One hundred laparoscopic choledochotomies with primary closure of the common bile duct

Initial Experience with Disposable Single-Use Cholangioscope During Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

Introduction: For patients with choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is more cost effective than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and results in shorter hospital length of stay. As LCBDE can be technically challenging to perform, utilizing a disposable single-use cholangioscope (DSUC) for LCBDE through a cystic ductotomy has several advantages, such as potentially avoiding a choledochotomy and expanding access to cholangioscopes as a DSUC is disposable and does not require infrastructure for cleaning or maintenance. Methods: An IRB-approved, retrospective chart review from 2021 to 2023 was conducted for patients who underwent concurrent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and LCBDE with a DSUC (SpyGlass™ Discover, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) for the management of choledocholithiasis diagnosed either preoperatively or during intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC). Primary endpoint was successful clearance of biliary duct stones. Results: Twelve patients with a mean age of 55.3 years (SD ±13.9) and mean body mass index of 33.8 (SD ±10.8) were found to have filling defects on IOC for LC and underwent LCBDE with DSUC. Of these, 10 patients had stones. Complete stone clearance was achieved in all 10 patients with various stone extraction maneuvers. The mean operative time was 189 minutes (SD ±63.6) and mean hospital length of stay postoperatively was 1 day (SD ±.8). Mean length of follow-up postoperatively was 26.9 (SD ±16.0) days. There were no intraoperative complications, no need for repeat procedures, and only one postoperative complication involving a superficial surgical site infection requiring oral antibiotics. Conclusions: LCBDE with a DSUC is safe and efficacious for clearing stones and identifying pathology of the CBD. Familiarity with this device is especially useful for surgeons who want to simultaneously manage choledocholithiasis at the same time as cholecystectomy to reduce hospital stay and overall cost.

A Retrospective Study on the Three-Port Technique of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for the Management of Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is convenient in treating cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis due to its advantage of accelerated recovery. This retrospective study aimed to summarize the experience of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis treatment via three-port approach of LCBDE in Eastern China.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis between July 2019 and October 2021 were included. Patients who received LC+LCBDE+primary suturing of the common bile duct (CBD) via a three-port approach were assigned to the LCBDE-P group, and those who received LC+LCBDE+T-tube drainage of CBD comprised the LCBDE-T group. The measurement data were compared between the two groups. P-values <0.05 indicated statistical significance.

Results

A total of 88 patients were divided into two groups: LCBDE-P (n=50) and LCBDE-T (n=38). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that LCBDE-P is associated with a shorter length of stay (OR=0.115, 95% CI: 0.040-0.329, P<0.001) and lower hospitalization costs (OR=0.120, 95% CI: 0.041-0.357, P<0.001). No significant differences between the two groups were detected in the operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, clearance rate of CBD stones, postoperative liver function, and postoperative complications (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The three-port approach of LCBDE is a safe and feasible strategy for managing cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Compared to LCBDE-T, LCBDE-P reduces the length of hospital stay and medical costs during hospitalization.

Obstructive lithiasis of the lower bile duct discovered four decades after cholecystectomy and its management by ideal choledochotomy: a case report

BACKGROUND

Residual lithiasis is the presence of stones in the common bile duct, ignored after one or more biliary interventions. We report an atypical case of chronic symptomatic lithiasis of the lower bile duct occurring 41 years after biliary surgery, managed successfully by ideal choledochotomy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 68-year-old Black African female with several past laparotomies including a cholecystectomy forty-one years ago presented with hepatic colic-type pain that had been intermittent for several years but worsened recently. Her clinical, biological, and imaging test assessments were suggestive of a residual obstructive lithiasis of the lower common bile duct. Through an open right subcostal laparotomy approach, a dilated bile duct of approximately 3 cm was found and managed by transverse choledochotomy in which the stone was extracted in retrograde manner. After confirmation of disobstruction, a primitive bile duct suture without biliary drainage was performed and a tubular drain was positioned under the liver. The postoperative course was uneventful at follow-up of 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Residual choledocholithiasis can be avoided. We performed an ideal choledochotomy, of which the follow-up was simple.

Comprehensive review on small common bile duct stones

Common bile duct stones are among the most common conditions encountered by endoscopists. Therefore, it is well researched; however, some items, such as indications for endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), safety of EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulant, selection strategy for retrieval balloons and baskets, lack adequate evidence. Therefore, the guidelines have been updated with new research, while others remain unchanged due to weak evidence. In this review, we comprehensively summarize the standard methods in guidelines and new findings from recent studies on papillary dilation, stone retrieval devices, difficult-to-treat cases, troubleshooting during the procedure, and complicated cases of cholangitis, cholecystolithiasis, or distal biliary stricture.

The clinical effect of primary duct closure and T-tube drainage: A propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is considered a safe and effective method for the removal of bile duct stones, selecting primary duct closure (PDC) or T-tube drainage (TTD) following choledochotomy remains controversial. This study aims to explore the clinical effects of PDC and TTD after LCBDE.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 348 patients with choledocholithiasis treated with LCBDE from January 2016 to October 2020. All patients were divided into PDC (225 cases) and TTD (123 cases) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. We compared operative parameters and outcomes.

RESULTS

After matching (n = 116/group), no significant difference was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05) regarding intra-abdominal infection, incision infection, bile leakage, and retained stones. In terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative exhaust time, postoperative antibiotic use time, and postoperative abdominal drainage time, PDC group was obviously superior to TTD group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Primary closure following LCBDE is considered a safe and effective alternative to T-tube drainage.

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).

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy with primary closure for the management of acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for patients with acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDSs). The outcomes after LCBDE with primary closure in patients with CBDS-related acute cholangitis are unknown. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LCBDE with primary closure for the management of acute cholangitis caused by CBDSs.

