Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? Ann Surg. 2013;257:54-66. [PMID: 23059495 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e318268314b]

Application of laparoscopic backtracking full-thickness continuous everting suture for non-AOSC choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Based on the current trend of increasing incidence of choledocholithiasis, it is of great significance to explore the closure method of the common bile duct during laparoscopic choledocholithotomy.

METHODS

Backtracking full-thickness continuous everting suture was selected for primary closure of the common bile duct suture, while traditional T-tube drainage was selected for the control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce baseline differences between the two groups.

RESULT

The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative recovery speed, postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, recurrence rate of bile duct stones, and hospitalization time in the primary closure group were all less than those in the T-tube drainage group.

CONCLUSION

Under certain conditions, backtracking full-thickness continuous everting suture could benefit patients with choledocholithiasis compared with traditional T-tube drainage.

T‑tube versus internal drainage tube in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

The 203 patients who underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into internal drainage tube group (n=87) and T-tube group (n=116). Total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase (AST), aspartate aminotransferase (ALT), the diameter of common bile duct, number of stones, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Possible influencing factors were selected as independent variables, and the operation mode was selected as the dependent variable for multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis. There were no significant differences in the sex, age, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, AST, ALT, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative biliary leaks between the two groups (P>0.05). The diameter of the common bile duct was smaller and the incidence of multiple stones in the common bile duct was lower in the internal drainage tube group compared with that in the T-tube group (P<0.05). The results of multifactor unconditional logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the diameter of the common bile duct and the number of stones in the common bile duct were associated with the operation mode as influencing factors. In conclusion, Patients with multiple stones in the common bile duct or with a wide diameter of the common bile duct are more likely to have T-tube placed rather than an internal drainage tube.

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).

A Retrospective Study on the Three-Port Technique of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for the Management of Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is convenient in treating cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis due to its advantage of accelerated recovery. This retrospective study aimed to summarize the experience of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis treatment via three-port approach of LCBDE in Eastern China.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis between July 2019 and October 2021 were included. Patients who received LC+LCBDE+primary suturing of the common bile duct (CBD) via a three-port approach were assigned to the LCBDE-P group, and those who received LC+LCBDE+T-tube drainage of CBD comprised the LCBDE-T group. The measurement data were compared between the two groups. P-values <0.05 indicated statistical significance.

Results

A total of 88 patients were divided into two groups: LCBDE-P (n=50) and LCBDE-T (n=38). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that LCBDE-P is associated with a shorter length of stay (OR=0.115, 95% CI: 0.040-0.329, P<0.001) and lower hospitalization costs (OR=0.120, 95% CI: 0.041-0.357, P<0.001). No significant differences between the two groups were detected in the operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, clearance rate of CBD stones, postoperative liver function, and postoperative complications (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The three-port approach of LCBDE is a safe and feasible strategy for managing cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Compared to LCBDE-T, LCBDE-P reduces the length of hospital stay and medical costs during hospitalization.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: 8-Year Experience at a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) is used to treat cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to investigate the safety, effectiveness and generalisability of LTCBDE in patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis based on our LTCBDE experience within 8 years.

METHODS

Four hundred patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis (including 62 of cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis with common bile duct no-dilatation) treated with LTCBDE at a single centre from January 2014 to February 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. They were divided into the first 200 and last 200 LTCBDE cases. The disease characteristics, cystic duct incision methods, surgical outcomes and follow-up data were analysed retrospectively. Each patient was followed up for > 3 months.

RESULTS

Four hundred patients underwent LTCBDE, including 188 males and 212 females aged from 15 to 91 years (average age: 56 years). LTCBDE was successful in 377 (94.3%) patients, while treatment was converted to laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube drainage in 23 (5.8%), owing to intraoperative choledochoscope insertion failure. The CBD diameter (10.89 ± 1.76 vs 9.97 ± 2.39, P < 0.05), cystic duct diameter (4.62 ± 1.03 vs 5.03 ± 1.29, P < 0.05), and operation time (164.60 ± 24.30 vs 135.34 ± 30.00, P < 0.05). Residual stones were found in six (1.5%) patients and removed during the second operation; post-operative bile leakage was found in one (0.3%) patient, who was discharged safely after the second operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase I LTCBDE is safe and effective in treating cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. With continuous technological advances, LTCBDE has been effectively promoted and applied.

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.

