Long-term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Comparison of the efficacy of LTCBDE and LCBDE for common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The choice of surgical methods for common bile duct stones (CBDS) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

Methods

Relevant literature published before March 30, 2023 in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane was searched to screen studies comparing LTCBDE and LCBDE. RevMan 5.4 was used for meta-analysis of fixed-effects and random-effects models.

Results

A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 3065 patients in the LTCBDE group and 2,453 patients in the LCBDE group. CBDS clearance was 95.4% (2,682/2,812) in LTCBDE group and 94.7% (1,810/1,911) in LCBDE group (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.36, 2.48, P < 0.0001; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.56). In LTCBDE group, operative time(MD = -34.60, 95% CI: -46.05, -23, 15, P < 0.00001 I 2 = 96%, P < 0.00001), postoperative hospital stay (MD = -2.92, 95% CI: -3.62, -2.21, P < 0.00001; I 2 = 92%, P < 0.00001), postoperative complications (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.38, 0.58, P < 0.0001; I 2 = 26%, P = 0.15), residual stone(OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.66, P < 0.0001; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.56), bile leak (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.55, P < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%,P = 0.52), mortality (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.88, P = 0.04; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.71) and recurrent stones(OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.74, P = 0.007; I 2 = 5%, P = 0.38) were better than LCBDE group. There was no difference in pancreatitis (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.52, 2.16. P = 0.86; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.98) and biliary stricture(OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.09, P = 0.07; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.57).

Conclusions

LTCBDE is safe, efficient, and of great clinical significance, and is worth promoting to some patients.

Index admission vs elective laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a district general hospital experience over 6 years

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is relatively a new approach for clearing choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study is to assess the safety of this approach to clearing common bile duct (CBD) stones on an index admission including emergency setting.

METHODS

Retrospective data collection and analysis were carried out for 207 consecutive cases of LCBDE performed in Royal Cornwall Hospital over 6 years (2015-2020). Patients were divided into two groups (Index admission vs elective) then both groups compared.

RESULTS

A total of 207 cases of LCBDE were performed in our unit during the time period. One hundred twenty-two operations were performed on the index admission and 85 on a subsequent elective list. Mean operative time was 146 ± 64 min in the index admission group and 145 ± 65 min in the elective group (p = 0.913). Length of stay post-operatively was 3.3 ± 6.3 days in the index admission cases and 3.5 ± 4.6 days after elective cases. Successful clearance was achieved at the end of the operation in 116 patients in the index admission group, clearance failed in one case and negative exploration in 5 patients. In the elective group 83 patients had a successful clearance at the end of the operation, and 2 patients has had a negative exploration. Twelve patients (index admission group) and 8 patients of the elective cases required post-operative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to manage retained stones, recurrent stones and bile leak (p = 0.921). Three patients required re-operation for post-operative complications in each group.

CONCLUSION

Common bile duct exploration in index admission is safe with high success rate if performed by well-trained surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills.

Comparative study of three common bile duct closure techniques after choledocholithotomy: safety and efficacy

PURPOSE

T-tube drainage, primary closure, and biliary stenting are the common bile duct closure methods. There is great debate on the optimal duct closure technique after common bile duct exploration. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the three commonest common bile duct closure methods after common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stone for future generalization.

METHODS

In this analysis, 211 patients with common bile duct stone underwent common bile duct exploration from January 2016 to December 2020. The patients were divided according to common bile duct closure techniques into three groups, including the T-tube drainage group (63 patients), primary duct closure group (61 patients), and antegrade biliary stenting group (87 patients).

RESULTS

The incidence of overall biliary complications and bile leak were statistically significantly lower in the biliary stenting group than in the other two groups. Also, hospital stays, drain carried time, return to normal activity, re-intervention, and re-admission rates were statistically significantly lower in the biliary stenting group than in the other two groups. There were no statistically significant differences regarding operative and choledochotomy time, retained and recurrent stone, stricture, biliary peritonitis, cholangitis, and the cost among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We state that the biliary stenting procedure should be the preferred first option for common bile duct closure after common bile duct exploration when compared with T-tube drainage and primary duct closure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov PRS (Approval No. NCT04264299).

A UK survey on variation in the practice of management of choledocholithiasis and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (ALiCE Survey)

BACKGROUND

The practice of managing suspected/confirmed common bile duct stones (CBDS) can vary significantly in the UK. We aimed to assess this variability in practice and challenges to form a basis for future consensus.

METHODS

An electronic survey containing 40 questions on various aspects of management of CBDS was sent to surgeons who perform cholecystectomies via five surgical associations.

RESULTS

 A total of 132 surgeons responded to the survey. The speciality of surgeons includes upper gastro-intestinal (68%), general (18%), colorectal (12%), and others (2%). For patients with suspected CBD stones, 80% would choose magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography, and 14.4% would proceed to intra-operative imaging. Most surgeons preferred intra-operative cholangiogram over intra-operative ultrasound (83% vs 17%). For the treatment, 62.1% preferred a two-stage approach [endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)] and 33.4% chose a single-stage approach [LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)]. Eighty (60.6%) responders performed LCBDE, and 19 (23.8%) of them performed > 10 LCBDEs in a year. Two third of surgeons (62.5%) preferred a trans-choledochal approach to CBDS. Half of the surgeons that perform LCBDE use a T-tube selectively and 1.6% routinely. The "availability of very good ERCP service" and "lack of formal training" were the two main reasons for surgeons not performing LCBDE. Both surgeons' speciality and whether they perform other complex laparoscopic surgery were significantly associated with choosing a two-stage approach over a one-stage approach (χ² test, speciality p = 0.033, complex surgery p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

 Our survey confirms the significant variability in the diagnosis and management of CBDS. The two-stage approach is still the most common way of managing CBDS in the UK. The main reasons for the low uptake of the single-stage approach are the availability of good ERCP service, lack of equipment and lack of formal training in the technique of LCBDE.