METHODS

Between June 2015 and June 2020, 368 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis, who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + LCBDE in our department, were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 193 patients with CBDS-related acute cholangitis underwent LC + LCBDE with primary closure of the CBD (PC group) and 62 patients underwent LC + LCBDE followed by T-tube placement (T-tube group). A total of 113 patients who did not have cholangitis were excluded. The clinical data were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in either group. No significant differences were noted in morbidity, bile leakage rate, retained CBD stones, or readmission rate within 30 days between the two groups. Compared with the T-tube group, the PC group avoided T-tube-related complications and had a shorter operative time (121.12 min vs. 143.37 min) and length of postoperative hospital stay (6.59 days vs. 8.81 days). Moreover, the hospital expenses in the PC group were significantly lower than those in the T-tube group ($4844.47 vs. $5717.22). No biliary stricture occurred during a median follow-up of 18 months in any patient. No significant difference between the two groups was observed in the rate of stone recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with primary closure is a safe and effective treatment for cholangitis caused by CBDSs. LCBDE with primary closure is not inferior to T-tube drainage for the management of CBDS-related acute cholangitis in suitable patients.

Comparison of Primary Suture and T-Tube Drainage After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Combined with Intraoperative Choledochoscopy in the Treatment of Secondary Common Bile Duct Stones: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Objective: To compare the safety and feasibility of T-tube drainage and primary suture after laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy in the treatment of secondary choledocholithiasis. Methods: The clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic choledochoscopy combined with choledochoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for secondary choledocholithiasis from June 2015 to June 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the different treatment method of common bile duct (CBD) incision, the patients were divided into a T-tube drainage group and a primary suture group. The preoperative clinical characteristics, results of preoperative liver function tests (LFTs), LFTs on the first day after the operation and the fourth day after the operation, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, and times of postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in preoperative clinical data, preoperative LFTs, and postoperative complications between the two groups (P > .05). However, primary suture demonstrated significant advantages (P < .05) in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and other related factors. Bilirubin levels on the first day after the operation and the fourth day after the operation between the two groups suggested that T-tube drainage reduces bilirubin in the short term, but that long-term bilirubin draining is similar between the two strategies. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that choledochal diameter less than 8 mm was an independent risk factor for bile leakage. Conclusions: Laparoscopy combined with intraoperative choledochoscopic CBD exploration is superior to T-tube drainage in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay. The ability of reducing bilirubin by traditional T-tube drainage is indeed better than that of primary suture in the early stage after operation, but there is no difference in long-term outcome between the two groups. Choledochal diameter ≤8 mm was an independent risk factor for bile leakage. To summarize, LCBDEs primary suture for secondary choledocholithiasis is safe and feasible.

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.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is beneficial for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) is considered a contraindication to laparoscopic surgery. Whether LCBDE-PC is feasible and beneficial for patients with PUAS remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of LCBDE-PC for patients with PUAS.

METHODS

From June 2011 to September 2019, 1167 patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures for choledocholithiasis were reviewed retrospectively. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients with and without PUAS in un-matched and matched cohorts.

RESULTS

LCBDE-PC was performed successfully in 88.3% of patients with PUAS, and 92.5% of patients without PUAS (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that PUAS was not a risk factor that affected successful performance of LCBDE-PC. Although a higher rate of conversion to open surgery and longer operative time were observed in patients with PUAS, no significant differences were found between patients with and without PUAS in multivariate and propensity score analysis (P > 0.05). A predictive nomogram for LCBDE-PC failure was developed based on potential predictors from the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model. Successful performance of LCBDE-PC was associated with operative time. A linear regression model for operative time showed impacted stone in the CBD and intraoperative laser use was the most important factor in determining the operative time.

CONCLUSION

LCBDE-PC is feasible and beneficial for patients with PUAS. However, patients with PUAS with a high possibility of LCBDE-PC failure from the nomogram and a longer operative time from the linear regression model should be cautious when undergoing LCBDE-PC.

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.

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Primary Closure for Management of Choledocholithiasis: A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison with Conventional T-tube Drainage

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) had become one of the main options for management of choledocholithiasis. This retrospective comparative study aimed to evaluate on the feasibility and advantages of primary closure versus conventional T-tube drainage of the common bile duct (CBD) after laparoscopic choledochotomy. In this retrospective analysis, 100 patients (47 men and 53 women) with choledocholithiasis who underwent primary closure of the CBD (without T-tube drainage) after LCBDE (Group A) were compared with 92 patients who underwent LCBDE with T-tube drainage (Group B). Both groups were evaluated with regard to biliary complications, hospital stay, and recurrence of stones. The mean operation time was 104.12 minutes for Group A and 108.92 minutes for Group B ( P = 0.069). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group A than that in Group B (6.95 days and 12.05 days, respectively; P < 0.001). In Group A, bile leakage occurred in two patients on postoperative Day 2 and Day 3, respectively. In Group B, bile leakage noted in one patient after removal of the T-tube on Day 14 after operation ( P = 1.000). With a median follow-up time of 40 months for both groups, stone recurrence was noted in two patients in Group A and three patients in Group B ( P = 0.672). Primary closure of the CBD is safe and feasible in selected patients after laparoscopic choledochotomy. It results in shorter duration of hospital stay without the need for carrying/care of a T-tube in the postoperative period and similar stone recurrence as that of the conventional method.

