Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with gallstones and choledocholithiasis

Biliary complications associated with weight loss, cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis

Biliary complications like cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis are more common in bariatric surgery patients due to obesity and rapid weight loss. Patients with a body mass index > 40 face an eightfold risk of developing cholelithiasis. Post-bariatric surgery, especially after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), 30% of patients develop biliary disease due to rapid weight loss. The aim of this review is to analyze the main biliary complications that occur after bariatric surgery and its management. A review of the literature was conducted mainly from 2010 up to 2023 with regard to biliary complications associated with bariatric patients in SciELO, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Patients undergoing LRYGB have a higher incidence (14.5%) of symptomatic calculi post-surgery compared to those undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy at 4.1%. Key biliary complications within 6 to 12 months post-surgery include: Cholelithiasis: 36%; Biliary colic/dyskinesia: 3.86%; Acute cholecystitis: 0.98%-18.1%; Chronic cholecystitis: 70.2%; Choledocholithiasis: 0.2%-5.7% and Pancreatitis: 0.46%-9.4%. Surgeons need to be aware of these complications and consider surgical treatments based on patient symptoms to enhance their quality of life.

Single stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Lesson learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Choledocholithiasis, a common complication of gallstone disease, poses significant risks including cholangitis and pancreatitis. Various treatment approaches exist, including single-stage and two-stage techniques, with recent literature suggesting advantages of the single-stage approach in terms of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This study evaluates the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC + iERCP) compared to the previously adopted two-stage approach.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing single-stage LC + iERCP for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022). Data on demographics, preoperative assessments, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared with an historical control group undergoing the two-stage approach (LC + preopERCP). Hospitalization costs were also compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 190 patients were included, with 105 undergoing single-stage LC + iERCP. The single-stage approach demonstrated successful completion without cystic duct cannulation, with no conversions to open surgery. Operative time was comparable to the two-stage approach, while hospital stay, and costs were significantly lower in the single-stage group. Complication rates were similar between the groups.

Conclusions

Single-stage LC + iERCP appears to be a feasible, effective, and safe approach for treating cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, offering potential benefits in terms of reduced hospital stay, OR occupation time, and costs compared to the two-stage approach. Integration of this approach into clinical practice warrants consideration, unless there are logistical challenges that cannot be overcome or lack of endoscopic expertise also for treating challenging urgent cases.

Evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, safety and economy of ERCP and LTCBDE in the treatment of common bile duct stones

Objectives: This study further compared the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) approaches in the treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) from the perspective of efficacy, safety and economy.

Methods: The therapeutic efficacy and safety of ERCP and LTCBDE approaches were retrospectively compared. Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinical economics was performed to analyze and evaluate the two approaches.

Results: There was no significant difference in the success rate of surgery and bile stone residue between ERCP and LTCBDE group. The incidence of postoperative complications in ERCP group was significantly higher than that in the LTCBDE group; while the incidence of pancreatitis in the ERCP group was significantly higher than that in the LTCBDE group. There was no significant difference in biliary infection, bile leakage and sepsis between ERCP and LTCBDE groups. In terms of cost, the costs of surgery and nursing were significantly lower, the costs of treatment and sanitary materials were significantly higher in the ERCP group than that in the LTCBDE group. There was no significant difference in the costs of medical examination, laboratory test, medicine cost and total cost between ERCP group and LTCBDE group. The total length of hospital stay, length of hospital stay before surgery and duration of surgery in the ERCP group were significantly lower than that in the LTCBDE group; there was no significant difference in length of hospital stay after surgery between the ERCP and LTCBDE group. The cost-effectiveness ratio of ERCP group was 34171.25, and the cost-effectiveness of LTCBDE group was 34524.25. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the two groups was 51415.

Conclusion: ERCP and LTCBDE approaches had similar therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of CBDS. The safety of LTCBDE approach is superior to that of ERCP approach for the treatment of CBDS. ERCP approach is more economical in the treatment of CBDS than LTCBDE approach.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration in Patients With Previous Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (group A) versus primary LCBDE (group B) for the management of gallbladder and common bile duct stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed in several databases, including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis of operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and gallstone clearance rates was conducted using random-effect models.

RESULTS

Six studies including 642 patients (239 in group A and 403 in group B) were included. The operative time was longer in group A (P=0.02). The overall complication, bile leakage, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, and reoperation were comparable in group A and group B. Similarly, no significant difference was present concerning the incidence of stone clearance, residual stone, and recurrent stone (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

LCBDE is an alternative acceptable procedure when removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic therapy fails.