Management of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis: Endoscopic and surgical approaches

Gallstone disease and complications from gallstones are a common clinical problem. The clinical presentation ranges between being asymptomatic and recurrent attacks of biliary pain requiring elective or emergency treatment. Bile duct stones are a frequent condition associated with cholelithiasis. Amidst the total cholecystectomies performed every year for cholelithiasis, the presence of bile duct stones is 5%-15%; another small percentage of these will develop common bile duct stones after intervention. To avoid serious complications that can occur in choledocholithiasis, these stones should be removed. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the ideal management strategy to perform such. For a long time, a direct open surgical approach to the bile duct was the only unique approach. With the advent of advanced endoscopic, radiologic, and minimally invasive surgical techniques, however, therapeutic choices have increased in number, and the management of this pathological situation has become multidisciplinary. To date, there is agreement on preoperative management and the need to treat cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis, but a debate still exists on how to cure the two diseases at the same time. In the era of laparoscopy and mini-invasiveness, we can say that therapeutic approaches can be performed in two sessions or in one session. Comparison of these two approaches showed equivalent success rates, postoperative morbidity, stone clearance, mortality, conversion to other procedures, total surgery time, and failure rate, but the one-session treatment is characterized by a shorter hospital stay, and more cost benefits. The aim of this review article is to provide the reader with a general summary of gallbladder stone disease in association with the presence of common bile duct stones by discussing their epidemiology, clinical and diagnostic aspects, and possible treatments and their advantages and limitations.

Outcomes of laparoscopic bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis with small common bile duct

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LCBDE) is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm. However, for patients with small CBD (CBD diameter ≤ 8 mm), endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the preferred treatment at present, but it also has some drawbacks associated with a series of complications, such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, cholangitis, and duodenal perforation. To date, few studies have been reported that support the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.

AIM

To investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.

METHODS

A total of 257 patients without acute cholangitis who underwent LC + LCBDE for cholecystolithiasis from January 2013 to December 2018 in one institution were reviewed. The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. According to whether the diameter of CBD was larger than 8 mm, 257 patients were divided into large CBD group (n = 146) and small CBD group (n = 111). Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for clinical differences. The demographics, intraoperative data, short-term outcomes, and long-term follow-up outcomes for the patients were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

In total, 257 patients who underwent successful LC + LCBDE were enrolled in the study, 146 had large CBD and 111 had small CBD. The median follow-up period was 39 (14-86) mo. For small CBD patients, the median CBD diameter was 0.6 cm (0.2-2.0 cm), the mean operating time was 107.2 ± 28.3 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBD stones (CBDS), CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (6/111), 3.60% (4/111), 1.80% (2/111), and 0% (0/111), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.4 ± 3.6 d. For large CBD patients, the median common bile duct diameter was 1.0 cm (0.3-3.0 cm), the mean operating time was 115.7 ± 32.0 min, and the postoperative bile leak rate, rate of residual CBDS, CBDS recurrence rate, and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41% (9/146), 1.37% (2/146), 6.85% (10/146), and 0% (0/146), respectively; the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.7 ± 2.7 d. After propensity score matching, 184 patients remained, and all preoperative covariates except diameter of CBD stones were balanced. Postoperative bile leak occurred in 11 patients overall (5.98%), and no difference was found between the small CBD group (4.35%, 4/92) and the large CBD group (7.61%, 7/92). The incidence of CBDS recurrence did not differ significantly between the small CBD group (2.17%, 2/92) and the large CBD group (6.52%, 6/92).

CONCLUSION

LC + LCBDE is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis patients with small CBD and did not increase the postoperative bile leak rate compared with chole-docholithiasis patients with large CBD.

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.

One-stage fluoroscopic-guided laparoscopic transcystic papillary balloon dilation and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of choledocholithiasis after Roux-en-Y reconstruction

