Rendezvous technique for cholecystocholedochal lithiasis in octogenarians: is it as effective as in younger patients, or should endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy be preferred?

Perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is increasingly performed in an ever ageing population; however, the risks are poorly quantified. The study aims to review the current evidence to quantify further the postoperative risk of cholecystectomy in the elderly population compared to younger patients.

METHOD

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were conducted including studies reporting laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly population. A meta-analysis was reported in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Library and PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was overall complications and secondary outcomes were conversion to open surgery, bile leaks, postoperative mortality and length of stay.

RESULTS

This review identified 99 studies incorporating 326,517 patients. Increasing age was significantly associated with increased rates of overall complications (OR 2.37, CI95% 2.00-2.78), major complication (OR 1.79, CI95% 1.45-2.20), risk of conversion to open cholecystectomy (OR 2.17, CI95% 1.84-2.55), risk of bile leaks (OR 1.50, CI95% 1.07-2.10), risk of postoperative mortality (OR 7.20, CI95% 4.41-11.73) and was significantly associated with increased length of stay (MD 2.21 days, CI95% 1.24-3.18).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative outcomes such as overall and major complications appear to be significantly higher in all age cut-offs in this meta-analysis. This study demonstrated there is a sevenfold increase in perioperative mortality which increases by tenfold in patients > 80 years old. This study appears to confirm preconceived suspicions of higher risks in elderly patients undergoing cholecystectomy and may aid treatment planning and informed consent.

Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous for Concomitant Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A Successful Modality Even in the Most Difficult Presentations Including Pregnancy

Background. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) technique is emerging as an attractive treatment option for concomitant cholecystocholedocholithiasis. In this paper, we report our experience in performing the LERV technique in patients with unusual presentations in terms of anatomical difficulty, pregnancy, multiple comorbid diseases, and postlaparotomy. We aim to highlight the effectiveness of the LERV technique in some clinical situations where conventional methods would fail or carry high risks in adequately managing concomitant cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Methods. Four patients diagnosed to have concomitant cholecystocholedocholithiasis with associated difficult presentation or comorbid diseases were treated using the LERV technique. One patient presented with difficult anatomy where ERCP failed at initial attempts. Another patient was pregnant (first trimester). A third patient had complex comorbid diseases (bronchial asthma, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and end-stage renal disease on regular hemodialysis). A fourth patient had previous laparotomy and sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease and had severe hospital phobia. Results. All patients tolerated the LERV technique very well; no intraoperative occurrence was reported. The mean operative time was 86.3 ± 17.2 minutes; mean time of the endoscopic part was 29.4 ± 3.57 minutes. The mean blood loss was 44.3 ± 18.2 mL (range 20–85). Residual stone, postoperative complications, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality were 0 (0%). Postoperative short hospital stay was reported in all patients, average 3 days (range 2–4). Conclusion. LERV procedure is a safe and effective treatment option for the management of concomitant cholecystocholedocholithiasis, even in difficult situations where other methods would fail or carry high risks, or in patients presenting with severe comorbid diseases or pregnancy. This procedure may emerge as an attractive alternative option for high-risk patients. A patient's wishes may also influence the selection of this procedure. More scientific studies recruiting more patients should be done in order to standardize the LERV procedure.

Rendezvous technique for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systemic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the rendezvous technique for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS: From February 31, 2006 to February 31, 2016, RCTs evaluating the rendezvous technique for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy were retrieved from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI database, Wanfang and VIP database. The data were extracted and analyzed using the RevMan 5.3.5 software.

RESULTS: Six RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Among 616 patients analyzed, the rendezvous technique was used in 307 patients and POERCP + LC in 309 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed significant differences between the rendezvous technique group and POERCP + LC group regarding stone clearance rate (OR = 2.24, 95%CI: 1.26-4.65, P = 0.08), cannulation failure rate (OR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.18-0.83, P = 0.01), and overall morbidity (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004). Sub-group analysis of morbidity also revealed significant differences between the rendezvous technique group and POERCP + LC group regarding post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.05-0.44, P = 0.0005) and hyperamylasemia (OR = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.09-0.36, P = 0.0001), but the differences in the complication morbidity of LC and conversions rate were not significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The rendezvous technique is superior to POERCP + LC in terms of stone clearance, cannulation success, complication morbidity of ERCP and hospital stay. Large, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are still needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.

Diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis in the golden age of imaging, endoscopy and laparoscopy

Biliary lithiasis is an endemic condition in both Western and Eastern countries, in some studies affecting 20% of the general population. In up to 20% of cases, gallbladder stones are associated with common bile duct stones (CBDS), which are asymptomatic in up to one half of cases. Despite the wide variety of examinations and techniques available nowadays, two main open issues remain without a clear answer: how to cost-effectively diagnose CBDS and, when they are finally found, how to deal with them. CBDS diagnosis and management has radically changed over the last 30 years, following the dramatic diffusion of imaging, including endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC), endoscopy and laparoscopy. Since accuracy, invasiveness, potential therapeutic use and cost-effectiveness of imaging techniques used to identify CBDS increase together in a parallel way, the concept of “risk of carrying CBDS” has become pivotal to identifying the most appropriate management of a specific patient in order to avoid the risk of “under-studying” by poor diagnostic work up or “over-studying” by excessively invasive examinations. The risk of carrying CBDS is deduced by symptoms, liver/pancreas serology and ultrasound. “Low risk” patients do not require further examination before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two main “philosophical approaches” face each other for patients with an “intermediate to high risk” of carrying CBDS: on one hand, the “laparoscopy-first” approach, which mainly relies on intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for treatment, and, on the other hand, the “endoscopy-first” attitude, variously referring to MRC, EUS and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for diagnosis and endoscopic sphincterotomy for management. Concerning CBDS diagnosis, intraoperative cholangiography, EUS and MRC are reported to have similar results. Regarding management, the recent literature seems to show better short and long term outcome of surgery in terms of retained stones and need for further procedures. Nevertheless, open surgery is invasive, whereas the laparoscopic common bile duct clearance is time consuming, technically demanding and involves dedicated instruments. Thus, although no consensus has been achieved and CBDS management seems more conditioned by the availability of instrumentation, personnel and skills than cost-effectiveness, endoscopic treatment is largely preferred worldwide.