Holmium laser lithotripsy improves the rate of successful transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Establishment and evaluation of prediction model of recurrence after laparoscopic choledocholithotomy

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis is a common clinical bile duct disease, laparoscopic choledocholithotomy is the main clinical treatment method for choledocholithiasis. However, the recurrence of postoperative stones is a big challenge for patients and doctors.

AIM

To explore the related risk factors of gallstone recurrence after laparoscopic choledocholithotomy, establish and evaluate a clinical prediction model.

METHODS

A total of 254 patients who underwent laparoscopic choledocholithotomy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University from December 2017 to December 2020 were selected as the research subjects. Clinical data of the patients were collected, and the recurrence of gallstones was recorded based on the postoperative follow-up. The results were analyzed and a clinical prediction model was established.

RESULTS

Postoperative stone recurrence rate was 10.23% (26 patients). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that cholangitis, the diameter of the common bile duct, the diameter of the stone, number of stones, lithotripsy, preoperative total bilirubin, and T tube were risk factors associated with postoperative recurrence (P < 0.05). The clinical prediction model was ln (p/1-p) = -6.853 + 1.347 × cholangitis + 1.535 × choledochal diameter + 2.176 × stone diameter + 1.784 × stone number + 2.242 × lithotripsy + 0.021 × preoperative total bilirubin + 2.185 × T tube.

CONCLUSION

Cholangitis, the diameter of the common bile duct, the diameter of the stone, number of stones, lithotripsy, preoperative total bilirubin, and T tube are the associated risk factors for postoperative recurrence of gallstone. The prediction model in this study has a good prediction effect, which has a certain reference value for recurrence of gallstone after laparoscopic choledocholithotomy.

Treatment of choledocholithiasis: a review of clinical trials and current clinical guidelines

The review provides an analysis of clinical studies and current clinical guidelines from the MEDLINE database on the PubMed platform regarding the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Choledocholithiasis occurs in almost 20 % of patients with gallstone disease and is characterized by frequent dangerous complications, in particular, bile duct obstruction, cholangitis, and biliary pancreatitis. Therefore, common bile duct exploration is an important component of surgical treatment for gallstone disease, but discussions about the optimal treatment for choledocholithiasis have been ongoing for many years. Currently, there is no generally accepted standard of treatment, and various methods and approaches to the staging and sequence of surgical interventions on the gallbladder and common bile duct are used. In recent years, the leading methods of choledocholithiasis treatment are minimally invasive endoscopic and/or laparoscopic interventions, which have almost completely replaced open surgeries. For common bile duct exploration and normalization of biliary excretion, endoscopic transpapillary (retrograde) access is used mostly, which is characterized by a high risk of post-procedural immediate and long-term complications. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones requires an additional intervention — laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which is most often performed at the second stage or simultaneously with endoscopic intervention. The optimal staging and sequencing of interventions requires further research. A good alternative to endoscopic interventions on common bile duct is its laparoscopic exploration through the cystic duct or by choledochotomy (antegrade), which can be performed simultaneously with cholecystectomy. However, this technique has not yet been widely adopted, and immediate and long-term results are conflicting that require further research into the effectiveness and safety of the method. The effectiveness of surgical treatment for choledocholithiasis depends not only on the individual characteristics of a patient, including biliary anatomy, the form and severity of the disease, but also on the local experience and availability of appropriate equipment, which must be taken into account when planning treatment.

Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopy Plus Choledochoscopy Combined With Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Choledocholithiasis and Hepatolithiasis

Background

With the advancement of laparoscopic technology, the combination of laparoscopy, choledochoscopy, and holmium laser lithotripsy has emerged as an effective treatment modality for both choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiasis. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was conducted on the medical records of 76 patients diagnosed with choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiasis between April 2021 and March 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment plan: the control group, which underwent traditional laparotomy and choledochoscopy lithotripsy (n = 38), and the experimental group, which underwent laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy (n = 38). Comparative analysis was performed on various operation-related parameters, stone-free rate, complication rates, and changes in biochemical, liver function, inflammatory, stress response indicators, and pain scores between the two groups.

Results

The experimental group demonstrated significantly shorter stone removal time, reduced intraoperative bleeding, and shorter hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the experimental group exhibited lower incidence of postoperative complications and lower pain scores at 2 weeks to 3 months post-operation (P < 0.05). Biochemical indicators including total bile acid (TBA), total bilirubin (TBIL), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) were significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Additionally, stress and inflammation indicators were also lower in the experimental group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of laparoscopy, choledochoscopy, and holmium laser lithotripsy presents favorable therapeutic outcomes in the management of choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiasis, indicating its potential for widespread clinical application.