Identification of risk factors involved in recurrence after common bile duct stone removal with ERCP: A retrospective observational study

Recurrent stone detection is common after endoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS). This study aimed to identify the risk factors for recurrence of CBDS.We retrospectively evaluated 14 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for CBDS. Risk factors for single and multiple recurrent CBDSs were evaluated using logistic regression analysis.Endoscopic and needle-knife precut sphincterotomy was performed in 506 and 112 patients, respectively. There was 1 recurrence in 85 patients (13.8%), 2 recurrences in 23 patients (3.7%), and 3 recurrences in 9 patients (1.5%). According to the multivariate analyses, being older than 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.084, P = .000), concomitant heart disease (OR 2.528, P = .002), concomitant lung disease (OR 1.766, P = .035), a large common bile duct diameter (OR 1.347, P = .000), presence of cholelithiasis (OR 1.752, P = .018), stent (OR 1.794, P = .023), or T-tube placement in the common bile duct (OR 47.385, P = .000), and prolongation of the procedure (OR 1.037, P = .000) increased the risk of recurrence, while having undergone cholecystectomy due to gallstones (OR 1.645, P = .042). The mean stone diameter (P = .059), nitroglycerin use (P = .129), and periampullary diverticulum (P = .891) did not increase the risk of recurrent CBDS.The probability of multiple recurrences after the first recurrence of CBDS increased with age >65 years, concomitant heart/lung diseases, stent/T-tube placement in the common bile duct, a wide common bile duct (≥10 mm), and cholelithiasis.

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.

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.

One-stage versus two-stage management for acute cholecystitis associated with common bile duct stones: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Both one-stage [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)] and two-stage [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by sequential LC] approaches are effective treatment for concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstone. Although many studies compared one-stage with two-stage surgical approach for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, there are very few studies compared the two management strategies for acute cholecystitis (AC) associated with CBD stones.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and December 2019, patients with concomitant AC and CBD stones proposed to early surgery were retrospectively studied. The patients were scheduled to undergo either the one-stage [LCBDE and LC (LCBDE+LC) were undertaken at the same operation] or two-stage [preoperative ERCP for CBD stone clearance was followed by LC 1-3 days later (pre-ERCP+LC)] procedure. The success rate of complete stone clearance, procedure-related complication, hospital stay, hospitalization charges and later biliary complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included in the study, 28 in the one-stage group and 32 in the two-stage group. There was no significant difference in the success rate of complete stone clearance (96.4% vs. 93.8%, P = 1.000), complication rate (10.7% vs. 9.4%, P = 1.000), incidence of pancreatitis (0 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.494) or length of hospital stay (12 ± 5 vs. 11 ± 4 days, P = 0.393) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with concomitant AC and choledocholithiasis proposed to early surgery, both the one-stage (LCBDE+LC) and two-stage (pre-ERCP+LC) approaches were acceptable and broadly comparable in achieving clearance of CBD stones.

Outcomes of laparoscopic bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis with small common bile duct

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LCBDE) is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm. However, for patients with small CBD (CBD diameter ≤ 8 mm), endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the preferred treatment at present, but it also has some drawbacks associated with a series of complications, such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, cholangitis, and duodenal perforation. To date, few studies have been reported that support the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.

AIM

To investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.

METHODS

A total of 257 patients without acute cholangitis who underwent LC + LCBDE for cholecystolithiasis from January 2013 to December 2018 in one institution were reviewed. The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. According to whether the diameter of CBD was larger than 8 mm, 257 patients were divided into large CBD group (n = 146) and small CBD group (n = 111). Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for clinical differences. The demographics, intraoperative data, short-term outcomes, and long-term follow-up outcomes for the patients were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

In total, 257 patients who underwent successful LC + LCBDE were enrolled in the study, 146 had large CBD and 111 had small CBD. The median follow-up period was 39 (14-86) mo. For small CBD patients, the median CBD diameter was 0.6 cm (0.2-2.0 cm), the mean operating time was 107.2 ± 28.3 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBD stones (CBDS), CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (6/111), 3.60% (4/111), 1.80% (2/111), and 0% (0/111), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.4 ± 3.6 d. For large CBD patients, the median common bile duct diameter was 1.0 cm (0.3-3.0 cm), the mean operating time was 115.7 ± 32.0 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBDS, CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (9/146), 1.37% (2/146), 6.85% (10/146), and 0% (0/146), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.7 ± 2.7 d. After propensity score matching, 184 patients remained, and all preoperative covariates except diameter of CBD stones were balanced. Postoperative bile leak occurred in 11 patients overall (5.98%), and no difference was found between the small CBD group (4.35%, 4/92) and the large CBD group (7.61%, 7/92). The incidence of CBDS recurrence did not differ significantly between the small CBD group (2.17%, 2/92) and the large CBD group (6.52%, 6/92).

