Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

Can ultrasound common bile duct diameter predict common bile duct stones in the setting of acute cholecystitis?

BACKGROUND

Our aim is assessment of ultrasound (US) common bile duct (CBD) diameter to predict the presence of CBD stones in acute cholecystitis (AC).

METHODS

A retrospective review from 2007 to 2011 with codes for ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and AC was conducted.

RESULTS

The incidence of CBD stones was 1.8%. Two hundred forty eight individuals had US+MRCP+ERCP+AC, of which 48 had CBD stones and 200 did not have CBD stones. US CBD diameter range was 3.6 to 19 mm. Ninety percent of MRCPs were negative, and it delayed care by 2.9 days. Mean CBD diameter was narrower in those negative for CBD stones (5.8 vs 7.08; P = .0043). Groups based on diameter ranges <6, 6 to 9.9, and ≥10 mm demonstrated 14%, 14%, and 39% CBD stones, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

US CBD diameter is not sufficient to identify patients at significant risk for CBD stones. MRCP delayed care by 2.9 days. Intraoperative cholangiography may be more effective, based on the low risk of CBD stones in AC.

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.

Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The ideal method for managing concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct (CBD) stones is debatable. The currently preferred method is two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This prospective randomized trial compared the success and cost effectiveness of single- and two-stage management of patients with concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones were randomized to either single-stage laparoscopic CBD exploration and cholecystectomy (group 1) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for endoscopic extraction of CBD stones followed by LC (group 2). Success was defined as complete clearance of CBD and cholecystectomy by the intended method. Cost effectiveness was measured using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

From February 2009 to October 2012, 168 patients were randomized: 84 to the single-stage procedure (group 1) and 84 to the two-stage procedure (group 2). Both groups were matched with regard to demographic and clinical parameters. The success rates of laparoscopic CBD exploration and ERCP for clearance of CBD were similar (91.7 vs. 88.1 %). The overall success rate also was comparable: 88.1 % in group 1 and 79.8 % in group 2 (p = 0.20). Direct choledochotomy was performed in 83 of the 84 patients. The mean operative time was significantly longer in group 1 (135.7 ± 36.6 vs. 72.4 ± 27.6 min; p ≤ 0.001), but the overall hospital stay was significantly shorter (4.6 ± 2.4 vs. 5.3 ± 6.2 days; p = 0.03). Group 2 had a significantly greater number of procedures per patient (p < 0.001) and a higher cost (p = 0.002). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of postoperative wound infection rates or major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Single- and two-stage management for uncomplicated concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones had similar success and complication rates, but the single-stage strategy was better in terms of shorter hospital stay, need for fewer procedures, and cost effectiveness.

Preoperative factors predicting poor outcomes following laparoscopic choledochotomy: a multivariate analysis study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for common bile duct stones varies procedurally from a transcystic approach to laparoscopic choledochotomy (LC) with or without biliary drainage. However, LC is a difficult procedure with higher documented morbidity than the transcystic approach. We retrospectively investigated risk factors for adverse outcomes of LC.

METHODS

We used logistic regression models to assess 4 categories of adverse outcomes: overall, complications, conversion to open operation and failed surgical clearance. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to evaluate diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

We included 201 patients who underwent LC in our analysis. Adverse outcomes occurred in 48 (23.9%) patients, complications occurred in 43 (21.4%), retained stones were observed in 8 (4%), and conversion to laparotomy occurred in 7 (3.5%). Multivariate analysis showed that total bilirubin (BIL) and the presence of medical risk factors (MRFs) were significant predictors of adverse outcomes and complications. We calculated the probability of adverse outcomes (p) using the following formula: logit(p) = 0.977 (MRFs) + 0.014 (BIL) - 2.919. p = EXP (logit(p)) ÷ [1+EXP (logit(p))]. According to their logit(p), all patients were divided into a low-risk group (logit(p) ≤ -1.32, n = 130) and a high-risk group (logit(p) > -1.32, n = 71). Patients in the low-risk group had about a 1 in 10 chance (12 of 130) of adverse outcomes developing. Of the 71 patients in the high-risk group, 36 (50.7%) experienced adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

High BIL and the presence of MRFs could predict adverse outcomes in patients undergoing LC.

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.

Management of CBD stones in patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a private setting in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been promoted as being equally successful as endoscopic bile duct clearance. Further, if successful it offers the possibility of reducing the number of interventions required and therefore reducing overall costs. However, there is little in the literature that describe current treatment patterns in the Australian environment.

METHODS

Medicare data were obtained for the number of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraoperative cholangiography, laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration, laparoscopic choledochotomy and bile duct exploration, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sphincterotomy and endoscopic biliary stent insertion.

RESULTS

Although there was significant state-to-state variation in the prevalence of laparoscopic bile duct exploration (0.6-3.7%), ERCP remained the predominant method of bile duct clearance in the setting of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (5.4%). Transcystic bile duct exploration is far more common than laparoscopic choledochotomy, which is a rare procedure. This suggests that patients with a dilated common bile duct and large or multiple stones are typically undergoing ERCP rather than laparoscopic bile duct clearance.

CONCLUSION

Despite the apparent attractiveness of laparoscopic bile duct exploration at the time of cholecystectomy, ERCP remains the most common method of dealing with choledocholithiasis in the setting of an intact gallbladder in Australia.