Patients with a history of gastrectomy have a higher incidence of cholecystocholedocholithiasis and morbidities. In particular, the management of choledocholithiasis with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been challenging in patients after Roux-en-Y or Billroth II reconstruction due to the altered gastrointestinal anatomy. A 92-year-old man presented with high fever. He had undergone laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction 9 years earlier for gastric cancer. Choledocholithiasis was diagnosed and ERCP was attempted, but cannulation of the papilla of Vater failed. An elective one-stage operation was planned. One-stage fluoroscopic-guided laparoscopic transcystic papillary balloon dilation (LTPBD) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were performed. The operation time was 130 min with 3 mL of intraoperative bleeding. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 3 with no complications. We report this case in which one-stage LTPBD and LC was successfully performed for a super-elderly patient with choledocholithiasis after Roux-en-Y reconstruction.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Versus Transductal Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic transcystic (TC) and transductal (TD) common bile duct (CBD) exploration.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists. CBD clearance rate, perioperative complications, and biliary complications were defined as the primary outcome parameters. Procedure time, length of hospital stay, conversion to open procedure were the secondary outcomes. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We identified 30 studies reporting a total of 4073 patients comparing outcomes of laparoscopic TC (n = 2176) and TD (N = 1897) CBD exploration. The TC approach was associated with significantly lower overall complications (RD: -0.07, P = 0.001), biliary complications (RD: -0.05, P = 0.0003), and blood loss (MD: -16.20, P = 0.02) compared to TD approach. Moreover, the TC approach significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD: -2.62, P < 0.00001) and procedure time (MD: -12.73, P = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference in rate of CBD clearance (RD: 0.00, P = 0.77) and conversion to open procedure (RD: 0.00, P = 0.86) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic TC CBD exploration is safe and reduces overall morbidity and biliary complications compared to the TD approach. Moreover, it is associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay and procedure time. High-quality randomised trials may provide stronger evidence with respect to impact of the cystic duct/CBD diameter, number or size of CBD stones, or cystic duct anatomy on the comparative outcomes of TC and TD approaches.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic transcystic versus transcholedochal common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether laparoscopic transcystic exploration (LTCE) laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD) is superior in the management of choledocholithiasis. In this meta-analysis, the success of LTCE versus LCD was evaluated.

METHODS

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Trip, PubMed, Ovid and Embase databases were searched systematically for relevant literature up to May 2017. Studies that compared the success rate of LTCE and LCD in patients with choledocholithiasis were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Multiple independent reviewers contributed on a cloud-based platform. Random-effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (MDs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals. An a priori hypothesis was generated based on clinical experience that LTCE is as successful as LCD.

RESULTS

Of 3533 screened articles, 25 studies comprising 4224 patients were included. LTCE achieved a lower duct clearance rate than LCD (OR 0.38, 95 per cent c.i. 0·24 to 0·59). It was associated with a shorter duration of surgery (MD -0·86, 95 per cent c.i. -0·97 to -0·77), lower bile leak (OR 0·46, 0·23 to 0·93) and shorter hospital stay (MD -0·78, -1·14 to -0·42) than LCD. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion, stricture formation or reintervention rate.

CONCLUSION

LCD has a higher rate of successful duct clearance, but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, and a higher bile leak rate.

Clinical analysis of treatment strategies to cholecystocholedocholithiasis patients with previous subtotal or total gastrectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Previous gastrectomy can lead to an increased incidence of cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL) and increased morbidity rate. However, the appropriate treatment strategy for patients with CCL and a history of gastrectomy remains unclear.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with CCL and a history of gastrectomy who underwent either one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration with stone clearance and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) or two-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography followed by LC (ERCP+LC) from May 2010 to March 2018.

Results

The success rate of ERCP for CBD stone clearance was 81.2% in patients with a history of Billroth I gastrectomy and 23.7% in patients with a history of Billroth II or Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy [χ² = 97.67, P < 0.001, risk ratio (RR) = 3.43]. The success rate of second-step LC after successful ERCP for removal of CBD stones and the success rate of LCBDE+LC after ERCP treatment failure were 96.8 and 87.7%, respectively, in patients with preoperative intra-abdominal adhesion evaluation scores of ≤3 points. These success rates were 28.6 and 27.6%, respectively, in patients with scores of > 3 points (χ² = 59.70, P < 0.001, RR = 3.38 and χ² = 53.41, P < 0.001, RR = 3.27, respectively).

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, ERCP+LC seems to be an attractive strategy for treatment of CCL in patients with a history of Billroth I gastrectomy, and LCBDE+LC appears to be suitable for patients with a history of Billroth II or Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy. Preoperative evaluation of intra-abdominal adhesions helps to reduce the conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery.

Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS)

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) are estimated to be present in 10-20% of individuals with symptomatic gallstones. They can result in a number of health problems, including pain, jaundice, infection and acute pancreatitis. A variety of imaging modalities can be employed to identify the condition, while management of confirmed cases of CBDS may involve endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, surgery and radiological methods of stone extraction. Clinicians are therefore confronted with a number of potentially valid options to diagnose and treat individuals with suspected CBDS. The British Society of Gastroenterology first published a guideline on the management of CBDS in 2008. Since then a number of developments in management have occurred along with further systematic reviews of the available evidence. The following recommendations reflect these changes and provide updated guidance to healthcare professionals who are involved in the care of adult patients with suspected or proven CBDS. It is not a protocol and the recommendations contained within should not replace individual clinical judgement.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016

Cholelithiasis is one of the commonest diseases in gastroenterology. Remarkable improvements in therapeutic modalities for cholelithiasis and its complications are evident. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology has revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis. Forty-three clinical questions, for four categories-epidemiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, and prognosis and complications-were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This article preferentially describes the clinical management of cholelithiasis and its complications. Following description of the diagnosis performed stepwise through imaging modalities, treatments of cholecystolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, and hepatolithiasis are introduced along with a flowchart. Since there have been remarkable improvements in endoscopic treatments and surgical techniques, the guidelines ensure flexibility in choices according to the actual clinical environment. The revised clinical practice guidelines are appropriate for use by clinicians in their daily practice.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy

Purpose

The ideal treatment for choledocholithiasis should be simple, readily available, reliable, minimally invasive and cost-effective for patients. We performed this study to compare the benefits and drawbacks of different laparoscopic approaches (transcystic and choledochotomy) for removal of common bile duct stones.