Dilation of the cystic duct confluence in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and stone extraction in patients with secondary choledocholithiasis

Background

Many options exist for the management of cholelithiasis and secondary choledocholithiasis. Among them, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with choledocotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy has gained popularity. However, efforts should be made to ensure minimally invasive or noninvasive management of the common bile duct (CBD). The purpose of this study was to explore the clinical experience of non-invasive surgical modality, i.e., laparoscopic transcystic dilation of the cystic duct confluence in CBD exploration (LTD-CBDE), including feasibility, safety, adverse events, and incidence.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis, 68 patients were offered the LTD-CBDE technique from December 2015 to April 2018 based on patient’s own intention. During the surgery, the cystic duct confluence was dilated with separation forceps and/or a columnar dilation balloon. Subsequently, CBD exploration and stone extraction were performed with a choledochoscope. The entrance of the CBD was covered with a cystic duct stump wall and was subjected to primary closure at the end of surgery.

Results

Forty-nine females and 19 males with cholelithiasis and secondary choledocholithiasis were included. The mean age was 53 years old (18 to 72 year). Of these patients, 62 (91.2%) were successfully treated with the LTD-CBDE technique, and bile leakage was observed in 3 patients (4.4%). The mean operation time was 106 min, and the mean hospital stay was 5.9 days. Among the other 6 patients, 3 were converted to open cholecystectomy due to severe fibrosis, unclear anatomical structure at Calot’s triangle (n = 2) or Mirizze syndrome (n = 1); LCBDE was performed in 3 patients due to cystic duct atresia (n = 2) and low level of flow from the gallbladder duct into the CBD (n = 1). These patients had a smooth postoperative course. In total, 43/68 of the patients presented no radiological evidence of retained CBD stones at the postoperative follow-up (40 patients treated with LTD-CBDE) 1 year later.

Conclusions

The current work suggests that LTD-CBDE for the management of cholelithiasis and secondary choledocholithiasis is a feasible, safe and effective technique with a low complication rate. LTD-CBDE offers another alternative for surgeons to treat patients in similar scenarios. However, additional randomized, controlled studies are needed to demonstrate its efficacy, safety, and impact on CBD stenosis.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is safe for management of choledocholithiasis in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is one of the minimally invasive options for choledocholithiasis. Primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) upon completion of laparoscopic choledochotomy is safe in selected patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of primary closure of CBD after LCBDE in patients aged 70 years or older.

METHODS

A total of 116 patients (51 males and 65 females) who suffered from choledocholithiasis and underwent primary closure of the CBD (without T-tube drainage) after LCBDE from January 2003 to December 2017 were recruited. They were classified into two groups according to age: group A (≥70 years, n = 56), and group B (<70 years, n = 60). The preoperative characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 172.02 min for group A and 169.92 min for group B (P = 0.853). The mean hospital stay was 7.40 days for group A and 5.38 days for group B (P < 0.001). Bile leakage occurred in two patients in group A and one in group B (3.57% vs 1.67%, P = 0.952). There were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative complications and mortality between the two groups. At median follow-up time of 60 months, stone recurrence was detected in one patient in group A and two in group B (1.79% vs 3.33%, P = 1.000). Stenosis of CBD was not observed in group A and slight stenosis in one patient in group B (0 vs 1.67%, P = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

Primary closure of the CBD upon completion of laparoscopic choledochotomy is safe and feasible in elderly patients ≥70 years old.

Clinical role of frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium YAG laser lithotripsy for removal of difficult biliary stones in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

The optimal methods for patients with difficult biliary stones remain under debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of frequency-doubled double-pulse neodymium YAG (FREDDY) laser lithotripsy for removing difficult biliary stones during laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

METHODS

Between March 2013 and January 2015, 42 consecutive patients with difficult biliary stones who underwent LCBDE with FREDDY laser lithotripsy were included in this study. The clinical data of all patients were retrospectively collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Bile ducts were completely cleared in all patients. The complications related to laser lithotripsy were not noted. A total of 38 patients (90.5%) underwent primary closure of common bile duct, and T-tube drainage was applied to four patients (9.5%). No bile duct injury, bleeding and perforation were observed. There were no post-operative surgery-related deaths. Bile leakage occurred in four patients (9.5%) with primary closure procedure, and all of them were managed successfully with conservative therapy. The median follow-up period was 42.8 months, with no evidence of bile duct stricture and stone recurrence in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The LCBDE combined with FREDDY laser lithotripsy appear to be effective and safe for the treatment of difficult biliary stones.

Primary duct closure combined with transcystic drainage versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy

BACKGROUND

We compared the post-operative course and final outcome of primary duct closure combined with transcystic drainage with those of T-tube drainage.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 112 consecutive patients treated with laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones between February 2014 and December 2017. Primary closure with transcystic drainage was performed in 59 patients (group A), and laparoscopic choledochotomy with T-tube drainage was performed in 53 (group B). The primary endpoints were morbidity, the bile drainage quantity, operative time, post-operative stay, time until return to work and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

The operation was successfully completed in all patients. The return to work period in group A was significantly shorter than that in group B (7.25 ± 1.27 versus 46.47 ± 3.86 days, P < 0.05). The average daily drainage was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the operation time (133.75 ± 14.51 versus 132.21 ± 12.71 min) and duration of hospital stay (5.15 ± 1.23 versus 5.94 ± 0.95 days) between the two groups (P > 0.05). Bile leakage was seen in one T-tube removal patient. No complications were reported in group A. The patients were followed for 2 to 29 months (average: 10). Normal liver function and no stricture of the bile duct were detected with ultrasonography.

CONCLUSION

Primary closure of choledochotomy and subsequent transcystic drainage is a simple and less invasive procedure than T-tube placement.