Minimally invasive treatment of cholecysto-choledocal lithiasis: The point of view of the surgical endoscopist

The rate of choledocholithiasis in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be approximately 10%-33%, depending on the patient’s age. Development of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Laparoscopic Surgery and improvement of diagnostic procedures have influenced new approaches to the management of common bile duct stones in association with gallstones. At present available minimally-invasive treatments of cholecysto-choledocal lithiasis include: single-stage laparoscopic treatment, perioperative endoscopic treatment and endoscopic treatment alone. Published data evidence that, associated endoscopic-laparoscopic approach necessitates increased number of procedures per patient while single-stage laparoscopic treatment is associated with a shorter hospital stay. However, current data does not suggest clear superiority of any one approach with regard to success, mortality, morbidity and cost-effectiveness. Considering the variety of therapeutic options available for management, a critical appraisal and decision-making is required. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/EST should be adopted on a selective basis, i.e., in patients with acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis, severe biliary pancreatitis, ampullary stone impaction or severe comorbidity. In a setting where all facilities are available, decision in the selection of the therapeutic option depends on the patients, the number and size of choledocholithiasis stones, the anatomy of the cystic duct and common bile duct, the surgical history of patients and local expertise.

MRCP is not a cost-effective strategy in the management of silent common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Few formal cost-effectiveness analyses simultaneously evaluate radiographic, endoscopic, and surgical approaches to the management of choledocholithiasis.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the decision analytic software TreeAge, we modeled the initial clinical management of a patient presenting with symptomatic cholelithiasis without overt signs of choledocholithiasis. In this base case, we assumed a 10 % probability of concurrent asymptomatic choledocholithiasis. Our model evaluated four diagnostic/therapeutic strategies: universal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), universal endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), or laparoscopic cholecystectomy with universal intraoperative cholangiogram (LCIOC). All probabilities were estimated from a review of published literature. Procedure and intervention costs were equated with Medicare reimbursements. Costs of hospitalizations were derived from median hospitalization reimbursement for New York State using diagnosis-related groups (DRG). Sensitivity analyses were performed on all cost and probability variables.

RESULTS

The most cost-effective strategy in the diagnosis and management of symptomatic cholelithiasis with a 10 % risk of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis was LCIOC. This was followed by LC alone, MRCP, and ERCP. LC was preferred only when the probability that a retained CBD stone would eventually become symptomatic fell below 15 % or if the probability of technical success of an intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) was less than 35 %. Universal MRCP and ERCP were both more costly and less effective than surgical strategies, even at a high probability of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis. Within the tested range for both procedural and hospitalization-related costs for any of the surgical or endoscopic interventions, LCIOC and LC were always more cost-effective than universal MRCP or ERCP, irrespective of the presence or absence of complications. Varying the cost, sensitivity, and specificity of MRCP had no effect on this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

LC with routine IOC is the preferred strategy in a cost-effectiveness analysis of the management of symptomatic cholelithiasis with asymptomatic choledocholithiasis. MRCP was both more costly and less effective under all tested scenarios.

Synchronous vs sequential laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

AIM: To compare synchronous laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and sequential LC combined with EST for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHODS: A total of 150 patients were included and retrospectively studied. Among these, 70 were selected for the synchronous operation, in which the scheme was endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combined with EST during LC. The other 80 patients were selected for the sequential operation, in which the scheme involved first cutting the papillary muscle under endoscopy and then performing LC. The indexes in the two groups, including the operation time, the success rate, the incidence of complications, and the length of the hospital stay, were observed.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the numbers of patients, sex distribution, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, serum bilirubin, γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, mean diameter of common bile duct stones, and previous medical and surgical history (P = 0.54, P = 0.18, P = 0.52, P = 0.22, P = 0.32, P = 0.42, P = 0.68, P = 0.70, P = 0.47 and P = 0.57). There was no significant difference in the surgical operation time between the two groups (112.1 ± 30.8 min vs 104.9 ± 18.2 min). Compared with the sequential operation group, the incidence of pancreatitis was lower (1.4% vs 6.3%), the incidence of hyperamylasemia (1.4% vs 10.0%, P < 0.05) was significantly reduced, and the length of the hospital stay was significantly shortened in the synchronous operation group (3 d vs 4.5 d, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: For treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis, synchronous LC combined with EST reduces incidence of complications, decreases length of hospital stay, simplifies the surgical procedure, and reduces operation time.

[Laparoscopic versus endoscopic primary management of choledocholithiasis. A retrospective case-control study]

BACKGROUND

The aim was to present the long-term results of one-stage laparoscopic procedure for the management of common bile duct (CBD) lithiasis in comparison with the primary endoscopic approach via ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was performed to determine the outcome of patients treated for CBD lithiasis (04/1997 - 11/2011). Data of patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing the two treatment modalities - laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC, group A, n = 101) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/S + LC, group B, n = 116) were matched according to their clinical characteristics. Patients of group A underwent either laparoscopic choledochotomy or transcystic exploration. The policy was to convert to open choledochotomy only after the sequential application of the two treatment modalities (laparoscopic/endoscopic procedure) had failed.

RESULTS

No significant difference in morbidity was found between the groups (group A 8% versus group B 11.2%). Conversion to another procedure was mandatory in 12 out of 101 and 17 out of 116 patients of groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 7.8 years (range 1-12 years). Effective laparoscopic treatment of CBD stones (cholecystectomy and CBD clearance) was possible in 89 of the 101 patients in group A (88.1%) compared with 99 of the 116 patients in group B (85.4%) after the endoscopic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showes that both - primary endoscopy and one-stage laparoscopic management of CBD lithiasis - are highly effective and safe with comparable results.

Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones: system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conducting preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (POES) versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES).

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases for prospective, randomized, controlled trials related to safety and effectiveness of POES versus IOES. Relative risk ratios (RRs) were estimated with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. We considered the following outcomes: clearance rate, postprocedural complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Five trials with 631 patients (318 with POES, 313 with IOES) were analyzed. Although the overall rates of common bile duct stone clearance were similar between POES and IOES (RR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.91-1.01; p = 0.13), the failure rate of common bile duct cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was significantly higher for IOES (RR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.23-5.26; p = 0.01). The pooled RR after POES for overall complication rates was similar to that for IOES (RR 1.56, 95 % CI 0.94-2.59; p = 0.09). However, compared with IOES, the RR risk of ERCP-related complications was significantly higher for POES (RR 2.27, 95 % CI 1.18-4.40, p = 0.01), especially in the patients at high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. There was no significant difference in morbidity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy or required subsequent open surgery between the two groups. In the subgroup analyses, the RR risks of post-ERCP pancreatitis were significantly higher for POES (RR 4.85, 95 % CI 1.41-16.66, p = 0.01), and mean hospital stay was longer in the POES group (RR 2.22, 95 % CI 1.98-246; p < 0.01). However, the rates of bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis, and gastric ulceration did not differ significantly between POES and IOES.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to the stone clearance and overall complication rates, POES is equal to IOES in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones. However, IOES is associated with a reduced incidence of ERCP-related pancreatitis and results in a shorter hospital stay.

Treatment of common bile duct stones in Sweden 1989-2006: an observational nationwide study of a paradigm shift

BACKGROUND

The preferred strategies for treatment of common bile duct stones have changed from choledochotomy with cholecystectomy to sphincterotomy with or without cholecystectomy. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of these treatment strategies on a nationwide level in Sweden.

METHODS

All patients with hospital care for benign biliary diagnoses 1988-2006 were identified in Swedish registers. Patients with common bile duct stones and a first admission with choledochotomy and or endoscopic sphincterotomy from 1989 through 2006 comprised the study group. These patients were analyzed with respect to readmission for biliary diagnoses and acute pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Incidence of open and laparoscopic choledochotomy decreased from 19.4 to 5.2, whereas endoscopic sphincterotomy increased from 5.1 to 26.1 per 100,000 inhabitants per year, respectively. Among patients treated for common bile duct stones (n = 26,815), 60.0 % underwent cholecystectomy during the first hospital admission in 1989-1994, compared to 30.1 % in 2001-2006. The treatment strategy that included endoscopic sphincterotomy was associated with more readmissions for biliary diagnoses and increased risk for acute pancreatitis than the treatment strategy with choledochotomy. However, patients treated with endoscopic sphincterotomy and concurrent cholecystectomy at the index admission had the lowest risk of readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Cholecystectomy has been increasingly separated from treatment of bile duct stones, and endoscopic sphincterotomy has superseded choledochotomy as a first alternative for bile duct clearance in Sweden. In patients fit for surgery, clearance of the common bile duct can be combined with cholecystectomy, as it probably reduces the need for biliary related readmissions.

ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a combined (one-step) procedure: a random comparison to the standard (two-step) procedure

BACKGROUND

Current treatment of complicated calculous biliary disease typically involves a two-step procedure consisting of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Alternatively, laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) and intraoperative common bile duct exploration or ERCP at a later date may be performed. This study compared the benefits of the traditional two-step procedure to the novel one-step procedure for the management of calculous biliary disease.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 20 patients was conducted comparing one-step to two-step procedures for the management of choledocholithiasis. We define the one-step procedure to be a laparoscopic cholecystectomy with IOC to confirm the presence or absence of stones. Intraoperative ERCP with stone extraction was conducted if necessary as part of the one-step procedure.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference existed between hospital charges for one-step ($58,145.30, SD $17,963.09) and two-step ($78,895.53, SD $21,954.78) procedures (p = 0.033). Other parameters (length of stay, preoperative days) trended toward significance; however, statistical significance was not achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be a significant cost reduction with implementation of the one-step treatment of calculous biliary disease. Further research with a larger study population is necessary to determine the additional benefits of this procedure and to help augment the surgical endoscopists' armamentarium.

Evidence-based current surgical practice: calculous gallbladder disease

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder disease is common and, if managed incorrectly, can lead to high rates of morbidity, mortality, and extraneous costs. The most common complications of gallstones include biliary colic, acute cholecystitis, common bile duct stones, and gallstone pancreatitis. Ultrasound is the initial imaging modality of choice. Additional diagnostic and therapeutic studies including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are not routinely required but may play a role in specific situations.

DISCUSSION

Biliary colic and acute cholecystitis are best treated with early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients with common bile duct stones should be managed with cholecystectomy, either after or concurrent with endoscopic or surgical relief of obstruction and clearance of stones from the bile duct. Mild gallstone pancreatitis should be treated with cholecystectomy during the initial hospitalization to prevent recurrence. Emerging techniques for cholecystectomy include single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Early results in highly selected patients demonstrate the safety of these techniques. The management of complications of the gallbladder should be timely and evidence-based, and choice of procedures, particularly for common bile duct stones, is largely influenced by facility and surgeon factors.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous reduces perioperative morbidity and risk of pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The ideal management of cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones still is controversial. Although the two-stage sequential approach remains the prevalent management, several trials have concluded that the so-called laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) technique offers some advantages, such as a reduced risk of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis. This study aimed to compare the single-stage LERV technique with the two-stage endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LERV and the two-stage sequential approach was conducted. The outcomes considered were overall complications and pancreatitis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1998 to July 2012. Odds ratios (ORs) were extracted and pooled using a fixed or random-effect model depending on I (2) used as a heterogeneity measure.

