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

Risk factors for biliary tract events during elective cholecystectomy waiting time after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for choledocholithiasis

Objectives

Endoscopic lithotripsy and elective cholecystectomy, followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, are the first-line treatments for patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones (CBDS) and gallstones. However, this approach entails acute cholecystitis and recurrent cholangitis risk while patients await surgery. We aimed to identify acute cholecystitis and cholangitis risk factors during the waiting time for elective cholecystectomy.

Methods

This study comprised 151 patients with CBDS combined with gallstones who underwent cholecystectomy within 90 days of the first endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at two tertiary care centers between January 2019 and October 2021.

Results

The incidence of biliary tract events (acute cholecystitis, acute cholangitis, or any complications requiring unplanned cholangiopancreatography) was 28% (43 cases). In univariate and multivariate analyses, plastic stent placement as a bridge to surgery for the first treatment of CBDS was an independent risk factor for biliary tract events during the waiting time for surgery (odds ratio 4.25, p = 0.002). A subgroup analysis among those with plastic stent placement revealed a CBD diameter of ≤ 10 mm as an independent risk factor for acute cholecystitis (odds ratio 4.32; p = 0.027); a CBD diameter ≥ 11 mm was an independent risk factor for acute cholangitis and unplanned re-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (odds ratio 5.66; p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Plastic stent placement for CBDS before elective cholecystectomy increases the risk of acute cholecystitis or acute cholangitis during the waiting time for elective cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration to treat choledocholithiasis in situs inversus patients: A technical review

Situs inversus (SI) is a rare congenital condition characterized by a mirror-image transposition of the major visceral organs. Since the 1990s, more than one hundred SI patients have been reported to have successfully undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In these cases, the major problem is to overcome is the left-right condition for right-handed surgeons. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), an alternative to treat patients with bile duct stones, has shown equivalent efficacy and is less likely to cause pancreatitis than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Recent updated meta-analyses revealed that a shorter postoperative hospital stay, fewer procedural interventions, cost-effectiveness, a higher stone clearance rate, and fewer perioperative complications are additional advantages of LCBDE. However, the technique is technically demanding, even for skilled laparoscopic surgeons. Conducting LCBDE in patients with difficult situations, such as SI, is more complex than usual. We herein review published SI patients with choledocholithiasis treated by LCBDE, including our own experience, and this paper focuses on the technical aspects.

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.

Complications of biliary stenting versus T-tube insertion after common bile duct exploration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complications following the insertion T-tube or stent after common bile duct exploration (CBDE) remain problematic in nowadays surgical era. Based on our knowledge, we did not find any meta-analysis intentionally evaluating the complications between both groups. At this moment, we aimed to analyze and compare both procedures' complications, efficacy, efficiency, and feasibility.

METHODS

We searched literature from four databases (EuroPMC, PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov) up to June 2022 to compile the randomized controlled trials and pro-/retrospective cohort studies. Review Manager 5.4 was used to statistically analyze each outcome measured between biliary stenting and T-tube insertion.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 1,080 patients (534 biliary stents and 546 T-tube) were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the biliary stent group compared to the T-tube group 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.80, p = 0.007]. In terms of the operation time, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate was also decreased in stenting as biliary drainage over T-tube placement 1.02 minutes [95% CI -1.53, -0.52, p < 0.0001], 1.96 days [95% CI -2.63, -1.29, p < 0.00001], and RR 0.39 [95% CI 0.15-0.97, p = 0.04], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting as biliary drainage after CBDE was superior to T-tube insertion. A shorter operation time and hospital stay in biliary drainage resulted in a lower overall postoperative complication rate. Other influences, including the complexity and shorter learning curve, might also affect the superiority of biliary stenting.