T-Tube Use After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

Background and Objectives:

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been verified to be an effective technique in treating choledocholithiasis, and T-tube insertion has been widely performed after LCBDE. With growing doubts regarding the effectiveness and safety of T-tube drainage (TTD), it has been suggested to replace such with primary duct closure (PDC). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of PDC compared with TTD after LCBDE.

Methods:

The PubMed, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were used to accomplish a systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials and pro-/retrospective cohort studies that compared PDC alone or PDC combined with biliary drainage stenting (PDC+BD) with TTD after LCBDE. A subgroup analysis was established to compare PDC+BD with TTD. RevMan 5.3 was used for the statistical analysis.

Results:

A total of 2552 patients from 26 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio supported PDC, which yielded lower postoperative overall morbidity and incidence of bile leak and bile peritonitis and shorter surgical time and postoperative hospital stay when compared with TTD. In the subgroup analysis, PDC+BD showed significantly better results in terms of postoperative overall morbidity, incidence of bile leak and bile peritonitis, surgical time, and postoperative hospital stay than did TTD. PDC and PDC+BD showed no difference in the incidence of recurrent stones and biliary stricture during the long-term follow-up period compared with TTD.

Conclusion:

PDC alone or PDC+BD is superior to TTD as a duct-closure method after LCBDE.

Technical Aspects of Bile Duct Evaluation and Exploration: An Update

Consensus guidelines recommend patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and suspected choledocholithiasis have common bile duct exploration (CBDE) at the time of cholecystectomy to prevent downstream problems. Despite superiority of single-stage cholecystectomy with CBDE, 2-stage precholecystectomy/postcholecystectomy with endoscopic clearance of the duct is commonly practiced. This is related to inadequate training in minimally invasive techniques, lack of technical support for efficient and safe CBDE, and surgeons' inexperience with complex biliary pathologic condition. This article provides a framework for evaluating and treating patients with CBD pathologic condition with an emphasis on technical aspects of CBDE and preoperative planning and preparation.

Human fibrin sealant reduces post-operative bile leakage of primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with choledocholithiasis

Context:

Primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) without drainage is considered a suitable approach after laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE); however, the risk of post-operative bile leakage is high. Up to now, it has not been clear whether human fibrin sealant can reduce post-operative bile leakage of the primary suture.

Aims:

In this study, we evaluated the role of human fibrin sealant in primary closure of the CBD after LCBDE.

Subjects and Methods:

Patients with choledocholithiasis who had undergone primary duct closure of the CBD after LCBDE were divided into two groups according to whether fibrin sealant was used.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Fisher's exact test or the Chi-square test was used for categorical variables to calculate frequencies and percentages between the groups. The Student's t-test was used to compare the means of the continuous variables between the groups.

Results:

The human fibrin sealant group had a lower rate of post-operative bile leakage compared to the other group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in additional parameters such as operative time, post-operative stay duration, time to drain removal, bile duct stenosis, acute allergic reaction and overall mortality.

Conclusions:

Human fibrin sealant can reduce post-operative bile leakage in primary closure of CBD after LCBDE in patients with choledocholithiasis.

Learning curve for performing choledochotomy bile duct exploration with primary closure after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Primary closure after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective approach for treating cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve of performing primary closure after LC+LCBDE.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent primary closure after LC+LCBDE performed by a single surgeon from January 2009 to April 2015 in our institution, and analyzed preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis to evaluate the learning curve for this procedure.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 390 patients. The total postoperative complications rate was 7.2%, including bile leakage in 9 (2.3%) patients and retained common bile duct stone in 3 (0.8%) patients. The CUSUM operating time (OT) learning curve was best modeled by the equation: CUSUM_OT = 312.209 × procedure^0.599 × e^{(-0.011×procedure)} + 122.608 (R² = 0.96). The learning curve was composed of two phases, phase 1 (the initial 54 patients) and phase 2 (the remaining 336 patients). A significant decrease in the OT (116.8 ± 22.4 vs. 93.8 ± 17.8 min; p < 0.001) and complication rate (16.7 vs. 5.7%; p < 0.01) including the rate of bile leakage (7.4 vs. 1.5%; p < 0.01) and retained stone (3.7 vs. 0.3%; p < 0.01) was observed between the two phases. In addition, 20 patients had conversion to open surgery. Impacted stones were independently associated with conversion, as indicated by a multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that the learning curve of this procedure was achieved in approximately 54 cases. An impacted stone was the only risk factor that affected the conversion rate.

Intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage over primary closure of the common bile duct for choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis: a cohort study of 211 cases

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) was often used for preoperative biliary drainage in cases like cholangiocarcinoma or acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis, reports on endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) over primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) are limited. This study compares outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) + intraoperative ENBD + primary closure of CBD with equivalent patients who underwent preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and subsequent LC.

METHODS

From January 2013 to December 2015, 829 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis underwent surgery in our department. 211 patients underwent LC + LCBDE + intraoperative ENBD + primary closure of CBD (group A) and 117 preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC (group B). A total of 501 patients (355 who underwent T-tube drainage and 146 who underwent transcystic exploration) were excluded from the analysis. Clinical records, operative findings, and postoperative follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Age and sex distribution, comorbidity, presentations, CBD diameter, and size and number of stones were similar in the two groups, and there was no postoperative mortality. Duration of surgery in group A was shorter (83 vs. 104 min, P < 0.01), as was postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 9 days, P < 0.01). Average operative expenditure in group A was less than that of group B ($ 3816 vs. $ 4015, P < 0.01). The success rate in group A was higher (100 vs. 91%, P < 0.01). Ten patients in group B converted to LCBDE. The postoperative complication rate was higher in group B but without significant difference (1.9 vs. 4.2%, P = 0.29). Median follow-up time was 24 (3-28) months (n = 302 patients). Two patients in group B reported residual stones.