Methods

A systematic search was implemented for relevant literature using Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and Wanfang databases. Both the fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for this study.

Results

The meta-analysis included 18 trials involving 2,782 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct exploration (LCCBDE) (n = 1,222) and laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) (n = 1,560) regarding stone clearance (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50–1.07; P = 0.11), conversion to other procedures (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21–1.79; P = 0.38), total morbidity (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.92–2.96; P = 0.09), operative time (MD 12.34, 95% CI −0.10–24.78; P = 0.05), and blood loss (MD 1.95, 95% CI −9.56–13.46; P = 0.74). However, the LTCBDE group showed significantly better results for biliary morbidity (OR 4.25, 95% CI 2.30–7.85; P<0.001), hospital stay (MD 2.52, 95% CI 1.29–3.75; P<0.001), and hospital expenses (MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.23–0.37; P<0.001) than the LCCBDE group.

Conclusions

LTCBDE is safer than LCCBDE, and is the ideal treatment for common bile duct stones.

Long-term Outcome of Primary Closure After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined With Choledochoscopy

BACKGROUND

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered to be a safe alternative to T-tube drainage on the basis of the short-term outcome. However, little published data exist regarding the biliary complications at the long-term follow-up of primary closure versus T-tube drainage following LCBDE. Hence, the aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcome of primary closure after LCBDE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 142 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE combined with choledochoscopy for CBD stones. After LCBDE, the choledochotomy was closed by primary closure (group P) in 91 patients (64.1%) and with T-tube drainage (group T) in 51 patients (35.9%). The data on operative outcome and long-term biliary complications were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was significantly shorter in group P than group T (168.9 ± 50.1 min for group P vs. 198.0 ± 59.6 min for group T, P = 0.002). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in group P than in group T (8.59 ± 6.0 d for group P vs. 14.96 ± 5.4 d for group T, P = 0.001). Postoperative bile leak occurred in 2 patients (2.2%) in group P and 1 patient (2.0%) in group T. With a mean follow-up of 48.8 months, the stone recurrence rate in group P and group T were 4.4% and 5.9%, respectively (P = 0.722). During the follow-up period, there was no sign of biliary stricture or other biliary complications in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term follow-up data on primary closure after LCBDE indicated a low incidence of recurrent stones, and no biliary strictures. Thus, primary closure after LCBDE with choledochoscopy is considered to be a safe and effective alternative to T-tube drainage in terms of long-term outcome.

Results of Medium Seventeen Years' Follow-Up after Laparoscopic Choledochotomy for Ductal Stones

Introduction. In a previously published article the authors reported the long-term follow-up results in 138 consecutive patients with gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones who underwent laparoscopic transverse choledochotomy (TC) with T-tube biliary drainage and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Aim of this study is to evaluate the results at up to 23 years of follow-up in the same series. Methods. One hundred twenty-one patients are the object of the present study. Patients were evaluated by clinical visit, blood assay, and abdominal ultrasound. Symptomatic patients underwent cholangio-MRI, followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as required. Results. Out of 121 patients, 61 elderly patients died from unrelated causes. Fourteen patients were lost to follow-up. In the 46 remaining patients, ductal stone recurrence occurred in one case (2,1%) successfully managed by ERCP with endoscopic sphincterotomy. At a mean follow-up of 17.1 years no other patients showed signs of bile stasis and no patient showed any imaging evidence of CBD stricture at the site of choledochotomy. Conclusions. Laparoscopic transverse choledochotomy with routine T-tube biliary drainage during LC has proven to be safe and effective at up to 23 years of follow-up, with no evidence of CBD stricture when the procedure is performed with a correct technique.

Primary closure and rate of bile leak following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis is traditionally managed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or T-tube insertion following common bile duct exploration. This study examined the efficacy and safety of primary duct closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) via choledochotomy.

METHODS

Between September 2011 and September 2013, 157 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE via choledochotomy.

RESULTS

Of 157 LCBDE procedures, 138 (87.9%) were successfully completed with primary closure of the choledochotomy. Eight patients (5.1%) underwent closure with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy and 11 patients (7.0%) were converted to open surgery. The biliary tree was free of stones at the end of surgery in 154 patients (98.1%). Postoperative bile leak occurred in 6 patients (3.8%). The median follow-up period was 18 (2-33) months, with no evidence of further bile duct stones or bile duct stricture in any patients. Univariable analysis revealed that successful duct clearance (p = 0.010) and diameter of the common bile duct (p < 0.001) were two significant risk factors for bile leak.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary duct closure following LCBDE is effective and safe for the management of choledocholithiasis. The postoperative bile leak rate may be low in skilled laparoscopic surgeons with a careful selection of patients.

Comparison between intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy for ductal clearance in laparoscopic CBD exploration: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is an accepted treatment modality for single stage management of CBD stones in fit patients. A transcholedochal approach is preferred in patients with a dilated CBD and large impacted stones in whom ductal clearance remains problematic. There are very few studies comparing intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) with choledochoscopy to determine ductal clearance in patients undergoing transcholedochal LCBDE. This series represents the first of those comparing the two from Asia.

