Management of common bile duct stones by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic sphincterotomy: pre-, per- or postoperative sphincterotomy?

One-Stage Intraoperative ERCP combined with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Two-Stage Preoperative ERCP Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Management of Gallbladder with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones, known as cholecystocholedocholithiasis, are clinically prevalent. There is currently no consensus on sequential versus simultaneous management approaches, and, if simultaneous, which approach to adopt. This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) versus two-stage ERCP followed by LC for treating concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in five databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, VIP, and Wanfang, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and retrospective studies published up to February 2024. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. The primary outcomes were CBD stone clearance rate and postoperative complications morbidity. Secondary outcomes included conversion to other procedures and length of hospital stay. Statistical analyses were performed using R (v.4.3.2) with weighted mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies involving 2120 patients have been included, with 898 patients receiving single-stage and 1222 patients undergoing two-stage treatment. Of these studies, 9 were RCTs and 8 were retrospective cohort study. The one-stage group demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of CBD stone clearance (OR = 2.07, p = 0.0004), overall morbidity (OR = 0.35, p < 0.0001), post-operative pancreatitis (OR = 0.49, p = 0.006), conversion to other procedures (OR = 0.38, p = 0.0006), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.6456, 95% CI - 3.5776; - 1.7136, p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in post-operative cholangitis (OR = 0.44, p = 0.12), post-operative bleeding (OR = 0.76, p = 0.47), or bile leakage (OR = 1.28, p = 0.54).

CONCLUSION

For patients with concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones, the one-stage approach combining ERCP and LC appears safer and more effective, with advantages including higher stone clearance rates, reduced postoperative complications (particularly pancreatitis), shorter hospital stays, fewer residual stones, and decreased need for additional procedures. However, additional high-quality clinical trials are needed to establish the optimal treatment approach for various patient scenarios.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Stone clearance and risk factors for failure in laparoscopic transcystic exploration of the common bile duct

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become a gold standard globally. At the time of surgery, 5 to 10% of patients have coexisting stones in the common bile duct (CBD). There are several alternatives in treating these patients. We have chosen to try to extract the CBD stones at the primary operation by laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration.

METHODS

During the years 1994-2002 laparoscopic attempt of exploration of the CBD was made in 207 patients. Data was prospectively collected in a database, and was analyzed using unconditional logistic regression for risk factor analysis.

RESULTS

In 155 of the 207 patients an attempt of transcystic CBD exploration was made and it was successful in 132 cases (85%). The median operating time was 184 minutes (range 89-384 minutes) and the median postoperative hospital stay was one day (range 1-31 days). The odds ratio for failure in stone clearance among patients with a bile duct diameter greater than 6 mm was 6.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-54.61) compared to patients with a bile duct diameter of 6 mm or less. There was a significant threefold increase in risk among patients with stones of greater than 5 mm diameter compared to patients with stones 5 mm or less.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic transcystic exploration of the CBD had a high frequency of stone clearance and low morbidity in the present study. Moreover, large stones are a risk factor for failure in stone clearance.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

10% to 18% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct (CBD) stones. Treatment options for these stones include pre- or post-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or open or laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the management of CBD stones by four approaches: (1) ERCP versus open surgical bile duct clearance. (2) Pre-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (3) Post-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (4) ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance in patients with previous cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched key relevant electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant papers, and abstracts of relevant subspecialty meetings until November 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The quality of included trials was assessed by adequacy of allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Published and unpublished data relevant to 12 predefined outcome measures were used to conduct fixed- and random-effects models meta-analyses, with exploration of heterogeneity and use of sensitivity and subgroup analysis where required.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials randomised 1351 patients. Eight trials (n = 760) compared ERCP with open surgical clearance, three (n = 425) compared pre-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance, and two (n = 166) compared post-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance. There were no trials of ERCP versus laparoscopic clearance in patients without an intact gallbladder. Methodology was considered adequate in at least two of three assessable fields in ten trials. A significantly increased number of total procedures (including for complications) per patient was seen in the ERCP arms in all three comparisons with weighted mean differences of 0.62 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.09), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.96), and 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.24), respectively. ERCP was less successful than open surgery in CBD stone clearance (Peto OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.81 to 4.61) with a tendency towards higher mortality (risk difference 1%, 95% CI -1% to 4%). Laparoscopic CBD stone clearance was as efficient as pre- (Peto OR 1.00, CI 0.53 to 1.80) and post-operative ERCP (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.37 to 13.9) and with no significant difference in morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic trials universally reported shorter hospital stays in surgical arms. Insufficient data were reported for cost analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the era of open cholecystectomy, open bile duct surgery was superior to ERCP in achieving CBD stone clearance. In the laparoscopic era, data are close to excluding a significant difference between laparoscopic and ERCP clearance of CBD stones. The use of ERCP necessitates increased number of procedures per patient.

Modified technique of gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a developing country: a 5-year experience

BACKGROUND

Concerns and disadvantages associated with pneumoperitoneum have led surgeons to search for alternative techniques of exposure in laparoscopic surgery. We devised a modified technique of gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on the concept of mechanical retraction of the abdominal wall.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

337 males and 663 females, mean age 52 (7-87) years and mean weight 68 (28-126) kg, with gallstone disease and subjected to this technique were evaluated retrospectively (1992-1997). Towel clips were applied at 3 points on the abdominal wall and it was lifted without creating a pneumoperitoneum. A single surgical team specialized and experienced in biliary surgery performed all the surgeries.

RESULTS

Of 1,000, 46 patients weighing more than 85 kg required a combination of mechanical abdominal wall retraction and minimal pressure pneumoperitoneum (5 mm Hg). The conversion rate was 6% but none were related to limitations of the technique. Technique-related morbidity was minimal. No common bile duct or visceral injury was recorded and mortality was 0%.

CONCLUSION

Gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a feasible, safe and effective alternative to the pneumoperitoneum technique. It probably costs less and is therefore more useful in developing countries. However, it has limitation in overweight patients who are infrequently encountered in our population.

Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct stenting in the management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with common bile duct stones associated with stones in the gall bladder remains controversial.

METHODS

Over the three-year period from 1996 to 1999, patients with cholelithiasis and known choledocholithiasis, or choledocholithiasis found at laparoscopic cholecystectomy, were initially treated by placing a stent across the sphincter of Oddi. The stent was pushed along a guide wire through the cystic duct and then down the common bile duct, before the cystic duct was closed. Subsequently, the stent was used to facilitate performance of a needle knife endoscopic sphincterotomy. The stent was then removed, a cholangiography was performed and the common bile duct was cleared. Patients with persistent jaundice usually had a preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography.

RESULTS

Transcystic stenting was the 'intention-to-treat' basis of therapy for 56 of the patients. The placement of the stent only failed once when the stent became trapped in the cystic duct. Complications of the operation included: pain and jaundice (n = 2), cholangitis (n = 1), and pulmonary embolus (n = 1). The median postoperative hospitalization was 2 days (range: 1-15). Five further patients had common bile duct stones removed via a choledochotomy; a stent was placed through the choledochotomy before its closure. The selective common bile duct cannulation rate at the first endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography, was 98%. A second endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography was required in 15% of patients. The only complication of all the endoscopic procedures was a single case of mild cholangitis; there were no cases of pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

A treatment option open to all surgeons for non-jaundiced patients with known choledocholithiasis or choledocholithiasis found at operative cholangiogram, is the transcystic stenting of the sphincter of Oddi at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. At a subsequent sitting, the common bile duct can be safely cleared endoscopically using a sphincterotomy facilitated by the stent.