RESULTS

Four RCTs, including a total of 430 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of overall complications was lower in the LERV group (11.2 %) than in the two-stage intervention group (18.1 %) (OR, 0.56; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.99; P = 0.04; I (2) = 45 %). The findings showed that LERV was associated with less clinical pancreatitis (2.4 %) than the two-stage technique (8.4 %) (OR, 0.33; 95 % CI, 0.12-0.91; P = 0.03; I (2) = 33 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitation of a small number of studies completed, the evidence of RCTs shows that LERV is superior to two-stage treatment due to a reduction in overall complications, particularly pancreatitis.

Robot-assisted common bile duct exploration as an option for complex choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the authors' early experience with robot-assisted common bile duct exploration (CBDE) for choledocholithiasis refractory to endoscopic therapy and to compare the outcomes with those of equivalent patients undergoing an open technique.

METHODS

At our institution, 55 CBDEs were performed between 2005 and 2010. All 19 robot-assisted cases were unselected elective referrals for stone disease. Of 36 open procedures, emergency cases and exploration not for stone disease were excluded, leaving 18 cases for analysis. Cases were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. A P value of 0.05 denoted statistical significance.

RESULTS

The patients did not differ in terms of demography, comorbidity, or presenting symptoms. The reasons for endoscopic failure in both groups were similar. The mean operating time was longer for robot-assisted surgery (220 ± 41.26 min) than for open surgery (169 ± 65.81 min) (P = 0.01), but the median hospital stay was shorter (4 vs 11 days; P = 0.02). Four conversions to open surgery (21%) were performed due to severe adhesions. The two groups did not differ statistically in terms of T-tube usage (74 vs 61%; P = 0.414). One death occurred in the robotic group and two in the open cohort. Postoperative complications occurred in seven robotic and ten open cases (P = 0.402). They were mainly respiratory complications in the robot-assisted group, whereas they were cardiac and wound-related complications in the open group. Two of the converted cases had complications similar to those of the open group. Postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for retained stones was performed in one open case and three robotic cases.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted CBDE offers some benefit when ERCP fails. Ideal case selection may enhance success.

Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and instrumentation

Over the last 40 years, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from being a purely diagnostic to a primarily therapeutic procedure. The 2 recent developments in ERCP-based stricture management include the increased use of cholangioscopy-guided sampling and self-expandable metal stents. The role of ERCP in pancreatic diseases continues to evolve; ERCP-based pancreatic therapy requires advanced endoscopic expertise and is associated with a high rate of postprocedure complications. Therefore, a multidisciplinary team approach at a center with expertise in pancreatic therapy should serve as a basis for very careful patient selection.

Laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen from the Consensus Development Conference of the Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE), Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Chirurgia d'Urgenza e del Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana di Chirurgia nell'Ospedalità Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

In January 2010, the SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery), under the auspices of the EAES, decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies in adults, with the primary intent being to update the 2006 EAES indications and supplement the existing guidelines on specific diseases.

METHODS

Other Italian surgical societies were invited into the Consensus to form a panel of 12 expert surgeons. In order to get a multidisciplinary panel, other stakeholders involved in abdominal emergencies were invited along with a patient's association. In November 2010, the panel met in Rome to discuss each chapter according to the Delphi method, producing key statements with a grade of recommendations followed by commentary to explain the rationale and the level of evidence behind the statements. Thereafter, the statements were presented to the Annual Congress of the EAES in June 2011.

RESULTS

A thorough literature review was necessary to assess whether the recommendations issued in 2006 are still current. In many cases new studies allowed us to better clarify some issues (such as for diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, pancreatitis, hernias, trauma), to confirm the key role of laparoscopy (such as for cholecystitis, gynecological disorders, nonspecific abdominal pain, appendicitis), but occasionally previous strong recommendations have to be challenged after review of recent research (such as for perforated peptic ulcer).

CONCLUSIONS

Every surgeon has to develop his or her own approach, taking into account the clinical situation, her/his proficiency (and the experience of the team) with the various techniques, and the specific organizational setting in which she/he is working. This guideline has been developed bearing in mind that every surgeon could use the data reported to support her/his judgment.

Management of common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era

There is no consensus regarding the ideal management of concurrent gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones. Currently the treatment protocol involves most commonly a sequential approach consisting of endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy or a single stage laparoscopic procedure, including cholecystectomy and exploration of the CBD. For this article literature search was performed using online search engines, Google, Pubmed, the online Springer link library and the Cochrane Database Systematic Review. Review articles, prospective and retrospective studies which detailed or compared the various treatment strategies for CBD stones were selected and analyzed. This review article aims to provide an insight into the optimal management of CBD stones in different clinical scenarios. Endoscopic sphincterotomy has inherent morbidity and complications like CBD stone recurrence whereas laparoscopic CBD exploration demands considerable expertise which is available only at specialized centres. The clinical presentation of the patient, number of stones, size of CBD, available resources and technical expertise at hand are an important consideration for the ideal management in different scenarios.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of primary closure with those of T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library databases. Only randomized controlled trials comparing primary closure with T-tube drainage in LCBDE were considered eligible for this meta-analysis. The analyzed outcome variables included postoperative mortality, overall morbidity, biliary complication rate, biliary leak rate, reoperation, operating time, postoperative hospital stay, time to abdominal drain removal, and retained stone. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using ReviewerManager 5.1.2 software.