CONCLUSION

LC + LCBDE + intraoperative ENBD + primary closure of CBD should have priority over preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC for choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis.

Primary Closure Versus Biliary Drainage After Laparoscopic Choledocotomy: Results of a Comparative Study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of primary closure (PC) and biliary drainage (BD), after the laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones by choledocotomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2014, 102 patients underwent laparoscopy for lithiasis of the CBD. Intraoperative cholangiography was systematically performed, followed by choledocoscopy, depending on the size of the CBD.

RESULTS

Eighty (78.4%) of the 102 patients underwent laparoscopic stone extraction by choledocotomy, and were assigned to 2 groups: PC (group A, n=25), and BD (group B, n=55). Groups A and B were comparable in terms of age (62.3±26.1 vs. 66.0±19.3 y; P=0.53), the percentage of women (72.0% vs. 76.4%; P=0.68), body mass index (25.9±6.1 vs. 26.9±4.4 kg/m; P=0.52), and CBD diameter (11.6±3.1 vs. 12.1±3.8 mm; P=0.59). The mean durations of surgery and of hospital stay were significantly shorter in group A: 179±38 versus 211±57 minutes (P=0.02) and 5.4±2.0 versus 8.4±3.2 days (P<0.001). Groups A and B were comparable in terms of serious postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo scores of 3, 4, and 5): 2 versus 4 (P=1). In group B, bile drain removal was complicated by choleperitoneum in 3 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

With shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, equivalent postoperative morbi-mortality, and an absence of the specific morbidity due to bile drainage, PC may be considered a safe and feasible option for the laparoscopic management of CBD stones by choledocotomy.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus ERCP/stenting and cholecystectomy: Is a single staged procedure better?

Aims: Choledocholithiasis is most common cause of obstructive jaundice. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy has evolved as an alternative procedure to ERCP/ stenting in the management of choledocholithiasis. This study was aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic CBD exploration with cholecystectomy (group 1) as compared to the conventional two staged procedure involving ERCP/ stenting (group 2). Methods: 60 patients admitted to our department (mean age = 45.52, SD = 17.71, 15 males, 45 females) for the management of choledocholithiasis from April 2014 to October 2015 were included in the study. We reviewed retrospectively the patients' data including age, sex, duration of the surgery, intra-operative and postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, mortality and condition on follow-up. Results: Group 1 included 30 patients (mean age 50.76, 21 females, 9 males). The average operative time in this group was 110 minutes (96–145), stone clearance rate was 100%, and average hospital stay was 3.2 days (2–9). Group 2 also included 30 patients (mean age 44.36, 24 females, 6 males) with stone clearance rate of 70% (21 out of 30), average operative time 120.7 minutes (90–167), average hospital stay 9.1 (3–30) days and an average of 2.3 procedures per patient. Conclusion: In our study mean operative time, stone clearance rate, average hospital stay and average number of procedures per patient were found to be significantly lower in laparoscopic CBD exploration group. It can be concluded that laparoscopic CBD exploration with cholecystectomy is much safer and cost effective than the conventional two staged procedure involving ERCP/ stenting.

Laparoscopic transcystic choledochotomy with primary suture for choledocholith

Background and Objectives:

To investigate the possibility of extracting common bile duct (CBD) stones by laparoscopically inserting choledochoscope through the natural orifice of the cystic duct and a mini-incision on the CBD, and the safety of laparoscopic primary double-layer suture of the cystic duct and CBD.

Methods:

Laparoscopic transcystic choledochotomy and extraction of stones with primary suture was performed on 194 patients with gallbladder and CBD stones from October 1, 2009, through April 30, 2012. The cystic duct was left at a diameter of 1 to 1.5 cm after removal of the gallbladder. The duct was longitudinally cut at its ventral side to the confluence with the CBD, and the anterior wall of the CBD was also cut longitudinally. A choledochoscope was then inserted via the enlarged opening, and the stones were extracted from the CBD. Finally, the CBD and cystic duct were closed by continuous mucous layer suture and seromuscular Lembert suture, respectively. The cystic duct was ligated close to the CBD and an abdominal drainage tube was placed.

Results:

All surgical procedures were successfully performed. The caliber at the confluence between the cystic duct and the CBD was 0.3 to 0.8 cm (SD 0.4 ± 0.1 cm), and the mini-incision of the CBD was 0.1 to 1.1 cm (SD 0.3 ± 0.2 cm). Abdominal drainage lasted 3 to 5 days. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in 55 patients showed no abnormal change in the CBD diameter. Two patients had bile leakage. Another patient had intermittent abdominal pain and jaundice 5 to 7 days postoperatively, and the retained stones spontaneously passed. The postoperative hospital stay was 6 to 13 days (SD 8 ± 2.1 days). Observation of 176 patients (90%) lasting 1 to 30 months (SD 11 ± 8 months) showed no recurrent stones or stricture of the CBD.

Conclusion:

The surgical procedure of laparoscopic transcystic choledochotomy and extraction of stones with primary suture is feasible and safe.

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: transpapillary stenting or external biliary drainage?

BACKGROUND

To date, the management of common bile duct stones (CBDs) is still controversial. If laparoscopic exploration is performed and biliary decompression is needed after stone removal, the placement of a laparoscopic transpapillary stent shows promising results in avoiding T-tube-related complications.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and May 2012, a series of 48 patients who underwent biliary decompression after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) to treat choledocholithiasis was retrospectively analyzed. The results in patients with transpapillary stent placement (TS=35) were compared with those who had an external biliary drainage (EBD=13).