METHODS

Between April 2009 and October 2012, 150 consecutive patients with CBD stones were enrolled in a prospective randomized study to undergo transcholedochal LCBDE on an intent-to-treat basis. Patients with CBD diameter of less than 9 mm on preoperative imaging were excluded from the study. Out of the 132 eligible patients, 65 patients underwent IOC (Group A), and 67 patients underwent intraoperative choledochoscopy (Group B) to determine CBD clearance.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the two groups in the demographic profile and the preoperative biochemical findings. There was no conversion to open procedures, and complete stone clearance was achieved in all the 132 cases. The mean CBD diameter and the mean number of CBD stones removed were comparable between the two groups. Mean operating time was 170 min in Group A and 140 min in Group B (p < 0.001). There was no difference in complications between the two groups. Nine patients in Group A (13.8%) showed non-passage of contrast into the duodenum on IOC which resolved after administration of i.v. glucagon, suggesting a transient spasm of sphincter of Oddi. Two patients (3%) showed a false-positive result on IOC which had to be resolved with choledochoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that intraoperative choledochoscopy is better than IOC for determining ductal clearance after transcholedochal LCBDE and is less cumbersome and less time-consuming.

Results of treatment of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi by single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration

INTRODUCTION

Choledocholithiasis is the most common cause of obstructive jaundice. Common bile duct stones are observed in 10-14% of patients diagnosed with gall bladder stones. In the case of gall bladder and common bile duct stones the procedure involves not only performing cholecystectomy but also removing the stones from bile ducts.

AIM

To compare the results of the treatment of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi by one-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration with two other methods: one-stage open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration, and a two-stage procedure involving endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2004 and 2011 three groups of 100 patients were treated for obstructive jaundice caused by choledocholithiasis. The first group of 42 patients underwent ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The second group of 23 patients underwent open cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration, whereas the third group of 35 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration. The data were analysed prospectively. The methods were compared according to complete execution, bile duct clearance and complication rate. Complications were analysed according to Clavien's Classification of Surgical Complications. The results were compared using the ANOVA statistical test and Student's t-test in Statistica. Value of p was calculated statistically. A p-value less than 0.05 (p < 0.05) signified that groups differed statistically, whereas a p-value more than 0.05 (p > 0.05) suggested no statistically significant differences between the groups.

RESULTS

The procedure could not be performed in 11.9% of patients in the first group and in 14.3% of patients in the third group. Residual stones were found in 13.5% of the patients in the first group, in 4.3% of the patients in the second group and in 6.7% of the patients in the third group. According to Clavien's classification of complications grade II and III, we can assign the range in the first group at 21.6% for grade II and 0% for grade III, in the second group at 21.4% and 3.6% and in the third group at 6.7% and 3.3% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of all three methods of treatment gives similar results. One-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration is after all the least invasive, safer and more effective procedure.

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.

One-stage versus Two-stage Management for Concomitant Gallbladder Stones and Common Bile Duct Stones in Patients with Obstructive Jaundice

No consensus exists regarding the optimal management of concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones (CBDS). Previous studies showed a significant association between the presence of obstructive jaundice and increased risk of postoperative complications and conversion to open surgery. This retrospective study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of one-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration) management versus two-stage (preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterotomy 1 LC) management for patients with obstructive jaundice, concomitant gallbladder stones, and CBDS. One-stage management (n = 88) or two-stage management (n = 122) was used for 210 eligible patients between January 2009 and March 2011. Both types of management proved to be effective and safe. No significant difference was observed in terms of stone clearance from the common bile duct (CBD), postoperative morbidity, mortality, or conversion to open surgery. However, one-stage management was more cost-effective and decreased the number of procedures. In addition, postoperative hospital stay and operative time were shorter for patients who received one-stage management. Especially for patients with CBD greater than 1 cm in diameter, one-stage management is a better choice.

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.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage may prevent bile leak from the biliary tract following bile duct exploration and it offers post-operative access to the bile ducts for visualisation and exploration. Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager (RevMan) Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials randomising 295 participants: 147 to T-tube drainage versus 148 to primary closure. All trials had a high risk of bias. No one died during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with serious morbidity (17/147 (weighted percentage 11.3%) in the T-tube drainage versus 9/148 (6.1%) in the primary closure group; RR 1.86; 95% CI 0.87 to 3.96; three trials), and no significant difference was found in the serious morbidity rates (weighted serious morbidity rate = 97 events per 1000 patients) in participants randomised to T-tube drainage versus serious morbidity rate = 61 events per 1000 patients in the primary closure group; RR 1.59; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.83; three trials). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 21.22 minutes; 95% CI 12.44 minutes to 30.00 minutes; three trials). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 3.26 days; 95% CI 2.49 days to 4.04 days; three trials). According to one trial, the participants randomised to T-tube drainage returned to work approximately eight days later than the participants randomised to the primary closure group (P < 0.005).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

T-tube drainage appears to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay as compared with primary closure without any evidence of benefit after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Based on currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias, assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

[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.

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.

A randomized trial comparing the use of endobiliary stent and T-tube for biliary decompression after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

PURPOSE

To compare the use of a biliary stent with T-tube for biliary decompression after laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration.