CONCLUSION

LC + LCBDE is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis patients with small CBD and did not increase the postoperative bile leak rate compared with chole-docholithiasis patients with large CBD.

The Safety and Efficacy of Primary Duct Closure without Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

Background

Primary duct closure (PDC) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely applied for choledocholithiasis. However, there has been controversy over the placement of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) during operation. To date, few studies compare the clinical effect of PDC without and with ENBD. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of PDC without ENBD for choledocholithiasis.

Methods

From January 2016 to December 2018, a total of 164 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled and divided into group A (undergone LCBDE + PDC without ENBD, 81 cases) and group B (undergone LCBDE + PDC with ENBD, 83 cases) in this study. The intraoperative conditions and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

In group A, the time of operation, postoperative first flatus, extubation, antibiotics, and discharge were shorter than in group B (t = -17.775, p = 0.000; t = -7.649, p = 0.000; t = -5.807, p = 0.000; t = -9.247, p = 0.000; t = -9.322, p = 0.000, respectively). Furthermore, intraoperative blood loss was less (t = -2.199, p = 0.029) and hospital costs were lower (t = -6.685, p = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the 2 groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

In patients who meet the screening criteria, PDC without ENBD after LCBDE is safe and effective and worthy of clinical application.

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.

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Primary Closure for Management of Choledocholithiasis: A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison with Conventional T-tube Drainage

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) had become one of the main options for management of choledocholithiasis. This retrospective comparative study aimed to evaluate on the feasibility and advantages of primary closure versus conventional T-tube drainage of the common bile duct (CBD) after laparoscopic choledochotomy. In this retrospective analysis, 100 patients (47 men and 53 women) with choledocholithiasis who underwent primary closure of the CBD (without T-tube drainage) after LCBDE (Group A) were compared with 92 patients who underwent LCBDE with T-tube drainage (Group B). Both groups were evaluated with regard to biliary complications, hospital stay, and recurrence of stones. The mean operation time was 104.12 minutes for Group A and 108.92 minutes for Group B ( P = 0.069). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group A than that in Group B (6.95 days and 12.05 days, respectively; P < 0.001). In Group A, bile leakage occurred in two patients on postoperative Day 2 and Day 3, respectively. In Group B, bile leakage noted in one patient after removal of the T-tube on Day 14 after operation ( P = 1.000). With a median follow-up time of 40 months for both groups, stone recurrence was noted in two patients in Group A and three patients in Group B ( P = 0.672). Primary closure of the CBD is safe and feasible in selected patients after laparoscopic choledochotomy. It results in shorter duration of hospital stay without the need for carrying/care of a T-tube in the postoperative period and similar stone recurrence as that of the conventional method.

Implementation of a simplified self-releasing biliary stent in choledocholithiasis: Experience in 150 cases

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to introduce a simple way of making a self-releasing biliary stent for laparoscopic common biliary duct exploration.

METHODS

To make a self-releasing biliary stent, an absorbable thread was sutured to a J-shape polyurethane biliary stent. After the evacuation of the calculi, a guide wire was placed into the duodenum antegradely, facilitating the insertion of the biliary stent. The pigtail of the stent was left in the duodenum. The choledochotomy was then sutured, with the absorbable thread left outside the bile duct.

RESULTS

This study consisted of 150 patients with choledocholithiasis. The mean operating time was 126 ± 36 minutes. The postoperative hospital stay was 6.5 ± 3.6 days. In 149 cases, the biliary stents were released and discharged out of the body with feces. The inside body time of the rapid-releasing stent was 13.6 ± 2.6 days, and it was 28.0 ± 4.6 days for the slow-releasing stent. One stent was removed by endoscopy. Transient hyperamylasemia occurred in 32 patients (21.3%) without clinical onset of pancreatitis. Bile leakage occurred in three patients (2.0%), all of whom recovered after treatment. Residual lithiasis was found in one patient (0.7%) and was retracted by endoscopy 30 days after the first procedure. No infection or dislocation of the stent was found.

CONCLUSION

For laparoscopic common biliary duct exploration for choledocholithiasis, this method provides an alternative way to make a simple and safe self-releasing stent. It enables the endoscopic retraction of biliary stents to be avoided.