RESULTS

LCBDE and TS placement was achieved either by a choledochotomy or through the cystic duct. There was no mortality in our series. Patients with an external biliary drainage (EBD) had more surgery-related complications (P<.0001) and a longer hospital stay (P=.03). Postoperative ERCP to remove the TS was successful in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic TS is a safe method in the treatment of selected patients with CBD stones that can be achieved without having to perform a choledochotomy. Because of the lower morbidity and the shorter hospital stay compared with EBD, it should be considered as a first approach whenever biliary decompression is needed after LCBDE.

Innovative technique of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: A comparative study

AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (nSIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of conventional laparoscopic CBDE (CL-CBDE).

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent CL-CBDE or nSIL-CBDE for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones between January 2000 and December 2014. For performing nSIL-CBDE, a needlescopic grasper was also inserted through a direct puncture below the right subcostal line after introducing a single-port through the umbilicus. The needlescopic grasper helped obtain the critical view of safety by retracting the gallbladder laterally and by preventing crossing or conflict between laparoscopic instruments. The gallbladder was then partially dissected from the liver bed and used for retraction. CBD stones were usually extracted through a longitudinal supraduodenal choledochotomy, mostly using flushing a copious amount of normal saline through a ureteral catheter. Afterward, for the certification of CBD clearance, CBDE was performed mostly using a flexible choledochoscope. The choledochotomy site was primarily closed without using a T-tube, and simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.

RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE. Of these patients, 20 underwent CL-CBDE and 20 underwent nSIL-CBDE. The operative time for nSIL-CBDE was significantly longer than that for CL-CBDE (238 ± 76 min vs 192 ± 39 min, P = 0.007). The stone clearance rate was 100% (40/40) in both groups. Postoperatively, the nSIL-CBDE group required less intravenous analgesic (pethidine) (46.5 ± 63.5 mg/kg vs 92.5 ± 120.1 mg/kg, P = 0.010) and had a shorter hospital stay than the CL-CBDE group (3.8 ± 2.0 d vs 5.1 ± 1.7 d, P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that nSIL-CBDE could be safe and feasible while improving cosmetic outcomes when performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques.

Eleven years of primary closure of common bile duct after choledochotomy for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The choice of surgical technique to extract stones from the common bile duct (CBD) depends on local experience, anatomical characteristics and also on the size, location and number of stones. Most authors consider choledochotomy an alternative to failed transcystic exploration, although some use it exclusively. Although the CBD is traditionally closed with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy, its use is associated with 11.3-27.5 % morbidity. This study examined the efficacy of laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) with primary closure for the treatment of CBD stones using intraoperative cholangiography (IOC).

METHODS

Retrospective study of 160 patients who underwent LCBDE with primary closure after choledochotomy between January 2001 and December 2012.

RESULTS

The diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was definitively made in all cases by IOC. The overall complication rate was 15 % and the biliary complication rate was 7.5 %. Bile leakage was reported in 11 patients (6.8 %). In over half the cases (63.6 %), no further action was required and the leak closed spontaneously. Six patients were reoperated (3.75 %), two for bile peritonitis and four for haemoperitoneum. The success rate for stone clearance was 96.2 %. The mortality rate and CBD stricture rate were 0 %.

CONCLUSION

Primary closure after choledochotomy to clear stones from the CBD is a safe technique that confers excellent results and allows one-stage treatment.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

With advances in laparoscopic instrumentation and acquisition of advanced laparoscopic skills, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is technically feasible and increasingly practiced by surgeons worldwide. Traditional practice of suturing the dochotomy with T-tube drainage may be associated with T-tube-related complications. Primary duct closure (PDC) without a T-tube has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement (TTD) after LCBDE. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PDC when compared to TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage. Studies were reviewed for the primary outcome measures: overall postoperative complications, postoperative biliary-specific complications, re-interventions, and postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes assessed were: operating time, median hospital expenses, and general complications.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies comparing PDC and TTD qualified for inclusion in our meta-analysis, with a total of 1770 patients. PDC showed significantly better results when compared to TTD in terms of postoperative biliary peritonitis (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.76, P = 0.02), operating time (WMD, -22.27, 95% CI -33.26 to -11.28, P < 0.00001), postoperative hospital stay (WMD, -3.22; 95% CI -4.52 to -1.92, P < 0.00001), and median hospital expenses (SMD, -1.37, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.77, P < 0.00001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly decreased in the primary duct closure with internal biliary drainage (PDC + BD) group when compared to TTD group (WMD, -2.68; 95% CI -3.23 to -2.13, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrates that PDC after LCBDE is feasible and associated with fewer complications than TTD. Based on these results, primary duct closure may be considered as the optimal procedure for dochotomy closure after LCBDE.

Treatment of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era

Background

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for stone can be carried out by either laparoscopic transcystic stone extraction (LTSE) or laparoscopic choledochotomy (LC). It remains unknown as to which approach is optimal for management of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones (CBDS) in Chinese patients.

Methods

From May 2000 to February 2009, we prospective treated 346 consecutive patients with gallbladder stones and CBDS with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE. Intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay and costs were analyzed.

Results

Because of LCBDE failure,16 cases (4.6%) required open surgery. Of 330 successful LCBDE-treated patients, 237 underwent LTSE and 93 required LC. No mortality occurred in either group. The bile duct stone clearance rate was similar in both groups. Patients in the LTSE group were significantly younger and had fewer complications with smaller, fewer stones, shorter operative time and postoperative hospital stays, and lower costs, compared to those in the LC group. Compared with patients with T-tube insertion, patients in the LC group with primary closure had shorter operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower costs.