METHODS

Between September 2004 and March 2008, 60 patients undergoing laparoscopic CBD exploration for CBD stones were randomized to choledochotomy closure over either a biliary stent or a T-tube after CBD clearance. Patients at high risk for surgery and unremitting cholangitis requiring preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 29 and 31 patients in the T-tube and stenting groups, respectively. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to their demographic profile and disease characteristics. Patients in the stent group had a significantly shorter operative time and postoperative stay with an earlier return to normal activity (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Choledochotomy closure over a stent results in a shorter postoperative stay and an earlier return to normal activity compared with closure over a T-tube without any increase in morbidity.

Results of laparoscopic bile duct exploration via choledochotomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) is well established although the results via choledochotomy are relatively poorly documented. This report evaluates the results achieved by a single surgeon operating in one institution on an unselected group of patients using modern instrumentation.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, 56 consecutive patients underwent LBDE via choledochotomy utilizing flexible choledochoscopy.

RESULTS

The median age was 61 years (range 20-90) and the mean body mass index was 29 (21-47). There were 15 patients (27%) who had emergency operations for jaundice with a mean preoperative bilirubin level of 10 umol/L (41-248). Fourteen patients (25%) had undergone failed preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Contact electrohydraulic lithotripsy was used in 8 patients (14%) and t-tubes were inserted in 6 patients (11%) with the remainder having primary closure. There was major morbidity in 6 patients (11%) including conversion to open surgery in 1 and relaparoscopy in 3. Three patients had positive t-tube cholangiograms giving a laparoscopic clearance rate of 93% (52 patients). The median postoperative length of stay was 2.5 days (1-15). The median follow-up was 56.1 weeks (interquartile range 23.4-110.7) with no recurrent stones, strictures or late gallstone abscess.

CONCLUSIONS

LBDE via choledochotomy is safe and effective but there is a definite morbidity rate. It requires significant investment in equipment, and skill with flexible endoscopy and laparoscopic suturing.

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.

Laparoscopic management of CBD stones: an Indian experience

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) that are seen in the Asian population are very different from those seen in the west. It is not infrequent to see multiple, large, and impacted stones and a hugely dilated CBD. Many of these patients have been managed by open CBD exploration (OCBDE), even after the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), because these large stones pose significant challenges for extraction by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. This series presents the largest experience of managing CBDS using a laparoscopic approach from Indian subcontinent.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2009, 150 patients with documented CBDS were treated laparoscopically at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi. Of these, 4 patients were managed through transcystic route and 140 through the transcholedochal route.

RESULTS

There were 34 men and 116 women patients with age ranging from 15 to 72 years. The mean size of the CBD on ultrasound was 11.7 ± 3.7 mm and on MRCP 13.8 ± 4.7 mm. The number of stones extracted varied from 1 to 70 and the size of the extracted stones from 5 to 30 mm. The average duration of surgery was 139.9 ± 26.3 min and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 103.4 ± 85.9 ml. There were 6 conversions to open procedures, 1 postoperative death (0.7%), and 23 patients (15%) had nonfatal postoperative complications. Three patients had retained stones (2%) and one developed recurrent stone (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with multiple, large, and impacted CBDS, there is scope for a minimally invasive procedure with its attendant benefits in the form of laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE).

Laparoscopic Common Duct Exploration in 90-Bed Rural Hospital

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is an effective procedure when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is not available. From January 2004 until December 2009, 1254 patients presented with biliary tract disease. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was attempted in 1240 (98%) cases and completed in 1232 (98%) cases. Laparoscopic cholangiograms were performed in 627 (50%) cases. LCBDE was carried out in 33 (2.6%) cases. Of the 33 LCBDEs, 29 (2.3%) were via the cystic duct, four (0.32%) through a choledochotomy; eight (0.64%) of the total laparoscopic cholecystectomies were converted to open cholecystectomies. LCBDE can be done safely in small hospitals and is very useful when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is not available.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: our first 50 cases

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is becoming more popular in the management of choledocholithiasis due to improved laparoscopic expertise and advancement in endoscopic technology and equipment. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and short-term outcome of laparoscopic CBDE in a single institution over a 3-year period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of the records of all patients who underwent laparoscopic CBDE in Tan Tock Seng Hospital between January 2006 and September 2008 was conducted.

RESULTS

Fifty consecutive patients, with a median age of 60 years (range, 27 to 85) underwent laparoscopic CBDE for choledocholithiasis during the study period. About half of our patients presented as an emergency with acute cholangitis (32.0%) accounting for the majority. A total of 22 (44.0%) patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE as their primary procedure while the remaining 28 (56.0%) were subjected to preoperative ERCP initially. Of the latter group, documented stone clearance was only documented in 5 (17.9%) patients. Laparoscopic CBDE via the transcystic route was performed in 27 (54.0%) patients while another 18 patients (36.0%) had laparoscopic choledochotomy and 1 patient (2.0%) had laparoscopic choledocho-duodenostomy. There were 4 (8.0%) conversions in our series. The median operative time for laparoscopic CBDE via the transcystic route and the laparoscopic choledochotomy were 170 (75-465) and 250 (160-415) minutes, respectively. For the 18 patients who underwent a laparoscopic choledochotomy, T-tube was inserted in 8 (44.4%) patients while an internal biliary stent was placed in 4 (22.2%) with the remaining 6 patients (33.3%) undergoing primary closure of the choledochotomy. The median length of hospital stay was 2 days (range, 1 to 15) with no associated mortality. The main complications (n = 4, 8.0%) included retained CBD stones and biliary leakage. These were treated successfully with postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with/without percutaneous drainage with no further surgery required.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic CBDE is a safe operation with good outcome in managing choledocholithasis. Its dividends include the numerous benefits of minimally invasive surgery. If possible, transcystic extraction is preferred to choledochotomy, as this obviates the need for biliary diversion. ERCP will still hold an important role in certain instances in the management of choledocholithiasis.

