Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of complicated biliary calculus: A PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews and meta-analysis

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Holmium laser Lithotripsy and Laparoscopic Bile Duct Exploration for Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (LHLL) has been used to treat bile duct stones with unclear outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the LHLL and laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) efficacy and safety in treating bile duct stones.

METHODS

The correlational studies were searched databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify eligible studies from inception to July 2022. The dichotomous and continuous outcomes were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software helped in data analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1,890 patients, primarily from China, were included. The results indicated that operation time (WMD = - 26.94; 95% CI:(- 34.30, - 19.58); P < 0.00001), estimated blood loss (WMD = - 17.97; 95% CI: (- 22.94, - 13.00); P = 0.002), rate of residual stone (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: (0.10, 0.23); P < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (WMD = - 2.88; 95% CI:(- 3.80, - 1.96); P < 0.00001) and time to bowel function recovery (WMD = - 0.59; 95% CI: (- 0.76, - 0.41); P < 0.00001) had statistically significant differences between the two groups. In postoperative complications, biliary leakage (RD = -0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.05, -0.00); P = 0.02), infection (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.09,- 0.03); P < 0.00001) and Hepatic injury (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.11, - 0.01); P = 0.02) revealed statistically significant differences. However, no significant differences were observed in biliary damage (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.06) and hemobilia (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis indicated that LHLL could be more effective and safer than LBDC. However, these results should be confirmed with a larger sample size and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials.

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.

Percutaneous transhepatic endoscopic lithotripsy of biliary stones with holmium laser for the treatment of recurrent cholangitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transhepatic endoscopic holmium laser biliary lithotripsy (PTBL) to treat recurrent cholangitis due to intra/extrahepatic stones, in patients not candidate for traditional endoscopic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 28 patients (M:F = 19:9, mean age = 65 years, SD = 14) undergoing 43 PTBL for stone-related recurrent cholangitis from January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2019 in a single academic center. Data collected included demographics, location and number of stones, clinical success after one (primary) or more than one (secondary) PTBL, procedure time, duration of hospital stay, number of retreatments and post-procedural complications. Clinical success was defined as the resolution of cholangitis at 30-day follow-up.

RESULTS

PTBL were successful for 23/28 (82%) patients, 16 (57%) with one and 7 (88%) with repeat procedures. The remaining 5 (18%) patients were finally treated with surgery (3, 11%) or further antibiotics (2, 7%). PTBL were performed to treat intrahepatic stones (22 treatments, 51%), extrahepatic (14, 33%), and both intra/extrahepatic (7, 16%). One to three stones were found in 12/43 (28%) PTBL, more than three in 31/43 (72%). Single PTBL was performed in 20/28 (71%) patients, two in 3/28 (11%), three in 3/28 (11%), and four in 2/28 (7%). Median procedure duration was 115 (29-210, 95% CI 101-129) minutes; median hospital stay was 5.5 (2-42) days. The only major complication was the breakage of a guidewire tip, surgically retrieved; minor complications included one aspiration pneumonia and three instances of intrahepatic hemorrhage, treated conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

PTBL was clinically successful in the 82% of patients not candidate for endoscopic treatment, with a low complication rate.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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