bile duct stone clearance rate in the single-stage group was higher (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.33, P=0.03). The lengths of hospital stay (MD=-1.02, 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.04, P=0.04) and total operative times (MD=-16.78, 95% CI: -27.55 to -6.01, P=0.002) were also shorter in the single-stage group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative morbidity (OR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.59, P=0.52), mortality (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.41, P=0.13) and conversion to other procedures (OR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.82, P=0.62).

CONCLUSION

Single- and two-stage management for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis had similar mortality and complication rates; however, the single-stage strategy was better in terms of stone clearance, hospital stay and total operative time.