Prevention of biliary fistula after partial hepatectomy by transcystic biliary drainage: randomized clinical trial

Background

Biliary fistula is one of the most common complications after hepatectomy. This study evaluated the effect of transcystic biliary drainage during hepatectomy on the occurrence of postoperative biliary fistula.

Methods

This multicentre RCT was carried out from 2009 to 2016 in nine centres. Patients were randomized to transcystic biliary drainage or no transcystic drainage (control). Patients underwent hepatectomy (more than 2 segments) of non-cirrhotic livers. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of biliary fistula after surgery. Secondary endpoints were morbidity, postoperative mortality, duration of hospital stay, reoperation, readmission to hospital, and complications caused by catheters. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 310 patients were randomized. In intention-to-treat analysis, there were 158 patients in the transcystic group and 149 in the control group. Seven patients were removed from the per-protocol analysis owing to protocol deviations. The biliary fistula rate was 5·9 per cent in intention-to-treat and 6·0 per cent in per-protocol analyses. The rate was similar in the transcystic and control groups (5·7 versus 6·0 per cent; P = 1·000). There were no differences in terms of morbidity (49·4 versus 46·3 per cent; P = 0·731), mortality (2·5 versus 4·7 per cent; P = 0·367) and reoperations (4·4 versus 10·1 per cent; P = 1·000). Median duration of hospital stay was longer in the transcystic group (11 versus 10 days; P = 0·042). The biliary fistula risk was associated with the width and length of the hepatic cut surface.

Conclusion

This randomized trial did not demonstrate superiority of transcystic drainage during hepatectomy in preventing biliary fistula. The use of transcystic drainage during hepatectomy to prevent postoperative biliary fistula is not recommended. Registration number: NCT01469442 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

Protocol for the CREST Choles (Chinese REgistry Study on Treatment of Cholecysto-Choledocholithiasis) study: an ambispective, multicenter, observational, open-cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The best approach for choledocholithiasis remains a matter of debate. Choledocholithiasis is usually treated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) or laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE). Data pertaining to the clinical outcomes of these approaches in the management of patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis in China are limited. An analysis of the economic burden associated with these treatments is lacking. The Chinese REgistry Study on the Treatment of Cholecysto-Choledocholithiasis (CREST Choles) was designed to address these issues in a real-world setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

CREST Choles was an ambispective, multicenter, observational, open-cohort study. A total of 2700 patients undergoing one of the three treatments (EST+laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), LCBDE+LC and LTCBDE+LC) during the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 December 2018 at participating centres were enrolled in the study. Patients with gallstones and confirmed common bile duct stones were included. Data pertaining to demographics, disease history, procedural details, imaging features and follow-up were collected. Follow-up was conducted at least 6 months after enrolment in the study and annual follow-up will be conducted until December 2020. The primary outcome is the rate of adverse outcomes within 3 years postoperatively. Economic analysis (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) would be performed to compare expense across treatments.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained at all participating centres. The registry presented is the first attempt to comprehensively evaluate the cost of treatment for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis in China. Findings are expected to be available in 2020 and will facilitate clinical decision making in such cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02554097.

Causes associated with recurrent choledocholithiasis following therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A large sample sized retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Recurrence of primary choledocholithiasis commonly occurs after complete removal of stones by therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The potential causes of the recurrence of choledocholithiasis after ERCP are unclear.

AIM

To analyze the potential causes of the recurrence of choledocholithiasis after ERCP.

METHODS

The ERCP database of our medical center for the period between January 2007 and January 2016 was retrospectively reviewed, and information regarding eligible patients who had choledocholithiasis recurrence was collected. A 1:1 case-control study was performed for this investigation. Data including general characteristics of the patients, past medical history, ERCP-related factors, common bile duct (CBD)-related factors, laboratory indicators, and treatment was analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysisly.

RESULTS

First recurrence of choledocholithiasis occurred in 477 patients; among these patients, the second and several instance (≥ 3 times) recurrence rates were 19.5% and 44.07%, respectively. The average time to first choledocholithiasis recurrence was 21.65 mo. A total of 477 patients who did not have recurrence were selected as a control group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age > 65 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.556; P = 0.018), combined history of choledocholithotomy (OR = 2.458; P < 0.01), endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (OR = 5.679; P = 0.000), endoscopic sphincterotomy (OR = 3.463; P = 0.000), CBD stent implantation (OR = 5.780; P = 0.000), multiple ERCP procedures (≥2; OR = 2.75; P = 0.000), stones in the intrahepatic bile duct (OR = 2.308; P = 0.000), periampullary diverticula (OR = 1.627; P < 0.01), choledocholithiasis diameter ≥ 10 mm (OR = 1.599; P < 0.01), bile duct-duodenal fistula (OR = 2.69; P < 0.05), combined biliary tract infections (OR = 1.057; P < 0.01), and no preoperative antibiotic use (OR = 0.528; P < 0.01) were independent risk factors for the recurrence of choledocholithiasis after ERCP.