RESULTS

A total of 295 patients (148 patients with primary closure and 147 patients with T-tube drainage) from three trials were identified and analyzed. No deaths occurred in any of the trials. Primary closure showed significantly better results in terms of morbidity (risk ratio (RR), 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30 to 0.88), biliary complication without a combination of retained stone (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.97), reoperation (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.87), operating time (mean difference (MD), -20.72; 95% CI, -29.59 to -11.85), postoperative hospital stay (MD, -3.24; 95% CI, -3.96 to -2.52), and time to abdominal drainage removal (MD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.86 to -0.04). Statistically significant differences were not found between the two methods in terms of biliary leak, biliary complication, and retained stones.

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis indicates that primary closure of the common bile duct is safer and more effective than T-tube drainage for LCBDE. Therefore, we do not recommend routine performance of T-tube drainage in LCBDE.

Intraoperative ERCP: What role does it have in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

In the treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis (CBDS) detected during intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), or when the preoperative study of a patient at intermediate risk for CBDS cannot be completed due to the lack of imaging techniques required for confirmation, or if they are available and yield contradictory radiological and clinical results, patients can be treated using intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during the laparoscopic treatment or postoperative ERCP if the IOC finds CBDS. The choice of treatment depends on the level of experience and availability of each option at each hospital. Intraoperative ERCP has the advantage of being a single-stage treatment and has a significant success rate, an easy learning curve, low morbidity involving a shorter hospital stay and lower costs than the two-stage treatments (postoperative and preoperative ERCP). Intraoperative ERCP is also a good salvage treatment when preoperative ERCP fails or when total laparoscopic management also fails.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography and common bile duct exploration via the umbilical port

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy currently is the gold standard technique for gallbladder removal. The use of routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) is widely practiced during conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4PLC) to confirm biliary anatomy and allow for immediate management of unexpected choledocholithiasis. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) offers a more aesthetic technique for gallbladder removal and has been reported by several groups. However, no series to date have included routine IOC without a separate incision. This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of the SILS technique for cholecystectomy with routine IOC (LCIOC) and common bile duct (CBD) exploration as needed via the umbilical port.

METHODS

A database was prospectively completed for a series of 60 consecutive patients undergoing single-incision LCIOC via the umbilical port. Details of the patients, operations, indications, outcomes, and follow-up evaluation were included.

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients included in the database, 55 (91.7%) successfully underwent single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), whereas the remaining five patients required conversion to 4PLC. No patient required conversion to open cholecystectomy (OC). Of the 55 successful SILC patients, 53 (88.3%) successfully received IOCs, 48 of which were normal. The remaining five IOCs demonstrated choledocholithiasis, four of which could be managed laparoscopically without the need for conversion to either 4PLC or OC. One patient required postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Complications included four wound infections (7.8%), one incisional hernia (2.0%), and one bile leak (3.2%). The operating time ranged from 35 to 180 min and decreased with experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest series to date of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomies with routine IOC via the umbilical port and is the first study to demonstrate that the laparoscopic management of choledocholithiasis during SILC is feasible.

Single-stage treatment with intraoperative ERCP: management of patients with possible choledocholithiasis and gallbladder in situ in a non-tertiary Spanish hospital

BACKGROUND

The best way to reduce endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications is not to perform it if it is unnecessary. Both intraoperative and postoperative ERCP rely on use of intraoperative cholangiography as a final diagnostic test for choledocholithiasis (CLD) whenever clinical data are unable to rule out CLD. Intraoperative ERCP could become a therapeutic option when a previous preoperative ERCP fails. We present our experience with intraoperative ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a descriptive and prospective study of a cohort of 82 patients with moderate risk of CLD. They were operated on by laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC). We performed intraoperative ERCP using the rendezvous technique.

RESULTS

Thirty-six out of 82 patients had an abnormal IOC study. Mean age was 58.7 years (standard deviation, SD 16.6, 25-83 years), and 60.6% were females. Ultrasound study showed that 51.4% of patients had a dilated bile duct. Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) was performed on three patients (8.3%). The success rate of intraoperative ERCP was 88.2%. Three out of the 36 patients (8.8%) had ERCP complications [2 mild papillary bleeding (5.8%), 1 acute pancreatitis (2.9%)]. The rate of conversion to open surgery was 5% with a surgical complications rate of 4% [one injured duct and two surgical bleeding which required re-operation (2.5%)]. There were no mortalities. Four patients (11.1%) needed post-surgical ERCP, with a residual CLD rate of 5.6% (two patients) in the postoperative period. Mean surgical time was 181 min (SD 60, 75-345 min). Mean hospital stay was 6.2 days (SD 4.7, 2-24 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative ERCP is an option to prevent performing ERCP unnecessarily on patients with moderate risk of CLD not confirmed using appropriate radiological studies. It can resolve the biliary disease in a single step with a similar success rate to standard ERCP, but with low morbidity, especially of acute pancreatitis. The residual CLD rate is also very low.

Nationwide study of the treatment of common bile duct stones in Sweden between 1965 and 2009

BACKGROUND

Treatment of common bile duct stones has changed. Open surgery has gradually been replaced by endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures. The aims of this study were to see how common bile duct stones have been treated in Sweden, to establish whether there were differences in morbidity and mortality between these approaches, and to identify factors influencing mortality.