Multi-institutional expert update on the use of laparoscopic bile duct exploration in the management of choledocholithiasis: Lesson learned from 3950 procedures

BACKGROUND

Recently there has been a growing interest in the laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones with gallbladder in situ (LBDE), which is favoring the expansion of this technique. Our study identified the standardization factors of LBDE and its implementation in the single-stage management of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A retrospective multi-institutional study among 17 centers with proven experience in LBDE was performed. A cross-sectional survey consisting of a semi-structured pretested questionnaire was distributed covering the main aspects on the use of LBDE in the management of choledocholithiasis.

RESULTS

A total of 3950 LBDEs were analyzed. The most frequent indication was jaundice (58.8%). LBDEs were performed after failed ERCP in 15.2%. The most common approach used was the transcystic (63.11%). The overall series failure rate of LBDE was 4% and the median rate for each center was 6% (IQR, 4.5-12.5). Median operative time ranged between 60-120 min (70.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 14.6%, with a postoperative bile leak and complications ≥3a rate of 4.5% and 2.5%, respectively. The operative time decreased with experience (P = .03) and length of hospital stay was longer in the presence of a biliary leak (P = .04). Current training of LBDE was defined as poor or very poor by 82.4%.

CONCLUSION

Based on this multicenter survey, LBDE is a safe and effective approach when performed by experienced teams. The generalization of LBDE will be based on developing training programs.

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.

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).

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

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

A UK survey on variation in the practice of management of choledocholithiasis and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (ALiCE Survey)

BACKGROUND

The practice of managing suspected/confirmed common bile duct stones (CBDS) can vary significantly in the UK. We aimed to assess this variability in practice and challenges to form a basis for future consensus.

METHODS

An electronic survey containing 40 questions on various aspects of management of CBDS was sent to surgeons who perform cholecystectomies via five surgical associations.

RESULTS

 A total of 132 surgeons responded to the survey. The speciality of surgeons includes upper gastro-intestinal (68%), general (18%), colorectal (12%), and others (2%). For patients with suspected CBD stones, 80% would choose magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography, and 14.4% would proceed to intra-operative imaging. Most surgeons preferred intra-operative cholangiogram over intra-operative ultrasound (83% vs 17%). For the treatment, 62.1% preferred a two-stage approach [endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)] and 33.4% chose a single-stage approach [LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)]. Eighty (60.6%) responders performed LCBDE, and 19 (23.8%) of them performed > 10 LCBDEs in a year. Two third of surgeons (62.5%) preferred a trans-choledochal approach to CBDS. Half of the surgeons that perform LCBDE use a T-tube selectively and 1.6% routinely. The "availability of very good ERCP service" and "lack of formal training" were the two main reasons for surgeons not performing LCBDE. Both surgeons' speciality and whether they perform other complex laparoscopic surgery were significantly associated with choosing a two-stage approach over a one-stage approach (χ² test, speciality p = 0.033, complex surgery p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

 Our survey confirms the significant variability in the diagnosis and management of CBDS. The two-stage approach is still the most common way of managing CBDS in the UK. The main reasons for the low uptake of the single-stage approach are the availability of good ERCP service, lack of equipment and lack of formal training in the technique of 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.

Primary Two-Layered Closure of the Common Bile Duct Reduces Postoperative Bile Leakage After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

Objective: The effectiveness and feasibility of the primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) have been well demonstrated, however, the incidence of postoperative bile leakage after LCBDE remains high. The current study aimed at investigating whether our new suturing method could reduce the risk of bile leakage after LCBDE. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 81 patients who underwent primary two-layered closure or traditional primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) after LCBDE, and the related clinical data were compared and analyzed. Results: The primary two-layered closure group had a lower rate of bile leakage compared with the traditional primary closure group (P < .05). There were no significant differences in additional parameters, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative stay duration, time to drain removal, postoperative pancreatitis, stone recurrence, and overall morbidity. No patients developed bile duct stenosis during the follow-up period. Conclusions: Primary two-layered closure of CBD can reduce the postoperative bile leakage after LCBDE. Moreover, it is a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with 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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Decision analysis of minimally invasive management options for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is controversial with the risks and benefits of one versus two-stage approaches debated. This study aims to perform decision analysis of minimally invasive laparo-endoscopic approaches.