Results during the learning curve in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocolithiasis

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the results obtained in terms of efficacy and safety during the learning curve of a surgical team in the technique of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) using choledochoscopy for the treatment of patients with cholelithiasis and choledocolithiasis or common bile duct stones (CBDS) (CDL).

METHODS

Single-center prospective analysis of patients treated with LCBDE+LC during the first 4 years of implementation of the technique. A descriptive and comparative analysis was carried out between groups according to the transcystic (TCi) or transcolecocal (TCo) approach, and also evolutionary by periods. The effectiveness of the technique was evaluated using the variable success rate and safety through the analysis of the overall complication rate and the bile leak rate as the most frequent adverse effect.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients were analyzed. The most frequent approach was TCo (62%). The overall success rate was 92%. The TCi group had a shorter operating time, a lower overall complications rate and a shorter hospital stay. The TCo approach was related to a higher rate of clinically relevant bile leak (8%). Complex cases increased significantly during the learning curve without effect on the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE+LC is an effective and safe technique during the learning curve. Its results are comparable to those published by more experienced groups and do not present significant differences related to the evolution during learning period.

The "Basket-in-Catheter" technique: facilitating transcystic bile duct exploration and optimising the management of suspected ductal stones

The 'Basket-in-Catheter' (BIC) technique facilitates basket-only laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE), increasing its success rate. Using the cholangiography catheter as a sheath is easier and safer than inserting the wire basket-alone. This study evaluates its benefits in confirmed and suspected ductal stones. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients with pre-operative or operative suspicion of bile duct stones or with positive and equivocal intraoperative cholangiographies (IOC) who had LTCE attempted using blind basket trawling, without choledochoscopy, were reviewed. The incidence and outcomes of blind basket LTCEs attempted before and after introducing the BIC technique, whether or not stones were retrieved, were analysed. Blind basket LTCE was attempted in 732 patients. Of 377 (51.5%) patients undergoing successful stone retrieval, only 62% had pre-operative clinical and radiological risk factors for ductal stones, 25% had operative risk factors and 13% had silent stones discovered on IOC. Another 355 patients (48.5%) had negative trawling, although one half had pre-operative risk factors for ductal stones and 47.6% had operative risk factors, e.g. cystic duct stones or dilatation. This cohort had equivocal cholangiography in 25.9%. Following basket trawling, repeat IOC confirmed resolution of abnormalities. As no stones were retrieved, these were not considered duct explorations. The BIC technique facilitates safe and speedy bile duct clearance when stones are confirmed, avoiding choledochotomies, without significant complications. BIC duct trawling is also beneficial in patients with suspected ductal stones, helping to resolve equivocal IOCs. It helps surgeons to acquire and consolidate ductal exploration skills.

A proposed difficulty grading system for laparoscopic bile duct exploration: benefits to clinical practice, training and research

BACKGROUND

A gap remains between the mounting evidence for single session management of bile duct stones and the adoption of this approach. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) is limited by the scarcity of training opportunities and adequate equipment and by the perception that the technique requires a high skill-set. The aim of this study was to create a new classification of difficulty based on operative characteristics and to stratify postoperative outcomes of easy vs. difficult LBDE irrespective of the surgeon's experience.

METHODS

A cohort of 1335 LBDEs was classified according to the location, number and size of ductal stones, the retrieval technique, utilisation of choledochoscopy and specific biliary pathologies encountered. A combination of features indicated easy (Grades I and II A & B) or difficult (Grades III A and B, IV and V) transcystic or transcholedochal explorations.

RESULTS

78.3% of patients with acute cholecystitis or pancreatitis, 37% with jaundice and 46% with cholangitis had easy explorations. Difficult explorations were more likely to present as emergencies, with obstructive jaundice, previous sphincterotomy and dilated bile ducts on ultrasound scans. 77.7% of easy explorations were transcystic and 62.3% of difficult explorations transductal. Choledochoscopy was utilised in 23.4% of easy vs. 98% of difficult explorations. The use of biliary drains, open conversions, median operative time, biliary-related complications, hospital stay, readmissions, and retained stones increased with the difficulty grade. Grades I and II patients had 2 or more hospital episodes in 26.5% vs. 41.2% for grades III to V. There were 2 deaths in difficulty Grade V and one in Grade IIB.