Is laparoscopic fiberoptic choledochoscopy for common bile duct stones a fine option or a mandatory step?

BACKGROUND

Because choledochoscopy often is a challenging maneuver, it would be advantageous to define the real utility of its use. This study aimed to compare blind exploration of the common bile duct (CBD) with choledochoscopy-assisted CBD stone removal in terms of patient outcome and complication rate.

METHODS

Two groups of patients were prospectively evaluated in a 4-year period. The study participants were 36 men and 27 women randomized to group A (n = 32) for a blind basket procedure or group B (n = 31) for a choledochoscopy-assisted procedure as the first step of laparoscopic CBD stone removal. Patients with preoperatively suspected CBD stones (n = 51) and those with unsuspected stones (n = 12) were included. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of anagraphics, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, or previous surgery. All the procedures were performed by surgeons skilled in this surgical field. Choledochoscopy, when used, was always performed with the instrument connected to a camera monitor that had a wide vision, whether in a single-monitor, in a picture-in-picture manner, or with the use of an additional monitor.

RESULTS

From March 2004 to April 2008, 63 patients undergoing CBD exploration for stone removal were enrolled in the study. Five of these patients had undergone previous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). The mean operative time was 107 min for group A and 122 min for group B. The mean hospital stay was 3 days for group A and 3.6 days for group B. Clearance of CBD stones was achieved laparoscopically in 62 cases. One patient required open combined transduodenal papilloplasty and transcholedochotomy. In seven cases, blind basket exploration was unable to remove the stones according to the cholangiogram, so choledochoscopy was required. Six patients underwent a transversal coledocothomy for stone removal. A Kehr T-tube was placed in four of these patients. In four group A cases, the papilla was inadvertently passed during the procedure. In six group A cases, including the four aforementioned cases, a high level of amylases was found on postoperative day 1. At this writing, no late complications or stone recurrences have been observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic basket blind technique and choledochoscopy are safe and effective for CBD stone removal. However, the latter seems to be better in terms of a higher stone removal rate and fewer minor complications despite its longer operation time. In the authors' opinion, it may be preferable to reserve ERCP for very high-risk patients, taking into account that in addition to the related complications, it results in an approximate 10% rate of recurrent or persistent stones.

Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a case-control study comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for a "laparoscopy-first" attitude with the outcome for sequential treatment (systematic endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy)

BACKGROUND

No unanimous consensus has been achieved regarding the ideal management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis. The treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones may be achieved currently according to a two-step-protocol (endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy) or by a one-step laparoscopic procedure, including exploration of the CBD and cholecystectomy. Endoscopic sphincterotomy is reported to have considerable morbidity/mortality and CBD stone recurrence rates, whereas laparoscopic CBD clearance is a demanding procedure, which to date has not spread beyond specialized environments.

METHODS

To evaluate our "laparoscopy first" (LF) approach for patients affected by gallbladder/CBD stones (laparoscopic exploration and intraoperative decision whether to proceed with laparoscopic CBD exploration or to postpone CBD stone treatment to a postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]), we performed a retrospective, two-center case-control comparison of the postoperative outcome for 49 consecutive patients treated for gallbladder/CBD stones from January 2000 through December 2004. The results obtained with this LF approach were compared with those achieved with the traditional, "endoscopy-first" (EF) approach (ERCP plus endoscopic sphincterotomy, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The mean follow-up period was 6.4 years (range, 4-8 years).

RESULTS

No difference emerged concerning early and late complications, mortality, or laparotomies needed to accomplish cholecystectomy and CBD clearance. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for the LF group. In the LF group, only 22 patients underwent choledochotomy (45%), and 15 patients underwent perioperative ERCP (30%). Conversions decreased with practice. After choledochotomy, an increasing number of patients underwent primary closure of the CBD (with no biliary drain), without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

An LF approach to gallbladder/CBD stones is safe and feasible. It may allow the majority of surgeons to avoid excessively difficult/dangerous surgical procedures as well as unnecessary ERCPs in most cases. A tendency toward a lower incidence of conversions and a rarer use of biliary drains may lead to an improved immediate outcome for patients undergoing an LF approach.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a 5-year follow up of 150 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

The treatment of common bile duct stones discovered at routine intraoperative cholangiography includes postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography or intraoperative laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Given the equivalence of short-term outcome data for these two techniques, the choice of one over the other may be influenced by long-term follow-up data. We aimed to establish the long-term outcomes following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and compare this with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic common bile duct exploration between March 1998 and March 2006 carried out by a single surgeon. All were prospectively studied for 1 month followed by a late-term phone questionnaire ascertaining the prevalence of adverse symptoms. Patients presented with a standardized series of questions, with reports of symptoms corroborated by review of medical records.

RESULTS

In 150 patients, operations included laparoscopic transcystic exploration (135), choledochotomy (10) and choledochoduodenostomy (2). At long-term follow up (mean 63 months), 116 (77.3%) patients were traceable, with 24 (20.7%) reporting an episode of pain and 18 (15.5%) had more than a single episode of pain. There was no long-term evidence of cholangitis, stricture or pancreatitis identified in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration appears not to increase the incidence of long-term adverse sequelae beyond the reported prevalence of postcholecystectomy symptoms. There was no incidence of bile duct stricture, cholangitis or pancreatitis. It is a safe procedure, which obviates the need and expense of preoperative or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in most instances.