Conclusions

In cases requiring LCBDE, LTSE should be the first choice, whereas LC may be restricted to large, multiple stones. LC with primary closure without external drainage of the CBDS is as effective and safe as the T-tube insertion approach.

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.

Single-session minimally invasive management of common bile duct stones

Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones. To avoid serious complications, these stones should be removed. There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for such patients. Traditionally, open surgery was offered but with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) minimally invasive approach had nearly replaced laparotomy because of its well-known advantages. Minimally invasive approach could be done in either two-session (preoperative ERCP followed by LC or LC followed by postoperative ERCP) or single-session (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or LC with intraoperative ERCP). Most recent studies have found that both options are equivalent regarding safety and efficacy but the single-session approach is associated with shorter hospital stay, fewer procedures per patient, and less cost. Consequently, single-session option should be offered to patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiaisis provided that local resources and expertise do exist. However, the management strategy should be tailored according to many variables, such as available resources, experience, patient characteristics, clinical presentations, and surgical pathology.

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.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective single-stage treatment for choledocholithiasis in the elective setting. The outcomes after LCBDE in the emergency setting are unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes following elective and emergency LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Details of all patients who underwent LCBDE for choledocholithiasis between August 2003 and August 2013 were analysed retrospectively. The primary outcome measure was common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate. Secondary outcome measures were conversion rate, morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Some 215 consecutive patients (57 male; median age 65 (range 14-92) years) underwent LCBDE. Some 121 procedures were performed electively and 94 as an emergency. Forty-five patients (48 per cent) presented with obstructive jaundice or cholangitis in the emergency LCBDE group compared with 15 (12·4 per cent) in the elective group (P < 0·001). The CBD stone clearance rate was similarly high in both groups (96 versus 96·7 per cent respectively; P = 0·557). There were no significant differences in conversion rate (6 versus 4·1 per cent), morbidity (5 versus 6·6 per cent), mortality (2 versus 0 per cent) or median length of stay (3 days) between groups. Two patients died, both following emergency LCBDE.

CONCLUSION

LCBDE can be performed safely and effectively in both elective and emergency settings.

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.

Use of rigid tubal ligation scope: Serendipity in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

AIM

To assess the feasibility, safety of rigid tubal ligation scope in laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rigid nephroscope was used for laparoscopic CBD exploration until one day we tried the same with the rigid tubal ligation scope, which was passed easily into CBD both proximally and distally visualising the interior of the duct for presence of stone that were removed using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) basket. This serendipity led us to use this scope for numerous patients from then on. A total of 62 patients, including male and female, underwent laparoscopic CBD exploration after choledochotomy with rigid tubal ligation scope between March 2007 and December 2012 followed by cholecystectomy. All the patients had both cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis with minimum duct diameter of 12 mm. A total of 48 patients were given T-tube through choledochotomy and closed, and the remaining 14 patients had primary closure of choledochotomy.

RESULTS

There were no intra-operative complications in any of the patients like CBD injury or portal vein injury. Post-operatively graded clamping of T-tube was done and was removed after 15 days in the patients who were given T-tube. None had retained the stone after T-tube cholangiography, which was done before removing the tube. Mean duration of follow up was 6 months. No patients had any complaints during the follow up.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic CBD exploration is also feasible with rigid tubal ligation scope. With experienced surgeons, CBD injury is very minimal and stone clearance can be achieved in almost all patients. This rigid tubal ligation scope can be an alternative to other rigid and flexible scopes.

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

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is now one of the main methods for treating choledocholithiasis accompanied with cholelithiasis. The objective of our study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic primary closure for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones compared with T-tube drainage.

METHODS

Patients who underwent CBD stones were studied prospectively from 2002-2012 in a single center. A total of 194 patients were randomly assigned to group A (LCBDE with primary closure) with 101 cases and group B (LCBDE with T-tube drainage) with 93 cases. Intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy were performed in all patients. Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, postoperative stay, complications, and hospital expenses were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in the two groups. Four patients (3.96%) of group A were converted to open surgery, and three patients (3.23%) in group B. The mean operating time was much shorter in group A than in group B (102.6 ± 15.2 min versus 128.6 ± 20.4 min, P < 0.05). The length of postoperative hospital stay was longer in group B (4.9 ± 3.2 d) than in group A (3.2 ± 2.1 d). The hospital expenses were significantly lower in group A. Three patients experienced postoperative complications, which were related to the usage of the T-tube in group B. The incidences of overall postoperative complications were insignificantly lower in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic primary closure of CBD is safe and effective for the management of CBD stones, and can be performed routinely as an alternative to T-tube drainage.

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.

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.

Does laparoscopic approach impair T-tube-related sinus-tract formation?

PURPOSE

Postoperative morbidity after bile duct exploration with T-tube insertion is mainly related to tube removal and incomplete sinus-tract formation leading to serious complications. Laparoscopic surgery reduces abdominal adhesion formation and diminishes tissue trauma and inflammatory response to surgery, which is essential for sinus-tract formation. This study evaluates if complication rate of T-tube removal is increased after laparoscopic bile duct exploration.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and January 2011, 94 patients underwent a T-tube insertion following choledocolithotomy (44 and 50 patients in the laparoscopic and open surgery group, respectively). Epidemiological data, preoperative characteristics, day of tube removal, and morbidity rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Global T-tube removal-related biliary complication rate was 14.9% (18.2% in the laparoscopic group vs. 12% in the open surgery group). Although the day of T-tube removal was significantly delayed, there was a slight increased incidence of biliary peritonitis requiring reintervention in the laparoscopic surgery group (6.9% vs. 2%).