CONCLUSION

Difficulty grading of LBDE is useful in predicting outcomes and facilitating comparison between studies. It ensures fair structuring and assessment of training and progress of the learning curve. LBDEs were easy in 72% with 77% completed transcystically. This may encourage more units to adopt this approach.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Holmium laser Lithotripsy and Laparoscopic Bile Duct Exploration for Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (LHLL) has been used to treat bile duct stones with unclear outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the LHLL and laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) efficacy and safety in treating bile duct stones.

METHODS

The correlational studies were searched databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify eligible studies from inception to July 2022. The dichotomous and continuous outcomes were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software helped in data analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1,890 patients, primarily from China, were included. The results indicated that operation time (WMD = - 26.94; 95% CI:(- 34.30, - 19.58); P < 0.00001), estimated blood loss (WMD = - 17.97; 95% CI: (- 22.94, - 13.00); P = 0.002), rate of residual stone (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: (0.10, 0.23); P < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (WMD = - 2.88; 95% CI:(- 3.80, - 1.96); P < 0.00001) and time to bowel function recovery (WMD = - 0.59; 95% CI: (- 0.76, - 0.41); P < 0.00001) had statistically significant differences between the two groups. In postoperative complications, biliary leakage (RD = -0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.05, -0.00); P = 0.02), infection (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.09,- 0.03); P < 0.00001) and Hepatic injury (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.11, - 0.01); P = 0.02) revealed statistically significant differences. However, no significant differences were observed in biliary damage (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.06) and hemobilia (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis indicated that LHLL could be more effective and safer than LBDC. However, these results should be confirmed with a larger sample size and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials.

Utilization of Laparoscopic Choledochoscopy During Bile Duct Exploration and Evaluation of the Wiper Blade Maneuver for Transcystic Intrahepatic Access

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the indications, techniques, and outcomes of choledochoscopy during laparoscopic bile duct exploration and evaluate the results of the wiper blade maneuver (WBM) for transcystic intrahepatic choledochoscopy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Choledochoscopy has traditionally been integral to bile duct explorations. However, laparoscopic era studies have reported wide variations in choledochoscopy availability and use, particularly with the increasing role of transcystic exploration.

METHODS

The indications, techniques, and operative and postoperative data on choledochoscopy collected prospectively during transcystic and choledo- chotomy explorations were analyzed. The success rates of the WBM were evaluated for the 3 mm and 5 mm choledochoscopes.

RESULTS

Of 935 choledochoscopies, 4 were performed during laparoscopic cholecystectomies and 931 during 1320 bile duct explorations (70.5%); 486 transcystic choledochoscopies (52%) and 445 through choledochotomies (48%). Transcystic choledochoscopy was utilized more often than blind exploration (55.7%% vs 44.3%) in patients with emergency admissions, jaundice, dilated bile ducts on preoperative imaging, wide cystic ducts, and large, numerous or impacted bile duct stones. Intrahepatic choledochoscopy was successful in 70% using the 3 mm scope and 81% with the 5 mm scope. Choledochoscopy was necessary in all 124 explorations for impacted stones. Twenty retained stones (2.1%) were encountered but no choledochoscopy related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Choledochoscopy should always be performed during a chol- edochotomy, particularly with multiple and intrahepatic stones, reducing the incidence of retained stones. Transcystic choledochoscopy was utilized in over 50% of explorations, increasing their rate of success. When attempted, the transcystic WBM achieves intrahepatic access in 70%-80%. It should be part of the training curriculum.

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration during pregnancy: a multi-center case series and literature review

BACKGROUND

The physiological changes of pregnancy increase the risk of gallstone formation and choledocholithiasis. Traditionally, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been the main approach for managing choledocholithiasis during pregnancy, but recent progress in laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) has demonstrated this technique as a safe and effective alternative option.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study of all patients who underwent LBDE during pregnancy from five centers with proven experience in LBDE between January 2010 and June 2020 was performed. The primary endpoint was to analyze the role of LBDE during pregnancy and to further characterize its position as a safe and effective alternative for the management of choledocholithiasis. A systematic review of the published literature relating to LBDE during pregnancy until February 2022 was also performed.