METHODS

An advanced decision tree was constructed to compare pre, intra and post-operative ERCP and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in terms of primary ductal clearance and significant complications for patients intended to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomised controlled trials following a comprehensive literature search. Model uncertainties were extensively tested through deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. Utility outcomes were 1 and 0.5 for successful primary clearance without and with complications, respectively, and 0 for failure of primary clearance of the duct.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (n = 2697) were included in the analysis. At base case analysis, a laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach had the highest utility output (0.90; no complication probability: 0.87/complication probability 0.06). Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was ranked second with a utility output 0.87 (no complication probability: 0.82/complication probability 0.10). Pre-operative ERCP utility score was 0.84 (no complication probability: 0.78/ complication probability 0.11) and post-operative ERCP utility score was 0.78 (no complication probability: 0.71/complication probability 0.13). Monte Carlo analysis showed that laparo-endoscopic rendezvous and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration had an equal mean utility output of 0.57 (standard deviation 0.36; variance 0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.99 versus standard deviation 0.34; variance 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.98). Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous had a superior treatment selection frequency of 39.93% followed by laparoscopic bile duct exploration (36.11%), pre-operative ERCP (20.67%) and post-operative ERCP (2.99%).

CONCLUSION

One-stage approach to the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is superior to two-stage, in terms of primary clearance of the duct and risk of operative morbidity. Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach could offer marginal additional benefit but more high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

Background

It is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta-analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated.

Methods

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud-based platform. Random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD.

Results

Of 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD -0·86, 95 per cent c.i. -0·97 to -0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD -0·78, -1·14 to -0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate.

Conclusion

LCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.

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.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) with preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (pre-ERCP+LC) for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov until 1 July 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LCBDE+LC versus pre-ERCP+LC were included. The common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate, postoperative bile leakage, postoperative pancreatitis, morbidity, mortality, and overall hospital stay were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 1545 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 12 RCTs, seven confirmed and five did not confirm CBD stones preoperatively. The meta-analysis showed a significantly higher CBD stone clearance rate for pre-ERCP+LC than LCBDE+LC. A similar result was found in the subgroup analysis of patients with confirmed CBD stones. A significantly lower postoperative bile leakage rate was found for pre-ERCP+LC than LCBDE+LC in all 12 RCTs and in the subgroup of patients with confirmed CBD stones. However, a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis was found in pre-ERCP+LC and in the subgroup of patients with confirmed CBD stones. LCBDE+LC was superior to pre-ERCP+LC in terms of the overall hospital stay. No significant differences were found in morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-ERCP+LC is associated with a higher CBD stone clearance rate, lower postoperative bile leakage rate, and higher rate of pancreatitis. LCBDE+LC might help to shorten the hospital stay. Further studies on this topic are recommended.

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.

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Is a Safe and Effective Strategy for Elderly Patients

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely used to remove common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, surgery is not considered as the first treatment choice for elderly patients with CBD stones because of the potential risk of postoperative complications. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficiency of LCBDE for elderly patients.

METHODS

From April 2011 to October 2016, 265 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE. We performed a retrospective study and divided these patients into 2 groups. The younger group was younger than 70 years old (n = 179), and the elderly group was 70 years old or older (n = 86). We compared patient demographics, clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications, and incidence of recurrent stone between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The elderly patients had higher preoperative morbidity of chronic diseases, such as pulmonary diseases, heart diseases, arterial hypertension, and abdominal operation history ( P < .05). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate to open surgery, total cost, overall complications, and incidence of recurrent stone ( P > .05).

CONCLUSION

LCBDE can also be carried out as a safe and effective approach to remove CBD stones in elderly patients, although they have higher risk of chronic diseases.