Quality of Life Outcomes Following Single-stage Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Versus 2-stage Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Management of Cholelithiasis With Choledocholithiasis

INTRODUCTION

With various studies in the literature showing laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration to have equal or similar results when compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) clearance, decision-making in regard to the treatment modality to be used may become debatable. Thus, quality of life (QoL) data may assist both the patient and the clinician in deciding the management of the disease. The present prospective randomized trial was undertaken to compare QoL of patients undergoing treatment with these 2 approaches.

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted March 1, 2013, to September 31, 2016. Consecutive patients with CBD stones were randomized to either laparoscopic CBD exploration with cholecystectomy (group I) and EST followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (group II). Diagnosis was confirmed preoperatively using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and/or endoscopic ultrasound. QoL scores were assessed by World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones were finally recruited (38 patients in group I and 39 patients in group II). The demographic and clinical profiles were similar in both the groups. On EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, there was significant improvement in physical, emotional, and role functioning in both the groups (P<0.01) with no intergroup variation preprocedure or postprocedure. Patients in both the groups reported similar WHOQOL scores with significant improvement postprocedure and minimal intergroup variation. Both the depression and anxiety scores on HADS were comparable between the 2 groups preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage management of patients with gallbladder and CBD stones and EST followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy were similar in terms of improvement in QoL.

Surgical Techniques for the Laparoscopic Treatment of Bile Duct Stones in Patients With a History of Upper Abdominal Operations: Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Few authors have studied applying the laparoscopic approach in patients with previous upper abdominal operations, but no comparison has been made between laparoscopic and open approaches in patients with previous upper abdominal operations. This article aims to introduce surgical techniques and details in treatment to surgeons specialized in minimally invasive surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2010 to January 2018, 460 eligible patients were divided into 3 groups and analyzed retrospectively. Group A: patients with a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent laparoscopy (n=124); group B: patients without a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent laparoscopy (n=140); and group C: patients with a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent an open operation (n=196). Group A was the experimental group; groups B and C served as the control groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between groups A and B. Significant differences were found between groups A and C in estimated blood loss (258.3±67.2 vs. 424.7±103.7 mL, P<0.001), postoperative hospitalization (5.7±2.3 vs. 10.2±3.1 d, P<0.001), and postoperative complications (16.1% vs. 42.9%, P=0.013). The final rate of stones clearance was 100% in 3 groups. The total rate of stone recurrence was 7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy with certain surgical techniques was feasible, effective, and advantageous for patients with previous upper abdominal operations by experienced surgeons. It is necessary for surgeons to have advanced skills and surgical techniques to achieve a successful laparoscopy.

Safety and efficacy of a novel continuous incision technique for laparoscopic transcystic choledocholithotomy

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel continuous incision technique for the cystic duct and the bile duct over the orifice for laparoscopic transcystic choledocholithotomy (LTCL).

METHODS

LTCL was attempted in 103 consecutive patients from January 1998 to March 2015 and was successful in 96 patients. The cystic duct confluence was made by cutting upward from the orifice in 19 patients. The cystic duct was incised downward beyond the orifice to the bile duct in the other 77 patients. Both of these procedures involved LTCL.

RESULTS

LTCL was successful in 96 patients. It failed in seven patients because of large bile duct stones (BDS), left lateral entry of the cystic duct, or the cystic duct's small diameter. The success rates of LTCL were 98% (47/48), 96% (42/44), and 64% (7/11) for patients with BDS <10 mm, 10-20 mm, and ≥20 mm, respectively. The success rate for removing BDS <20 mm was significantly higher than the removal rate for BDS ≥20 mm (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the incidences of complications associated with BDS ≥10 mm and with BDS <10 mm (P = 0.49). In those who underwent successful LTCL, complications occurred in 3 of 23 patients with failed preoperative duodenoscopic sphincterotomy and in 9 of the other 73 patients; the incidence of complications did not significantly differ between these groups (P = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

LTCL is safe and feasible for exploration of the bile duct and removal of BDS <20 mm.

Laparoscopic surgery skills evaluation: analysis based on accelerometers

Background and Objective:

Technical skills assessment is considered an important part of surgical training. Subjective assessment is not appropriate for training feedback, and there is now increased demand for objective assessment of surgical performance. Economy of movement has been proposed as an excellent alternative for this purpose. The investigators describe a readily available method to evaluate surgical skills through motion analysis using accelerometers in Apple's iPod Touch device.