RESULTS

Five institutions reported performing LBDE during pregnancy in 8 patients. Median surgical time was 75 min (range: 60-140 min). The bile duct was cleared successfully in all patients, and the median hospital stay was 2 days (range: 1-3 days). The literature review identified a total of 7 patients with a successful CBD clearance rate of 86%. There were no major maternal, fetal, or pregnancy-related complications in any of the total 15 patients included. The symptomatic common bile duct lithiasis with deranged liver function tests was the most frequent indication (n=7).

CONCLUSION

LBDE during pregnancy appears to be safe and effective. More evidence reporting outcomes of LBDE during pregnancy is needed before any strong recommendations can be made.

Surgery and Postoperative Care of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy under the Guidance of B-Ultrasound Based on Smart Internet of Things

At present, percutaneous nephrolithotomy has become an option for hospitals increasingly to treat calculus. However, due to the certain risk of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, it may lead to postoperative complications. Analyzing the preoperative factors of septic shock after percutaneous nephrolithotomy can provide guidance for reducing the incidence of septic shock after PCNL. This article establishes a logistic regression model based on preoperative factors, uses statistical methods, and uses the professional statistical software SPSS to create a database and analyze the data. The method of classification data analysis was used to determine various influencing factors including patient factors, stone factor, and preoperative factors and combined B-ultrasound guidance and percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce the risk of surgery. The experimental results found that the percutaneous nephroscope laser lithotripsy guided by the smart Internet of Things can effectively perform lithotripsy; in this paper, the preoperative data of different complications are obtained, and the risk of surgery is closely related to the operation time. The operation time exceeds 90 minutes and causes the risk of severe bleeding after PCNL. It is twice the operation time of less than 90 minutes and 5 times the operation time of less than 60 minutes.

Controversias en cirugía: colelitiasis y coledocolitiasis ¿Exploración de vías biliares laparoscópica más colecistectomía laparoscópica (cirugía en un paso) o CPRE y colecistectomía laparoscópica (cirugía en dos pasos)?

Introducción. La colelitiasis tiene una prevalencia del 15 % y el 21 % tendrá coledocolitiasis al momento de la colecistectomía, con 50 % de probabilidad de presentar complicaciones asociadas. Desde el advenimiento de la colecistectomía laparoscópica, el abordaje de la coledocolitiasis ha sido endoscópico, usualmente en un tiempo diferente al vesicular, sin embargo, los avances en laparoscopia han permitido explorar la vía biliar común por la misma vía, pudiendo realizar ambos procedimientos en el mismo tiempo de forma segura. Métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda de la literatura existente con relación al enfoque para el manejo de la colecistocoledocolitasis en un paso comparado con dos pasos. Resultados. Existe evidencia que demuestra mayor efectividad del abordaje en dos pasos, con CPRE y posterior colecistectomía laparoscópica, sobre el abordaje en un paso, especialmente en la tasa de fuga biliar y de cálculos retenidos. El enfoque en un paso con exploración de vías biliares y colecistectomía laparoscópica en el mismo tiempo es seguro, con alta tasa de éxito, baja incidencia de complicaciones, menor estancia hospitalaria y costos. Conclusión. El abordaje laparoscópico en un solo paso es un procedimiento seguro y eficaz para el manejo de la colecisto-coledocolitiasis, con el beneficio de estancia hospitalaria menor, sin embargo, se requieren habilidades técnicas avanzadas en cirugía laparoscópica. En nuestro medio ya existe una infraestructura para el manejo híbrido con CPRE y colecistectomía laparoscópica, pudiéndose realizar ambos en el mismo tiempo, para reducir estancia y costos.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis

Although the feasibility of T-tube drainage after emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been reported, the safety and effectiveness of primary closure (PC) after LCBDE in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis (AC) remain uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of PC after LCBDE in patients with non-severe AC. Consecutive choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC who were treated with a laparoscopic approach at our institution between January 2014 and March 2021 were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups (PC group and T-tube group) based on the way of closure of the common bile duct. The baseline characteristics and perioperative data between the two groups were compared. A total of 230 patients who underwent LCBDE met the inclusion criteria, and there were 94 patients in the PC group and 126 patients in the T-tube group. Baseline data were balanced between the two groups, except that there was less acute cholecystitis in the PC group than in the T-tube group (P = 0.027). Compared to the T-tube group, the PC group had a shorter operation time (P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), less use of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) (P = 0.001), shorter time of drainage removal (P < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) and residual stones (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of conversion (4.3 vs. 4.4%, P = 1.000), intraoperative transfusion (0.0 vs. 0.7%, P = 1.000), use of basket (71.2 vs. 69.9%, P = 0.816), postoperative bleeding (1.1 vs. 0.7%, P = 1.000), biliary leakage (4.3 vs. 3.7%, P = 1.000), incision infection (1.1 vs. 2.2%, P = 0.649), pneumonia (2.1 vs. 1.4%, P = 1.000), or cholangitis (1.1 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.651). No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. During the follow-up period, no biliary stricture occurred in the two groups, and two patients in the T-tube group were found to have stone recurrence. PC after LCBDE in choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC shows superior clinical outcomes to T-tube drainage in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, time of drainage removal, postoperative hospital stay, and residual stones. PC is a safe and feasible treatment for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC after LCBDE.

Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones. However, the choice of primary duct closure (PDC) or T-tube drainage (TTD) technique after LCBDE is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of PDC and TTD after LCBDE. METHODS: Studies published before May 1, 2021 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to screen out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies to compare PDC with TTD. Meta-analyses of fixed effect and random effect models were performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 1865 patients were enrolled in six RCTs and ten cohort studies. Regarding RCTs, the PDC group was significantly better than the TTD group in terms of operation time, total postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses (all P<0.05). Based on cohort studies of the subgroup, the PDC group had shorter operation time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, less intraoperative blood loss, and limited total postoperative complications. Statistically, there were no significant differences in bile leakage, retained stones, stone recurrence, bile duct stricture, postoperative pancreatitis, other complications, or postoperative exhaust time between the TTD and PDC groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, compared with TTD, PDC is safe and effective, and can be used as the first choice after transductal LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis.

Porcine Aorto-Renal Artery (PARA) model for laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration: the evolution of a training model to meet new clinical needs

BACKGROUND

The transcystic approach to laparoscopic common bile duct exploration has gained popularity for the single-stage management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones. Our team previously described the use of a porcine aorta segment to simulate the common bile duct during laparoscopic skill training.

METHODS

With the advent of the transcystic approach as a contender for the first-line technique of accessing the common bile duct, we present an evolution of the laparoscopic training model using a Porcine Aorta-Renal Artery (PARA) specimen to simulate the structural integrity, dimensions and spatial distribution of both the human cystic and common bile ducts.

RESULTS

This training model allows the use of a choledochoscope for transcystic exploration of the biliary tree. It combines fidelity and reproducibility required for a simulated training model to offer experience in laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration. Validation of the model was demonstrated by 21 surgeons who completed a questionnaire after performing the simulated procedure. In all sections assessing reliability, face validity and content validity of the model, mean rating scores were between 4 and 5 out of five (good or excellent).

CONCLUSIONS

We present the evolution of an established training model for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration which focusses the attention on the transcystic approach to the common bile duct and the use of lithotripsy techniques. The need for such a model reflects the shift in the current practice of the laparoendoscopic management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones from transductal to transcystic approach.

Lessons learnt from the first 200 unselected consecutive cases of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct stones at a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

The management of choledocholithiasis evolves with diagnostic imaging and therapeutic technology, facilitating a laparoscopic approach. We review our first 200 cases of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct, highlighting challenges and lessons learnt.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied the first 200 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration between 2006 and 2019. The database contains demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, diagnostic modalities, operative techniques, duration and outcomes.

RESULTS

We compared two approaches: transcystic vs. transcholedochal in our 200 cases. Choledocholithiasis was suspected preoperatively in 163 patients. 21 cases found no stones. Of the remainder, 111/179 cases were completed via the transcystic route and the remaining were completed transcholedochally (68/179); 25% of the transcholedochal cases were converted from a transcystic approach. CBD diameter for transcystic route was 8.2 vs. 11.0 mm for transcholedochal. Total clearance rate was 84%. Retained or recurrent stones were noted in 7 patients. Length of stay was 5.8 days, 3.5 days in the transcystic route vs. 9.4 days after transcholedochal clearance. Eight patients required re-operation for bleeding or bile leak. No mortalities were recorded in this cohort, but 2 cases (1%) developed a subsequent CBD stricture.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant laparoscopic common bile duct clearance with cholecystectomy is feasible, safe and effective in a district general hospital, despite constraints of time and resources. The transcystic route has a lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay, and hence our preference of this route for all cases. Advancements in stone management technology will allow wider adoption of this technique, benefitting more patients.