[Therapeutic splitting as standard treatment for cholelithiasis]

At the moment, therapeutic splitting is still regarded by the vast majority of surgeons as the gold standard for stones in the common bile duct. Endoscopic clearance of the duct certainly is much less invasive than open exploration. However, this does not apply when compared with laparoscopic stone removal. Both are equivalent in respect to stone clearance rates, but the laparoscopic techniques protect patients from the long-term sequelae of endoscopic papillotomy. This can be important particularly for younger patients. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration is cost-effective and safe. Special experience in laparoscopic surgical techniques, however, is mandatory. Thus, surgeons should intensify their training in laparoscopic bile duct exploration in order to increase the acceptance of these techniques.

Laparoscopic bile duct exploration: results of 160 consecutive cases with 2-year follow up

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous reports showing the advantages of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), many general surgeons, particularly those working outside of nonspecialist units, continue to rely heavily on endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with sphincterotomy (ERCP) to manage bile duct stones (BDS). This article investigates the performance of LCBDE when adopted as the preferred first-line management of both suspected and incidental BDS by general surgeons in a regional setting.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients in whom LCBDE was attempted by a regional general surgical unit. The unit policy was to preferentially treat all incidental and suspected BDS (except in ascending cholangitis or severe pancreatitis) by LCBDE, with ERCP used only if unsuccessful. In addition to chart review, formal prospective follow up by telephone interview was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 160 consecutive patients with BDS (mean age 66.9 years, 65% suspected and 35% incidental) underwent attempted LCBDE between January 2000 and July 2005. Successful clearance was achieved in 84.3% according to chart review. However, four additional cases of retained choledocholithiasis shown by late telephone interview (median interval 2.5 years) yielded a more accurate clearance rate of 81.8%. Major morbidity occurred in 13.8%, including biliary leak in 7.5% and one late biliary stricture (0.6%). Median length of hospital stay was 4.8 days. In-hospital mortality was 0.6%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remains an effective, efficient and safe first-line treatment of BDS even when carried out in regional nonspecialist units. In spite of the wide availability of ERCP, general surgeons should be encouraged to continue performing LCBDE in order to optimise patient care and maintain important surgical skills.

Evaluation of laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones in a prospective series of 505 patients: indications and results

BACKGROUND

The aim of this prospective study was the evaluation of the laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) and its indications.

METHODS

Five hundred five patients who underwent laparoscopic treatment of CBDS from October 1990 to September 2006 were included in the prospective study. The mean age of the patients was 63 years (range = 19-93). Four hundred fifteen patients were classified ASA I and ASA II and 90 were ASA III and ASA IV. CBDS were suspected or diagnosed preoperatively in 373 patients (73.8%) and diagnosed at intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in 132 patients (26.2%). A transcystic duct extraction (TCDE) was attempted in 254 patients (50.4%) and a primary choledochotomy in 251 patients (49.6%). Biliary drainage after choledochotomy was used in 148 cases (48.8%).

RESULTS

TCDE was successful in 191 cases (75.2%). The 63 failures were managed by laparoscopic choledochotomy in 53 cases and by endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) in 10 cases. A choledochotomy was thus performed in 304 patients and successful in 295 cases (97%). The nine failures were managed by six conversions to laparotomy (2%) and three postoperative ES. The overall success rate was 96.2%. The morbidity rate was 7.9% with 4.8% of local complications and 3.1% of general complications. The mortality rate was 1%. There were 14 residual stones (2.8%) that were managed by a second laparoscopy in two cases and by ES in 12 cases with four failures managed by laparotomy in one case and laparoscopy in three cases.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic management of CBDS was effective in more than 96% of cases and particularly safe in ASA I and ASA II patients. It has the advantage over ES followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LS) to be a one-stage procedure.

Cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with silent gallstones

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is currently advised only for patients with symptomatic gallstones. However, about 4% of patients with asymptomatic gallstones develop symptoms including cholecystitis, obstructive jaundice, pancreatitis, and gallbladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical removal of the gallbladder for patients with asymptomatic gallstones.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until 2006 for identifying the randomised trials using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing cholecystectomy and no cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trial comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no randomised trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with silent gallstones. Further evaluation of observational studies, which measure outcomes such as obstructive jaundice, gallstone-associated pancreatitis, and/or gall-bladder cancer for sufficient duration of follow-up is necessary before randomised trials are designed in order to evaluate whether cholecystectomy or no cholecystectomy is better for asymptomatic gallstones.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration

BACKGROUND

Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is controversial. We were unable to identify any meta-analysis or systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine primary closure versus T-tube drainage following laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without a biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from the one identified trial. We analysed the data using the fixed-effect model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial with 55 patients randomised: 27 to the primary closure and 28 to the T-tube group. This trial was of inadequate methodological quality. There was no mortality in either group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes except for the hospital stay (WMD -2.8 days, 95% CI -1.93 to -3.67), which was lower in the primary closure group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have insufficient evidence to recommend T-tube drainage over primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration or vice versa. Further randomised trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage compared with primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.