Laparoscopic Choledocholithotomy With a Novel Articulating Forceps

Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy and transductal T-tube insertion with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging and laparoscopic ultrasound: A case report

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy for a large impacted common bile duct (CBD) stone is a challenging procedure because of the technical difficulty and the possibility of postoperative complications, even in this era of minimally invasive surgery. Herein, we present a case of large impacted CBD stones.

CASE SUMMARY

A 71-year-old man showed a distal CBD stone (45 mm × 20 mm) and a middle CBD stone (20 mm × 15 mm) on computed tomography. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography failed due to the large size of the impacted stone and the presence of a large duodenal diverticulum. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy was decided, and we used a near-infrared indocyanine green fluorescence scope to detect and expose the supraduodenal CBD more accurately. Then, the location, size, and shape of the stones were detected using a laparoscopic intraoperative ultrasound. The CBD was opened with a 2-cm-sized vertical incision. After irrigating several times, two CBD stones were removed with the Endo BabcockTM. T-tube insertion was done for postoperative cholangiography and delayed the removal of remnant sludge. The patient had no postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy by transcholedochal approach and transductal T-tube insertion is a safe and feasible option for large-sized impacted CBD stones.

Surgical (Open and laparoscopic) management of large difficult CBD stones after different sessions of endoscopic failure: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

For complicated common bile duct stones (CBDS) that cannot be extracted by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), management can be safely by open or laparoscopic CBD exploration (CBDE). The study aimed to assess these surgical procedures after endoscopic failure.

Methods

We analyzed 85 patients underwent surgical management of difficult CBDS after ERCP failure, in the period from 2013 to 2018.

Results

Sixty-seven (78.8%) and 18(21.2%) of our patients underwent single and multiple ERCP sessions respectively. An impacted large stone was the most frequent cause of ERCP failure (60%). Laparoscopic CBDE(LCBDE), open CBDE(OCBDE) and the converted cases were 24.7% (n = 21), 70.6% (n = 60), and 4.7% (n = 4) respectively. Stone clearance rate post LCBDE and OCBDE reached 95.2% and 95% respectively, Eleven (12.9%) of our patients had postoperative complications without mortality. By comparing LCBDE and OCBDE; there was a significant association between the former and longer operative time. On comparing, T-tube and 1ry CBD closure in both OCBDE and LCBDE, there was significantly longer operative time, and post-operative hospital stays in the former. Furthermore, in OCBDE group, choledocoscopy had an independent direction to 1ry CBD repair and significant association with higher stone clearance rate, shorter operative time, and post-operative hospital stay.

Conclusion

Large difficult CBDS can be managed either by open surgery or laparoscopically with acceptable comparable outcomes with no need for multiple ERCP sessions due to their related morbidities; furthermore, Open choledocoscopy has a good impact on stone clearance rate with direction towards doing primary repair that is better than T-tube regarding operative time and post-operative hospital stay.

•

Large difficult CBD stones can be managed either by open surgery or laparoscopically with acceptable comparable outcomes.

•

No need for multiple ERCP sessions due to their related morbidities.

•

Open choledocoscopy has a good impact on stone clearance rate with direction towards doing primary repair.

•

Primary repair is better than T-tube regarding operative time and post-operative hospital stay.

Surgical (Open and laparoscopic) management of large difficult CBD stones after different sessions of endoscopic failure: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

For complicated common bile duct stones (CBDS) that cannot be extracted by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), management can be safely by open or laparoscopic CBD exploration (CBDE). The study aimed to assess these surgical procedures after endoscopic failure.

Methods

We analyzed 85 patients underwent surgical management of difficult CBDS after ERCP failure, in the period from 2013 to 2018.

Results

Sixty-seven (78.8%) and 18(21.2%) of our patients underwent single and multiple ERCP sessions respectively. An impacted large stone was the most frequent cause of ERCP failure (60%). Laparoscopic CBDE(LCBDE), open CBDE(OCBDE) and the converted cases were 24.7% (n = 21), 70.6% (n = 60), and 4.7% (n = 4) respectively. Stone clearance rate post LCBDE and OCBDE reached 95.2% and 95% respectively, Eleven (12.9%) of our patients had postoperative complications without mortality. By comparing LCBDE and OCBDE; there was a significant association between the former and longer operative time. On comparing, T-tube and 1ry CBD closure in both OCBDE and LCBDE, there was significantly longer operative time, and post-operative hospital stays in the former. Furthermore, in OCBDE group, choledocoscopy had an independent direction to 1ry CBD repair and significant association with higher stone clearance rate, shorter operative time, and post-operative hospital stay.

Conclusion

Large difficult CBDS can be managed either by open surgery or laparoscopically with acceptable comparable outcomes with no need for multiple ERCP sessions due to their related morbidities; furthermore, Open choledocoscopy has a good impact on stone clearance rate with direction towards doing primary repair that is better than T-tube regarding operative time and post-operative hospital stay.

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.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of 4 Combinations of Laparoscopic and Intraoperative Techniques for Management of Gallstone Disease With Biliary Duct Calculi: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

Several techniques are used for surgical treatment of gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi, but the safety and efficacy of these approaches have not been compared.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of 4 surgical approaches to gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI-Web of Science databases, articles published between 1950 and 2017 and searched from August 12, 2017, to September 14, 2017. Search terms used were LCBDE, LC, preoperative, ERCP, postoperative, period, cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic, retrograde, rendezvous, intraoperative, one-stage, two-stage, single-stage, gallstone, gallstones, calculi, stone, therapy, treatment, therapeutics, surgery, surgical, procedures, clinical trials as topic, random, and allocation in several logical combinations.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing at least 2 of the following strategies: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC); LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCDBE); LC plus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (IntraERCP); and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to show the probability that each approach would be the best for each outcome.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were the safety to efficacy ratio using overall mortality and morbidity rates as the main indicators of safety and the success rate as an indicator of efficacy. Secondary outcomes were acute pancreatitis, biliary leak, overall bleeding, operative time, length of hospital stay, total cost, and readmission rate.

Results

The 20 trials comprised 2489 patients (and 2489 procedures). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP had the highest probability of being the most successful (SUCRA, 87.2%) and safest (SUCRA, 69.7%) with respect to morbidity. All approaches had similar results regarding overall mortality. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LCBDE was the most successful for avoiding overall bleeding (SUCRA, 83.3%) and for the shortest operative time (SUCRA, 90.2%) and least total cost (SUCRA, 98.9%). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP was the best approach for length of hospital stay (SUCRA, 92.7%). Inconsistency was found in operative time (indirect estimate, 19.05; 95% CI, 2.44-35.66; P = .02) and total cost (indirect estimate, 17.06; 95% CI, 3.56-107.21; P = .04). Heterogeneity was observed for success rate (τ, 0.8), operative time (τ, >1), length of stay (τ, >1), and total cost (τ, >1).

Conclusions and Relevance

The combined LC and IntraERCP approach had the greatest odds to be the safest and appears to be the most successful. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LBCDE appears to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis but may be associated with a higher risk of biliary leak.

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.