CONCLUSION

Patient age greater than 65 years is an independent risk factor for the development of recurrent choledocholithiasis following ERCP, as is history of biliary surgeries, measures during ERCP, and prevention of postoperative complications.

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.

Biliary tract exploration through a common bile duct incision or left hepatic duct stump in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for left side hepatolithiasis: which is better?: A single-center retrospective case-control study

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) followed by biliary tract exploration is used to treat left-sided hepatolithiasis (LSH). The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of 2 methods of biliary tract exploration in LLH:biliary tract exploration through a common bile duct (CBD) incision (with T-tube drainage) or through the left hepatic duct (LHD) stump (without T-tube drainage).LSH patients (113 patients) were recruited retrospectively in our hospital from December 2008 to January 2016. To compare different methods of biliary tract exploration during LLH, the patients were divided into 2 groups: 41 patients underwent biliary tract exploration through the LHD stump (LHD group), and 72 patients underwent biliary tract exploration through a CBD incision (CBD group). Baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, surgery-related complications, postoperative hospital stay (PHS) and long-term results were compared between the 2 groups.There was no unplanned reoperation in the 2 groups. One patient in the CBD group had a residual stone, which was removed by choledochoscopy 2 months postoperation. Two patients in the LHD group and 3 patients in the CBD group had bile leakage and were cured with abdominal drainage. There were no significant differences in the total operation time, incidence of residual stones and bile leakage between the 2 groups (P > .05). The PHS and the incidence of hypokalemia or hyponatremia in the LHD group were significantly lower than those in the CBD group (P < .05). T-tube-related complications occurred in 13.9% (10/72) of the CBD patients. The mean follow-up period was 37.2 ± 13.8 months. There were no significant differences in the incidence of recurrence stones or cholangitis (P > .05) between the 2 groups.Exploration of the biliary tract through the LHD stump without T-tube drainage is safe with satisfactory short- and long-term results for selected LSH 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.

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.

Single-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: a surgical procedures review

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for simple gallbladder stones, in cases in which common bile duct stones are also present, clinical and diagnostic elements, along with intraoperative findings, define the optimal means of treatment. All available options must be accessible to the surgical team which must necessarily be multidisciplinary and include a surgeon, an endoscopist, and a radiologist in order to identify the best option for a truly personalized surgery. This review describes the different techniques and approaches used based on distinctive recommendations and factors, according to the specific cases treated and the results achieved.

Single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in 101 consecutive patients: choledochotomy, transcystic, and transfistulous approaches

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis is still evolving. Only a few reports of single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) have been published.

METHODS

One hundred and one consecutive patients underwent single-incision LCBDE (SILCBDE) by one surgeon with straight instruments during a 42-month period.

RESULTS

Choledochotomies were performed on 61 patients (60.4%). The success rate of intrahepatic duct exploration was 68.0% (17/25) for patients undergoing transcystic choledochoscopic bile duct explorations following longitudinal cystic ductotomies. The ductal clearance rate was 100%. Eighteen procedures (17.8%) were converted, including one open surgery. Nineteen patients (18.8%) experienced 26 episodes of complications; the majority (19 episodes) were classified as Clavien-Dindo grade I. Excluding those patients with Mirizzi syndrome (McSherry type II), multivariate logistic regressions showed that patients who were older or had complicated cholecystitis had higher procedure conversion rates and that higher modified APACHE II scores, higher white blood cell counts, and longer operative times were independent risk factors for complications. Based on operative times, 20 successful SILCBDEs were needed to get through the learning phase. A higher transcystic approach rate (46.5 vs. 8.3%; P < 0.01) and a shorter operative time (207 ± 62 vs. 259 ± 66 min; P < 0.01) were observed in the experienced phase. Compared with our early series of multi-incision LCBDE, the SILCBDE group had a higher bile duct stone clearance rate (100 vs. 94.4%; P < 0.05) and a higher proportion of patients with concomitant acute cholecystitis (59.6 vs. 22.2%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with a 100% ductal clearance rate is possible following an algorithm for various approaches. SILCBDE is feasible under a low threshold for procedure conversion. A transcystic approach should be tried first if indicated, and a longitudinal cystic ductotomy to the cystocholedochal junction is beneficial. Prospective, randomized trials comparing single-incision and multi-incision LCBDE are anticipated.

