Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Versus Open Approach in Cirrhotic Patients with Choledocholithiasis: A Retrospective Study

Laparoscopic choledochotomy and choledochoduodenostomy for the management of persistent common bile duct stones

Choledochotomy and choledochoduodenostomy were commonly used technique in the early twentieth century to extract bile duct stones. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy revolutionised the scenario and is currently the preferred first-line option for managing choledocholithiasis. However, in certain circumstances, where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails, choledochotomy and choledochoduodenostomy are the only available options. We present the case of an 86-year-old female with a background of multiple previous presentations with biliary sepsis and ascending cholangitis requiring multiple endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies that failed to remove all stones in the common bile duct. She underwent a laparoscopic choledochotomy and choledochoduodenostomy that successfully resolved her common bile duct obstruction. Laparoscopic choledochotomy and choledochoduodenostomy reduce the length of hospital stay and help to minimise complications associated with open surgery.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration in Patients With Previous Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (group A) versus primary LCBDE (group B) for the management of gallbladder and common bile duct stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed in several databases, including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis of operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and gallstone clearance rates was conducted using random-effect models.

RESULTS

Six studies including 642 patients (239 in group A and 403 in group B) were included. The operative time was longer in group A (P=0.02). The overall complication, bile leakage, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, and reoperation were comparable in group A and group B. Similarly, no significant difference was present concerning the incidence of stone clearance, residual stone, and recurrent stone (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

LCBDE is an alternative acceptable procedure when removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic therapy fails.

Laparoscopic Exploration of the Common Bile Duct: A Systematic Review of the Published Evidence Over the Last 10 Years

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic and open surgical interventions are widely implemented as the standard practice in common bile duct exploration. However, the laparoscopic approach has been also reported to have comparative/superior outcomes in this concept. This has created an ongoing debate about the ideal approach to adopt in practice.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published evidence over the last decade that has looked into the outcomes of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct through transductal and transcystic approaches.

RESULTS

Our systematic review included 36 relevant papers. The majority were based on nonrandomized protocols conducted in single centers with high expertise. The data analysis showed that laparoscopic common bile duct exploration through both approaches was successful in more than 84% of the patients, with an average length of hospital stay of 5.6 days. Conversion to open surgery was reported in 5%-8% of the patients, and the bile leak rates from the more recent studies was 0%-12%, with mortality figures of 0%-1.3%. The outcomes were statistically in favor of the transcystic route when compared to the transductal route from the viewpoints of bile leak rates, mean operative time, duration of hospital stay and morbidity.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, both laparoscopic approaches in common bile duct exploration are safe in patients who are clinically fit to have this intervention. It is associated with a statistically significant lower overall morbidity and shorter duration of hospital stay when compared to open surgery. Relevant up-to-date high-quality randomized trials are unavailable.

Effect of structured training in improving the ergonomic stress in laparoscopic surgery among general surgery residents

BACKGROUND

Minimal access surgery has fast become the standard of care for many operative procedures, but is associated with lot of ergonomic stress to the surgeons performing these procedures, which may result in reduction in surgeon's performance and work capacity. In this study, we evaluated the impact of structured training program in improving the ergonomic stress in trainee laparoscopic surgeons.

METHODS

Laparoscopic surgeons were divided in 2 groups: trainee surgeons (ten) and expert surgeons (three). Baseline surface electromyography (sEMG) data were collected from bilateral deltoid, biceps brachii, forearm extensors, and pronator teres during a predefined suturing task on Tuebingen trainer with integrated porcine organs in both the groups. Trainee surgeons underwent 20 h of laparoscopic intra-corporeal suturing training and surface electromyography data were recorded at the end of training again and compared with baseline.

RESULTS

Experts were found to have lower muscle activation (p < 0.05) and muscle work (p < 0.05) and better bimanual dexterity than the trainee surgeons at baseline. After training, the trainee surgeons showed significant improvement (p = 0.01), but still did not reach the values of the expert surgeons (p = 0.01). Right deltoid and pronator teres muscles were found to have maximal activity while performing intra-corporeal suturing.

CONCLUSION

Structured and focused training outside operation theater can significantly reduce unnecessary muscle activation of trainee laparoscopic surgeons and better dexterity leading on to lesser ergonomic stress and thus possibly may reduce the risk of development of future musculo-skeletal disorders.