METHODS

All persons undergoing inpatient common bile duct exploration or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during 1965-2009 in the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry, but without a diagnosis of malignancy in the Swedish Cancer Registry, were included. The outcome death was identified by cross-linkage to the Causes of Death Registry. Registry data on possible risk factors for mortality were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 126 885 procedures were performed in 110 119 patients. Open surgery was initially the only available method, but during the 1990s ERCP became predominant. Later, laparoscopic bile duct clearance became an established but uncommon method. A 90-day mortality rate of 0·2 per cent after open surgery, 0·8 per cent after ERCP, 0 per cent after laparoscopic exploration and 0·7 per cent after combined procedures was recorded. After adjustment for confounding, there was no difference in mortality between open surgery and ERCP. Biliary reintervention within 90 days was identified as a risk factor for death, whereas a concomitant diagnosis of pancreatitis reduced the risk.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic technique had the lowest mortality and morbidity rates. After adjustment for confounding factors, there was no difference in mortality after open surgery and ERCP. The favourable outcome for laparoscopy may have been due to selection bias, owing to treatment of younger, healthier subjects with less severe disease.

Laparoscopic transcystic exploration for single-stage management of common duct stones and acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are found in 10% of patients who undergo elective laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease and in 10-20% of patients who present with acute cholecystitis (AC). For the latter, the role of laparoscopic transcystic exploration of the common duct (LTCE) as part of a single-stage procedure is still unknown.

METHODS

This study, based on a "laparoscopy first" policy, included 201 subjects with cholecystocholedocholithiasis: 104 underwent a scheduled laparoscopic surgery (group A), and 97 where admitted for AC and had urgent laparoscopy (group B). Group B patients were significantly older (68.4 vs. 62.1 years; P = 0.0045), had a higher proportion of women (56% vs. 41%; P = 0.0345), and included more patients in the ASA III-IV class (39% vs. 21%; P = 0.0006). LTCE was performed by using basket-wired catheters. CBD clearance, operating time, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality, postoperative hospital stay, readmission, and residual CBD stones were the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

Clearance of CBD was obtained in 84% of patients of group A and in 80% of patients of group B (P = not significant). Time spent in the operating room was longer for group B (175 vs. 141 min; P = 0.0003). There were no significant differences for postoperative hospital stay (group A 4.9 vs. group B 5.2 days), readmission rate (3.7% vs. 3.7%), and residual CBD stones (2.8% vs. 3.1%). Need to convert and morbidity occurred more frequently in group B (11.7% vs. 4.6% and 28.7% vs. 16.8%, respectively), but differences were not significant. In group A, one patient died from MOFS.

CONCLUSIONS

LTCE has proved to be a simple technique with a high yield of CBD clearance in the acute setting. Courses are comparable to those observed for the same procedure in elective surgery despite the fact that patients with AC are more at risk for drawbacks.

Charcot's triad

Biliary stones are usually found in the gallbladder, but about 10-20% may spontaneously migrate into the common bile duct where they either remain trapped or migrate subsequently via the papilla of Vater into the duodenal lumen. In some cases, biliary stones may form de novo in the common bile duct because of local precipitating factors. We here present a spectacular case of huge gallstones impacted in the common bile duct (empierrement of the common bile duct) that led to the development of acute cholangitis with septic shock. Urgent nocturnal percutaneous cholangiography permitted biliary drainage and resolution of the cholangitis while the stones were secondarily removed surgically because of the large size of the stones.Acute suppurative cholangitis may be fatal unless adequate biliary drainage is obtained in a timely manner. The association of fever and rapid onset of jaundice in elderly patients should always make physicians think of cholangitis.

Cost-effective treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Clinicians must choose a treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis without knowing whether common bile duct (CBD) stones are present. The purpose of this study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible CBD stones.

STUDY DESIGN

Our decision model included 5 treatment strategies: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) alone followed by expectant management; preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by LC; LC with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) ± common bile duct exploration (CBDE); LC followed by postoperative ERCP; and LC with IOC ± postoperative ERCP. The rates of successful completion of diagnostic testing and therapeutic intervention, test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity), morbidity, and mortality for all procedures are from current literature. Hospitalization costs and lengths of stay are from the 2006 National Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The probability of CBD stones was varied from 0% to 100% and the most cost-effective strategy was determined at each probability.

RESULTS

Across the CBD stone probability range of 4% to 100%, LC with IOC ± ERCP was the most cost-effective. If the probability was 0%, LC alone was the most cost-effective. Our model was sensitive to 1 health input: specificity of IOC, and 3 costs: cost of hospitalization for LC with CBDE, cost of hospitalization for LC without CBDE, and cost of LC with IOC.

CONCLUSIONS

The most cost-effective treatment strategy for the majority of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is LC with routine IOC. If stones are detected, CBDE should be forgone and the patient referred for ERCP.

Biliary, pancreatic, and hepatic imaging for the general surgeon

Technologic advancements have allowed imaging modalities to become more useful in the diagnosis of hepatobiliary and pancreatic disorders. Computed tomography scanners now use multidetector row technology with contrast-delayed imaging for quicker and more accurate imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography can more clearly delineate liver lesions and the biliary and pancreatic ducts, and can diagnose pathologic conditions early in their course. Newer technologies, such as single-operator cholangioscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography, have sometimes shown superiority to traditional modalities. This article addresses the literature regarding available imaging techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of common surgical hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases.