The ABCdE score for PREdicting Lithotripsy Assistance during transcystic Bile duct Exploration by Laparoendoscopy (PRE-LABEL)

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct (CBD) stones are reported in ~ 15% of patients who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. Prior to lithotripsy techniques, transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) was limited to smaller CBD stones. The addition of lithotripsy to LCBDE increases cost, operative time and staffing requirements. Predicting which patients might require lithotripsy would be useful in operative planning. The primary aim was to investigate clinical variables for predicting lithotripsy assistance during transcystic bile duct exploration by laparoendoscopy (PRE-LABEL). Secondary aims were to develop and validate a predictive scoring tool.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent transcystic LCBDE at a single centre in the UK was performed to investigate clinical variables for PRE-LABEL and develop a scoring tool (ABCdE score: age, bilirubin, CBD diameter, ERCP). Binary logistic regression was used to investigate which independent variables (predictors) were associated with lithotripsy assistance during transcystic LCBDE. The ABCdE score was applied to both UK and Spain patient cohorts to determine its sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.

RESULTS

From 8 pre-operative clinical variables analysed, age ≤ 40 years, bilirubin > two-times upper limit of normal, CBD diameter ≥ 10 mm and ERCP failure of stone extraction were independent predictors of requiring lithotripsy during transcystic LCBDE and formed the ABCdE score. The hazard ratios were 2.87, 3.79, 2.78 and 10.06, respectively. An ABCdE score ≥ 2 resulted in 71% sensitivity, 81% specificity and 79% accuracy in predicting lithotripsy during LCBDE (UK cohort). Validation using a contemporary cohort from Spain yielded similar sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the only study to date reporting independent predictors of requiring lithotripsy assistance during transcystic LCBDE. ABCdE score ≥ 2 can highlight patients that may require lithotripsy in order to avoid failure of transcystic LCBDE and therefore avoid choledochotomy or post-operative ERCP.

Can T-tube drainage be replaced by primary suture technique in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered the best treatment and has the advantages of being minimally invasive for common bile duct (CBD) stones, the choice of T-tube drainage (TTD) or primary duct closure (PDC) after LCBDE is still controversial. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare the superiority of PDC versus TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

All potential studies which compare the surgical effects between PDC with TTD were electronically searched for in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library databases up to November 2019. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

In total, six randomized controlled trials with 604 patients (307 in the PDC group and 297 in the TTD group) were included in the current meta-analysis. As compared with the TTD group, the pooled data showed that PDC group had shorter operating time (WMD = -24.30; 95% CI = -27.02 to -21.59; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%; p < 0.88), less medical expenditure (WMD = -2255.73; 95% CI = -3330.59 to -1180.86; p < 0.0001; I² = 96%; p < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (OR = -2.88; 95% CI = -3.22 to -2.54; p < 0.00001; I² = 60%; p < 0.03), and lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.78; p = 0.77; I² = 0%; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning bile leakage (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.53; p = 0.42; I² = 0%; p = 0.90) and retained stones (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.36 to 2.52; p < 0.93; I² = 0%; p < 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with PDC should be performed as a priority alternative compared with TTD for choledocholithiasis.

Transductal versus transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: an institutional review of over four hundred cases

BACKGROUND

Many studies have failed to demonstrate significant differences between single- and two-staged approaches for the management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones in terms of post-operative morbidity. However, none of these studies paid specific attention to the differences between the methods of accessing the bile duct during laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to report outcomes of transcystic versus transductal laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) from our experience of over four hundred cases.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 416 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at a single-centre between 1998 and 2018 was performed. Data collected included pre-operative demographic information, medical co-morbidity, pre-operative investigations, intra-operative findings (including negative choledochoscopy rates, use of holmium laser lithotripsy and operative time) and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

Transductal LCBDE via choledochotomy was achieved in 242 patients (58.2%), whereas 174 patients (41.8%) underwent transcystic LCBDE. Stone clearance rates, conversion to open surgery and mortality were similar between the two groups. Overall morbidity as well as minor and major post-operative complications were significantly higher in the transductal group. The main surgery-related complications were bile leak (5.8% vs 1.1%, p = 0.0181) and pancreatitis (7.4% vs 0.6%, p = 0.0005). Median length of post-operative stay was also significantly greater in the transductal group.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the largest single study to date comparing outcomes from transcystic and transductal LCBDE. Where possibly, the transcystic route should be used for LCBDE and this approach can be augmented with various techniques to increase successful stone clearance and reduce the need for choledochotomy.