CONCLUSIONS

We reveal that T-tube removal is associated with significant morbidity. There was no statistical difference between the laparoscopic and the open surgery group, although global biliary complications after tube removal were slightly increased and bile spillage was worse delimited when T-tube was inserted laparoscopically. Laparoscopic approach may diminish inflammatory response and adherence development and impair, and therefore sinus-tract formation.

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.

Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of T-tube free (TTF) versus T-tube drainage (TTD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

BACKGROUND

LCBDE has been proven to be an effective and preferred treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and the appropriateness of T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct (CBD) stones is still under debate.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Springer-Link, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Postoperative complications were evaluated/graded according to the modified Clavien classification. Other variables extracted including primary closures of the CBDs and the associated assistant methods, T-tube types, and placement durations. Stratified and sensitivity analyses were performed both to explore heterogeneity between studies and to assess the effects of the study qualities.

RESULTS

A total of 956 patients from 12 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio for postoperative complications and biliary-specific complications in TTF was found to be 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.91; P = 0.02], 0.62 (95% CI, 0.36-1.06; P = 0.08), respectively, when compared with TTD. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly decreased in the TTF group, with the pooled weighted mean differences being 18.84 minutes (95% CI, -27.01 to 10.67; P < 0.01) and 3.22 days (95% CI, -4.59 to 1.84; P < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that among patients undergoing laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones, primary closure of the CBD alone is superior to TTD; however, there is no significant benefit in terms of primary duct closure with various internal or external drainage techniques. Further randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited to prove these findings.

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.

Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with rigid nephroscope

BACKGROUND

Apart from the required expertise, a major deterrent to laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) lithotomy (LCDL) remains the relatively prohibitive cost of the flexible choledochoscope, and it also has a shortcoming of not being effective in removal of large impacted CBD stones.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

All patients presenting with CBD stones were treated, without exclusion, by laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus transdochal LCDL after relevant investigations. LCDL was performed using a rigid nephroscope. The CBD was closed either with running 3-0 polyglactin acid (Vicryl; Ethicon) sutures without a stent or around a T tube in a few patients. Perioperative parameters were recorded in all patients.

RESULTS

Transdochal LCDL was performed on 172 consecutive patients. Five patients had a prior open cholecystectomy, 26 patients presented with acute cholecystitis, 5 patients presented with mild acute pancreatitis, and 12 patients presented after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Twenty-eight (16.28%) patients had multiple stones, 2 had biliary sludge, and no stone was found in 3 patients. Stone size varied from 4 to 12 mm. The average operative time was 68 minutes (range, 45-127 minutes). Primary repair was performed with 3-0 Vicryl continuous sutures, and the T tube was left in place in 13 (7.56%) patients. Conversion to an open procedure was required in 8 patients (4.65%). Postoperatively, mild acute pancreatitis occurred in 1 patient, and biliary peritonitis occurred in 5 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigid scope transdochal LCDL is feasible, probably easier, better for impacted large CBD stones, and definitely more affordable.

Primary closure following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has become one of the main options for treating choledocholithiasis associated with cholelithiasis. Our objective was to assess the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) compared with laparoscopic choledochotomy plus T-tube drainage.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 137 patients undergoing primary closure following LCBDE (group A) compared with 102 cases with laparoscopic choledochotomy plus T-tube drainage (group B) between January 2007 and January 2010. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) and choledochoscopy were performed in all patients.

RESULTS

Three patients in group A (2.2%) were converted to open surgery and two (2.0%) in group B because of serious adherence. According to routine IOC, unexpected CBD stones were found in 16 cases (6.8%). The duration of the operation in group A was shorter than in group B (92.4 ± 15.2 vs. 125.7± 32.6 min, P < 0.05), as was length of postoperative stay (3.1± 2.4 vs. 5.7± 4.3 days, P < 0.05). Postoperative bile leakage occurred in six patients (4.5%) in group A and four cases (4.0%) in group B; all of the patients recovered after simple drainage without reoperation. Bile peritonitis was seen in one case after T-tube removal. The median follow-up was 26 months. There were no recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic primary closure of the CBD is safe and successful for the management of CBD stones. Application of IOC and choledochoscopy to ensure clearance of the CBD and careful suturing are essential for primary closure.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for elderly patients: as a first treatment strategy for common bile duct stones

Purpose

Common bile duct (CBD) stone is a relatively common disease in elderly patients. There have been many reports about the efficacy and safety of LCBDE. But for elderly patients, only a few studies about its efficacy and safety exist. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety and the surgical outcome of LCBDE in patients who are 70 years or older and compare the results with those of the younger group.

Methods

From January 2000 to November 2009, 132 patients underwent LCBDE. We divided these patients into two groups according to age and conducted a retrospective analysis. The elderly group included patients who were 70 years old or older (n = 64), and the younger group included those who were younger than 70 (n = 68). The elderly group was compared to the younger group with respect to their clinical characteristics, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, open conversion rate, first meal time, postoperative complication, recurrence rate and mortality.

Results

The elderly group showed high American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2.2 vs. 1.9) (P = 0.003), preoperative morbidity (47 vs. 29) (P < 0.001), and previous abdominal operation (18 vs. 14) (P = 0.046). There were no significant differences in mean operation time, postoperative hospital stay, first meal time, recurrence rate, remnant stone, complication rates or mortality in both groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

LCDBE is a safe and effective treatment modality for CBD stones not only for younger patients but also for elderly patients.

Antegrade common bile duct (CBD) stenting after laparoscopic CBD exploration

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been found to be a safe, efficient and cost-effective treatment for choledocholithiasis. Following LCBDE, the clearance may be ascertained by a cholangiogram or choledochoscopy. The common bile duct (CBD) may be closed primarily with or without a stent in situ or may be drained by means of a T-tube or a biliary enteric anastomosis.