Methods:

Two groups of individuals with different minimally invasive surgery skill levels (experts and novices) were evaluated. Each group was asked to perform a given task with an iPod Touch placed on the dominant-hand wrist. The Accelerometer Data Pro application makes it possible to obtain movement-related data detected by the accelerometers. Average acceleration and maximum acceleration for each axis (x, y, and z) were determined and compared.

Results:

The analysis of average acceleration and maximum acceleration showed statistically significant differences between groups on both the y (P = .04, P = .03) and z (P = .04, P = .04) axes. This demonstrates the ability to distinguish between experts and novices. The analysis of the x axis showed no significant differences between groups, which could be explained by the fact that the task involves few movements on this axis.

Conclusion:

Accelerometer-based motion analysis is a useful tool to evaluate laparoscopic skill development of surgeons and should be used in training programs. Validation of this device in an in vivo setting is a research goal of the investigators' team.

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.

Efficacy of reoperation vs first operation of the biliary tract by laparoscopy in patients with choledocholithiasis

AIM: To compare the efficacy between reoperation and the first operation of the biliary tract by laparoscopy in patients with choledocholithiasis.

METHODS: Clinical data for 136 patients who underwent laparoscopic biliary tract operation at our hospital from January 2009 to October 2013 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS: The rates of conversion to open operation in the reoperation group and the first operation group were 8.6% vs 2.5%, the rates of postoperative complications were 3.8% vs 5.3%, mean operative time was 179.80 min ± 29.82 min vs 176.45 min ± 27.56 min, mean intraoperative blood loss was 53.67 mL ± 27.13 mL vs 46.62 mL ± 28.62 mL, mean volume of postoperative abdominal drainage was 101.17 mL ± 55.21 mL vs 88.20 mL ± 75.52 mL, mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 5.71 d ± 1.31 d vs 5.26 d ± 1.54 d, and mean cost of treatment was 18.1 ± 4.7 thousand Yuan vs 17.0 ± 4.6 thousand Yuan. There were no statistical differences in the above parameters (P > 0.05) between the two groups. Complications in both groups were cured by conservative treatment. Neither stone recurrence nor bile duct stricture was found during the two-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION: There are no differences in efficacy between the reoperation group and the first operation group in patients with the choledocholithiasis. Reoperation of the biliary tract by laparoscopy is feasible and safe for such patients, and a history of prior biliary surgery is not a contraindication for laparoscopy.

Comparison of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration are safe and efficient methods that have recently been used for the treatment of bile duct stones. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and surgical outcomes of the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP+LC).

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups: LCBDE with LC in a single intervention and LC after ERCP.

RESULTS

The success rate of the LCBDE+LC group (96.5%) was found to be higher than for the ERCP+LC group (94.4%). Complication rates of the LCBDE+LC and ERCP+LC group were 7% and 11.1%, respectively. Complications requiring ERCP in the postoperative period after LCBDE+LC have been noted in 3.5% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic CBD exploration provides an alternative therapeutic approach that has less morbidity, is cost-effective, and allows earlier recovery with a reduced period of short-term disability.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration four-task training model: construct validity

BACKGROUND

Training models in laparoscopic surgery allow the surgical team to practice procedures in a safe environment. We have proposed the use of a 4-task, low-cost inert model to practice critical steps of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

METHODS

The performance of 3 groups with different levels of expertise in laparoscopic surgery, novices (A), intermediates (B), and experts (C), was evaluated using a low-cost inert model in the following tasks: (1) intraoperative cholangiography catheter insertion, (2) transcystic exploration, (3) T-tube placement, and (4) choledochoscope management. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to identify differences among the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 14 individuals were evaluated: 5 novices (A), 5 intermediates (B), and 4 experts (C). The results involving intraoperative cholangiography catheter insertion were similar among the 3 groups. As for the other tasks, the expert had better results than the other 2, in which no significant differences occurred. The proposed model is able to discriminate among individuals with different levels of expertise, indicating that the abilities that the model evaluates are relevant in the surgeon's performance in CBD exploration.

CONCLUSIONS

Construct validity for tasks 2 and 3 was demonstrated. However, task 1 was no capable of distinguishing between groups, and task 4 was not statistically validated.