Training higher surgical trainees in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is regarded as a safe, definitive procedure for ductal calculi, avoiding the complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic CBD exploration carried out by trainees compared to those of an experienced consultant (R.W.M.).

METHODS

A prospective database of all cases of laparoscopic CBD exploration over a 15-year period was analyzed retrospectively. All patients underwent a four-port technique and intraoperative cholangiography. Patient demographics, operative technique, success, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median age of patients undergoing laparoscopic CBD exploration was 65 years (range 14-94 years). In all, 187 (79%) of the CBD explorations were performed by one consultant and 48 (21%) by trainees. Calculi were successfully cleared in 141 (88%) and 43 (96%), respectively. There were two (<1%) conversions to an open procedure in the total group. The median operating time was 130 minutes in the consultant group versus 150 minutes in the trainee group (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U-test). There was no significant difference in CBD clearance rate, surgical approach, or complication rate between consultant and trainees (Fisher's exact test).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic CBD exploration is a safe procedure in both consultant and trainee hands. With appropriate training, surgical trainees can achieve equivalent outcomes in CBD clearance with no significant difference in complication rates.

Optimal surgical technique, use of intra-operative cholangiography (IOC), and management of acute gallbladder disease: the results of a nation-wide survey in the UK and Ireland

INTRODUCTION

There is debate on optimal techniques that reduce bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). A national survey of Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) members was carried out to determine current surgical practice for gallstones, including the use of intra-operative cholangiography (IOC) or critical view of safety to reduce the risk of bile duct injury.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 417 AUGIS members. Data on grade of surgeon, place of work (district general hospital, teaching), subspecialty, number LC per year, use of IOC, critical view of safety, and management of stones detected during surgery were collated.

RESULTS

There was a 36% (152/417) response - 134 (88%) from consultant surgeons (36, HPB; 106,OG; 64, DGH; 88, teaching hospital). Of these, 38% performed > 100 LC per year, 36% 50-100 LC per year, and 22% 25-50 LC per year. IOC was routine for 24%; and selective for 72%. Critical view of Calot's triangle was advocated by 82%. Overall, 55% first clip and divide the cystic artery, whereas 41% first clip and divide the cystic duct. Some 39% recommend IOC and 23% pre-operative MRCP if dilated common bile duct (CBD) is noted on pre-operative ultrasound. When bile duct stones are identified on IOC, 61% perform laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE), 25% advise postoperative ERCP, and 13% perform either LCBDE or ERCP. Overall, 88% (n = 134) recommend index cholecystectomy for acute pathology, and this is more likely in a teaching hospital setting (P = 0.003). Laparoscopic CBD exploration was more likely to be performed in university hospitals (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A wide dissection of Calot's triangle to provide a critical view of safety is the technique most commonly recommended by AUGIS surgeons (83%) to minimise risk of bile duct injury, in contrast to 24% that recommend routine IOC. The majority (88%) of AUGIS surgeons advise index admission cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder disease.

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy improves outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledochocystolithiasis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with choledochocystolithiasis generally undergo endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, many patients receive this surgery 6-8 weeks after ES. There is a high conversion rate of elective LC after ES, and patients can develop recurrent biliary events during the waiting period. We investigated whether the timing of surgery influences outcome.

METHODS

We performed a randomized trial of patients with choledochocystolithiasis who underwent successful ES. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received early LC (within 72 hours after ES, n = 49) or delayed LC (after 6-8 weeks, n = 47), based on an expected difference in conversion rate of 25% vs 5%, respectively. Conversion rate, biliary events during follow-up, duration and difficulty of surgeries, postoperative morbidity, and hospital stay were scored. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable in age, sex, and comorbidity. There was no difference between groups in conversion rate (4.3% in early vs 8.7% in delayed group) nor were there differences in operating times and/or difficulties or hospital stays. During the waiting period for LC, 17 patients in the delayed group (36.2%) developed recurrent biliary events compared with 1 patient in the early group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial to evaluate timing of LC after ES, recurrent biliary events occurred in 36.2% of patients whose LC was delayed for 6-8 weeks. Early LC (within 72 hours) appears to be safe and might prevent the majority of biliary events in this period following sphincterotomy.

Surgical treatment of gallstones

Currently there is no evidence for prophylactic cholecystectomy to prevent gallstone formation (grade B). Cholecystectomy cannot be recommended for any group of patients having asymptomatic gallstones except in those undergoing major upper abdominal surgery for other pathologies (grade B). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment for all patient groups with symptomatic gallstones (grade B). Patients with gallstones along with common bile duct stones treated by endoscopic sphincterotomy should undergo cholecystectomy (grade A). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy is the preferred treatment for obstructive jaundice caused by common bile duct stones, when the expertise and infrastructure are available (grade B).

Open common bile duct exploration without T-tube insertion- two decade experience from a limited resource setting in the Caribbean

PURPOSE

Despite advancements in gallbladder surgery with the introduction of endoscopic and laparoscopic techniques, many surgeons, especially in the developing world, still perform open cholecystectomy with common bile duct (CBD) exploration for choledocholithiasis. The purpose of the study is to report the outcomes of a case series of open CBD exploration without the use of T-tubes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all consecutive open CBD exploration done by the first author over a period of 23 years was conducted. Demographic data, preoperative investigations, the surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 690 open cholecystectomies performed during the study period, 108 had common bile duct exploration. In 94 cases this was done via a supraduodenal choledochotomy, in 10 cases via a transduodenal sphincteroplasty and in 4 cases via the cystic duct. In 90 cases, a simple choledochotomy and primary closure was done while in 4 cases choledocho-duodenostomy was required. Eighty-seven percent of surgeries were done on elective basis and 13% on an emergency basis and no T-tubes were used in any patients. The mean hospital length of stay was 3.2 days and the perioperative morbidity was negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

In a limited resource setting, there is still a role for open CBD exploration and primary closure without the necessity of T-tubes and stents as evidenced by a good perioperative patient outcome.