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.

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.

Advances of recurrent risk factors and management of choledocholithiasis

Gallstone disease is a common and frequently occurring disease in human, and it is the main disease among the digestive system diseases. The incidence of gallstone disease in western countries is about 5%-22%, and common bile duct stones (CBDS) accounts for 8%-20%. CBDS easily lead to biliary obstruction, secondary cholangitis, pancreatitis, and obstructive jaundice, even endanger life. Therefore, it needs timely treatment once diagnosed. The recurrence of choledocholithiasis after bile duct stones clearance involves complicated factors and cannot be completely elaborated by a single factor. The risk factors for recurrence of choledocholithiasis include bacteria, biliary structure, endoscopic and surgical treatment, and inflammation. The modalities for management of choledocholithiasis are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic or open common bile duct exploration, dissolving solutions, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous radiological interventions, electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy. We compare the different benefits between surgery and ERCP. And finally, we make a summary of the current strategy for reducing the recurrence of CBDS and future perspectives for CBDS management.

Five hundred consecutive laparoscopic common bile duct explorations: 5-year experience at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has gained wide popularity in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Bile leakage remains a major cause of postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study was to report 5-year results of 500 LCBDEs and identify risk factors associated with bile leakage.

METHODS

Five hundred consecutive LCBDEs performed in one institution from September 2011 to June 2016 were reviewed. Patients' clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Univariable and multivariable analysis of bile leakage was performed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

We found stones (n = 388) or bile sludge (n = 71) in 459 patients (92%) on exploration, leaving 41 patients (8%) without stones. Operative time was 128 min in the first 250 LCBDEs, and this decreased to 103 min in the second 250 LCBDEs (P = 0.0004). Four hundred and eight (82%) procedures were completed with primary closure after choledochotomy; the rate of primary closure increased significantly in the second 250 patients compared with the first (88 vs 76%; P = 0.0005), whereas T-tube placement (2 vs 6%; P = 0.0225) and transcystic approach (7 vs 12%; P = 0.0464) decreased, respectively. Stone clearance was successful in 495 patients (99%). Overall morbidity was 5%, and bile leakage occurred in 17 patients (3.4%). Two patients died from bile leakage. The median follow-up was 24 months with stone recurrence occurred in two patients and bile duct stricture in one patient. Univariable analysis identified diameter of the common bile duct (CBD), stone clearance, and T-tube insertion as risk factors related to bile leakage. Multivariable analysis taking these three factors into account identified non-dilated CBD (risk ratio (RR) = 9.87; P = 0.007) and failure in stone clearance (RR = 11.88; P = 0.024) as significant risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Bile leakage following LCBDE is associated with diameter of the CBD and stone clearance. LCBDE would be safer in proficient laparoscopic surgeons with a careful selection of 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.

Laparoscopic transfistulous bile duct exploration for Mirizzi syndrome type II: a simplified standardized technique

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic treatment is a viable option for Mirizzi syndrome (MS) type I, but it is not recommended for MS type II (McSherry classification). We introduce laparoscopic transfistulous bile duct exploration (LTBDE) as a simplified standardized technique for MS type II.

METHODS

Eleven consecutive LTBDEs performed by a surgeon for MS type II were analyzed retrospectively, including three successful single-incision LTBDEs (SILTBDEs). Transfistulous stone removal followed by primary closure of gallbladder remnant and partial cholecystectomy was performed. An additional choledochotomy was required in one patient.

RESULTS

Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and operative findings confirmed the diagnosis of MS in five and five patients, respectively. Preoperative ultrasound implied the remaining diagnosis. The operative time was 270.5 ± 65.5 min. The stone clearance rate was 100 %. The postoperative length of hospital stay was 5.1 ± 2.2 days. There was no open conversion. Overall complications comprised two postoperative transient hyperamylasemia (18.2 %) and one superficial wound infection (9.1 %). Compared with the other group of 92 patients who underwent laparoscopic bile duct exploration, the MS type II group had a significantly younger age, a higher jaundice rate, a lower single-incision laparoscopic approach rate, a lower choledochotomy rate, longer operative time, a lower postoperative pethidine dose, and a longer total length of hospital stay. The average follow-up period was 12.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LTBDE is safe and efficacious for MS type II including Csendes type IV. A high suspicion of MS is critical. SILTBDE is feasible in selected cases. Long-term follow-up is mandatory.

Primary Closure Versus Biliary Drainage After Laparoscopic Choledocotomy: Results of a Comparative Study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of primary closure (PC) and biliary drainage (BD), after the laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones by choledocotomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2014, 102 patients underwent laparoscopy for lithiasis of the CBD. Intraoperative cholangiography was systematically performed, followed by choledocoscopy, depending on the size of the CBD.

RESULTS

Eighty (78.4%) of the 102 patients underwent laparoscopic stone extraction by choledocotomy, and were assigned to 2 groups: PC (group A, n=25), and BD (group B, n=55). Groups A and B were comparable in terms of age (62.3±26.1 vs. 66.0±19.3 y; P=0.53), the percentage of women (72.0% vs. 76.4%; P=0.68), body mass index (25.9±6.1 vs. 26.9±4.4 kg/m; P=0.52), and CBD diameter (11.6±3.1 vs. 12.1±3.8 mm; P=0.59). The mean durations of surgery and of hospital stay were significantly shorter in group A: 179±38 versus 211±57 minutes (P=0.02) and 5.4±2.0 versus 8.4±3.2 days (P<0.001). Groups A and B were comparable in terms of serious postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo scores of 3, 4, and 5): 2 versus 4 (P=1). In group B, bile drain removal was complicated by choleperitoneum in 3 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

With shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, equivalent postoperative morbi-mortality, and an absence of the specific morbidity due to bile drainage, PC may be considered a safe and feasible option for the laparoscopic management of CBD stones by choledocotomy.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and benefits of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) compared with open approach (OCBDE) in cirrhotic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2012, a total of 113 cirrhotic patients with choledocholithiasis underwent common bile duct (CBD) explorations in our department. There were two groups of patients: A:LCBDE (n = 61) and B:OCBDE (n = 52). Patients' demographic characteristics, surgical data, postoperative outcomes, and long-term results were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in the demographic characteristics or preoperative status. The transcystic approach was successfully performed in 52 (46.0%) patients (group A:34, group B:20), whereas choledochotomy was successful in 59 (54.0%) patients (group A:27, group B:32). The differences between group A and group B in terms of surgical time (124.9 ± 34.2 minutes versus 132.6 ± 48.6 minutes, P = .323), stone clearance rate (93.4% versus 94.2%, P > .05), short-term complication rate (9.8% versus 13.4%, P = .547), and recurrent stone rate (6.6% versus 5.8%, P > .05) were not statistically significant. However, group A suffered less blood loss [95 (60-200) mL versus 200 (90-450) mL, P < .001] and shorter length of hospital stay (4.7 ± 2.5 days versus 11.3 ± 3.1 days, P < .001) than group B. In the LCBDE group, 4 (6.6%) patients were converted due to heavy inflammation and severe adhesions. No mortality, biliary injury, or stricture occurred during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

LCBDE can be safely performed in patients with Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis and choledocholithiasis, with considerable efficiency, minimal short-term complications, and acceptable long-term outcomes. LCBDE has the advantages over open CBD exploration of less bleeding and reduced length of hospital stay.

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.

The Surgical Management of Concomitant Gallbladder and Common Bile Duct Stones

Background. The management of choledocholithiasis has evolved from open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE) to therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Each entails a degree of difficulty. Aim. To review 5-year results of bile duct exploration in an UGI unit. Methods. Common bile duct explorations (CBDEs) performed between January 2008 and January 2013 were identified from a prospectively collected clinical audit system and results reviewed retrospectively. Results. 216 CBDEs were performed, 119 (55%) as an emergency and 52 (24%) following failed ERCP. Open CBDE (OCBDE) was performed primarily in 34/216 (16%) patients and attempted laparoscopically in 182 (84%). Fifty nine (32%) Laparoscopic CBDEs (LCBDEs) were converted to OCBDE. Of the remaining 123 LCBDEs, 51 (41%) primary choledochotomies and 72 (59%) primary transcystic CBDEs (TC-CBDEs) were performed. Forty nine (68%) TC-CBDEs were considered successful and 23 (32%) failed. Fifteen failed TC-CBDEs were converted to a successful laparoscopic choledochotomy. Ductal clearance was achieved in 187/216 (87%) patients and retained stones were identified in 20/123 (16%) LCBDEs. Complications occurred in 52/216 (24%) patients. There were 8/216 (4%) bile leaks requiring further intervention. Postoperative ERCP was carried out in 32/216 (15%) patients and 9/216 (4%) required relaparoscopy/laparotomy. No patient died. Conclusions. Successful management of choledocholithiasis requires a breadth of laparoscopic and endoscopic expertise.