Video. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and holmium laser lithotripsy: a novel approach to the management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) have proved to be safe and effective ways of managing common bile duct (CBD) stones. Clearance of large or impacted CBD stones by routine endoscopic maneuvers can be challenging, often requiring more invasive techniques such as open CBD exploration, which increases morbidity. This report presents a novel approach to managing impacted CBD stones using laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration and holmium laser lithotripsy with favorable outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective review analyzes five patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative management of impacted CBD stones via LCBDE and holmium laser lithotripsy. The technique is described, and outcomes are measured. Data via chart review and use of intraoperative video were obtained with institutional review board approval.

RESULTS

Stone clearance from the CBD was achieved for all the patients. The median age of the patients was 39 years. The diameters of the CBDs ranged from 10 to 20 mm, and the median number of stones was one. No mortality was associated with this procedure, and the median hospital stay was 2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic CBD exploration via a transcystic approach together with holmium laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective way to clear large solitary or impacted CBD stones. This technique also avoids choledochotomy and may be used in concert with other methods such as ERCP, percutaneous cholangioscopy, and open exploration.

A prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage versus single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of patients with concomitant common bile duct stones and gallstones is still evolving. With the introduction of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, many centers prefer single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration over preoperative endoscopic bile duct clearance followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The present study was done to compare these two management options.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

30 patients with symptomatic gallstones and common bile duct stones were randomized to either treatment option. Preoperative endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and/or magnetic resonance pancreaticography (MRCP) was done in all patients to confirm the diagnosis. In group I, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration was done at the same sitting; in group II, endoscopic stone clearance was followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy 4-6 weeks later. Success was defined as successful treatment by the intended modality.

RESULTS

15 patients were randomized to each group and the two groups had comparable demographic and clinical profile. In group I there was a success rate of 93.5% in comparison with 86.7% in group II (p = 0.32, Fisher's exact test). The complications were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed equivalent success rate in terms of morbidity and hospital stay. Laparoscopic approach seems to be favorable because of the smaller number of procedures and hospital visits.

Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration: the treatment of first choice for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to explore the role of transcystic bile duct exploration (TCE) as a first line of treatment for patients with suspected or incidental common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

A prospective, case-control study of clinically comparable groups of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) alone (n = 1,854) and combined LC/TCE for CBD stones (n = 253) under the care of one surgeon was performed. Other than ultrasonography, no routine preoperative imaging was used; however, we performed routine intraoperative cholangiography on all patients.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age (49 +/- 15 vs. 57 +/- 19, p = 0.7), sex (79% vs. 82% females, p = 0.6), and ASA grade (1.9 +/- 1 vs. 1.8 +/- 1, p = 0.7). A larger proportion of the TCE group presented as an emergency (TCE 45% vs. LC alone 27%, p = 0.03) and more often presented with acute biliary pain compared with LC alone (27% vs. 13%, p = 0.02). Although a majority of the patients in the TCE group had clinical or biochemical risk factors for CBD stones (86%), only 27% had suspected stones on preoperative ultrasound. The incidence of jaundice (6% vs. 20%, p = 0.01) was lower in the LC alone group compared with TCE patients. Previous abdominal surgery was noted in 34% patients who underwent LC alone and 30% in LC/TCE (p = 0.06). Significantly there was no difference in open conversion between the two groups (LC alone 0.5% vs. LC/TCE 0.6%, p = 0.07). Comparison of selected outcome parameters for LC versus TCE showed a postoperative hospital stay of 2 (1-14) vs. 2 (1-17) days (p = 0.07), presentation to resolution 1 (1-11) vs. 1 (1-11) weeks (p = 0.07), and morbidity 1.07% vs. 1.2% (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

The study advocates single-session laparoscopic cholecystectomy with transcystic CBD exploration as a feasible first choice treatment and the logical next step in the management of patients with CBD stones.

Simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous for the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Different approaches are available for the treatment of combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis including totally laparoscopic (TL) treatment, simultaneous laparoendoscopic treatment, and sequential treatments (ST) combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with cholecystectomy. This review aimed to clarify the issue of the simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous (RV).

METHODS

A careful analysis of papers was performed to determine the results, technical differences, limits, disadvantages, and advantages of RV compared with other options.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 27 papers concerning 795 patients. The overall effectiveness of RV was 92.3%. The morbidity rate was 5.1%, and the mortality rate was 0.37%. Almost all the authors were satisfied with the procedure. The authors' comparison to ST and TL showed that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages mostly related to logistical problems.

CONCLUSIONS

There is confusion concerning the definitions and techniques of RV due to differences in combining surgical and endoscopic steps of the procedure. The results are at least comparable with those of the other available approaches. The effectiveness of RV is greater with reciprocal implementation of surgical and endoscopic procedures. The morbidity and the risk of iatrogenic damage seem lower than with ERCP-ES and the risk of residual stones lower than with TL treatment. The RV procedure is safe and can sometimes be the preferable option, but collaboration between surgeon and endoscopist is mandatory.