Eleven years of primary closure of common bile duct after choledochotomy for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The choice of surgical technique to extract stones from the common bile duct (CBD) depends on local experience, anatomical characteristics and also on the size, location and number of stones. Most authors consider choledochotomy an alternative to failed transcystic exploration, although some use it exclusively. Although the CBD is traditionally closed with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy, its use is associated with 11.3-27.5 % morbidity. This study examined the efficacy of laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) with primary closure for the treatment of CBD stones using intraoperative cholangiography (IOC).

METHODS

Retrospective study of 160 patients who underwent LCBDE with primary closure after choledochotomy between January 2001 and December 2012.

RESULTS

The diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was definitively made in all cases by IOC. The overall complication rate was 15 % and the biliary complication rate was 7.5 %. Bile leakage was reported in 11 patients (6.8 %). In over half the cases (63.6 %), no further action was required and the leak closed spontaneously. Six patients were reoperated (3.75 %), two for bile peritonitis and four for haemoperitoneum. The success rate for stone clearance was 96.2 %. The mortality rate and CBD stricture rate were 0 %.

CONCLUSION

Primary closure after choledochotomy to clear stones from the CBD is a safe technique that confers excellent results and allows one-stage treatment.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

With advances in laparoscopic instrumentation and acquisition of advanced laparoscopic skills, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is technically feasible and increasingly practiced by surgeons worldwide. Traditional practice of suturing the dochotomy with T-tube drainage may be associated with T-tube-related complications. Primary duct closure (PDC) without a T-tube has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement (TTD) after LCBDE. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PDC when compared to TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage. Studies were reviewed for the primary outcome measures: overall postoperative complications, postoperative biliary-specific complications, re-interventions, and postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes assessed were: operating time, median hospital expenses, and general complications.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies comparing PDC and TTD qualified for inclusion in our meta-analysis, with a total of 1770 patients. PDC showed significantly better results when compared to TTD in terms of postoperative biliary peritonitis (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.76, P = 0.02), operating time (WMD, -22.27, 95% CI -33.26 to -11.28, P < 0.00001), postoperative hospital stay (WMD, -3.22; 95% CI -4.52 to -1.92, P < 0.00001), and median hospital expenses (SMD, -1.37, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.77, P < 0.00001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly decreased in the primary duct closure with internal biliary drainage (PDC + BD) group when compared to TTD group (WMD, -2.68; 95% CI -3.23 to -2.13, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrates that PDC after LCBDE is feasible and associated with fewer complications than TTD. Based on these results, primary duct closure may be considered as the optimal procedure for dochotomy closure after LCBDE.

Risk factors, treatment and impact on outcomes of bile leakage after hemihepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for bile leakage after hemihepatectomy are unknown.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database review identified patients undergoing hemihepatectomy between 1 January 2009 and 30 September 2014. Patients were divided into B/C and non-B/C bile leakage groups. Risk factors for bile leakage were predicted and assessments of their impact on patients were made.

RESULTS

Bile leakage occurred in 91 of the 297 patients (30.6%); 64 cases were classified as grade B bile leakage (21.5%) and three cases as grade C bile leakage (1.0%). Multivariate analysis confirmed that elevated preoperative alanine transaminase (ALT), positive bile culture during surgery, hilar bile duct plasty, bilioenteric anastomosis and laparoscopic surgery were risk factors for B/C grade bile leakage (P < 0.05). Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) were protective factors for B/C grade bile leakage (P < 0.05). PTBD, ENBD and Kehr's T-tube drainage could reduce the drainage volume and duration of drainage after bile leakage (P < 0.05). The incidence of wound infection, abdominal infection, major complications and the Clavien classification system score in the B/C bile leakage group were higher than those in the non-B/C bile leakage group (P < 0.05). Patients in the B/C bile leakage group also required prolonged hospitalization (P < 0.05). The mortality of two groups was similar (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patient with elevated preoperative ALT, positive bile cultures during surgery, hilar bile duct plasty, bilioenteric anastomosis and laparoscopic surgery are more likely to complicate bile leakage. We should use biliary drainage such as preoperative PTBD, ENBD or intraoperative Kehr's T-tube drainage to reduce and treat bile leakage in patients with high risk of bile leakage.