Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Transcystic Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: When to Bail

BACKGROUND

Transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a procedure considered in the management of common bile duct stones. In many ways it is superior to alternatives such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, surgeons who have limited experience in CBDE are often reluctant to persist in difficult cases with concerns regarding increasing complication rates and waste of theater time. This study aims to provide an evidence-based approach to identify points to aid early abandonment ("bail").

METHODS

Review of all LCBDE performed in a single center from September 2008 to September 2022 was performed. Statistical analysis was performed on success and failure groups, with relevant undesirable outcomes chosen for further analysis to identify factors to be used as a guide to bail.

RESULTS

A total of 952 patients were identified for analysis. Females represented 63.8% (609) of the cohort. Success was reported in 89.2% (849) of procedures. Those in whom the cystic duct could not be cannulated with the choledochoscope, those that progressed to choledochotomy, those with a prolonged operative time, and those who had adverse outcomes were selected as undesired outcomes. Factors of age, higher ASA, preoperative ERCP, and those with preoperatively identified stones or larger stones at operation were associated with higher rates of an undesired outcome.

CONCLUSION

Older and more comorbid patients, those who underwent preoperative ERCP, and those with preoperatively or operatively identified large stones are factors that should prompt those surgeons who are developing their LCBDE experience to consider bailing early.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones after gastric surgery

BACKGROUND

Gallstone disease is common after gastric surgery and especially after weight loss from bariatric surgery. In patients with normal gastroduodenal anatomy, treatment of common bile duct stones (CBS) generally consists of, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), followed by cholecystectomy in a second stage. However, after gastric surgery the papilla may not be easily accessible endoscopically. The aim of our study was to evaluate the therapeutic success of single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) after previous gastric surgery.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, all LCBDE in patients with previous gastric surgery between January 2014 and July 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Gastric surgery consisted of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, BII subtotal gastrectomy, total gastrectomy and subtotal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Outcomes of interest consisted of successful duct clearance, postoperative adverse events and CBS recurrence.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients (M/F: 22/22) underwent LCBDE after previous gastric surgery, in which simultaneous cholecystectomy was performed in 38 cases. Median (range) age 68 (25-90) years. Presence of CBS was confirmed in 38 patients (85%), a choledochal polyp in one patient (2%) and recurrence of gastric cancer in another (2%). Duct clearance was successful in 37 out of 38 patients (97%). Median (range) length of stay after LCBDE was 1 (0-12) day(s). Eight patients developed a postoperative adverse event, of which three Clavien-Dindo > 3a complications. Three patients were readmitted. At a median (range) follow-up of 60 (24-120) months, no CBS recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE is a safe technique, with a high rate of successful duct clearance after previous gastric surgery, even after previous cholecystectomy. In experienced centers, LCBDE provides a valid alternative for complex interventional endoscopy, omitting the need for the creation of a gastro-gastric fistula.

Surgical Versus Conservative Management of Delayed Presentation of Acute Biliary Disease: A Systematic Literature Review

Biliary sepsis, characterized by contamination and infection of the biliary tract, poses a serious medical issue with detrimental effects on the patients. While cholecystectomy is the usual treatment for symptomatic gallstones, the most desirable management approach for biliary sepsis remains debated, prompting a scientific evaluation of the long-term effects of cholecystectomy. To compare the long-term outcomes of biliary sepsis in patients undergoing cholecystectomy versus conservative management (CM), this study will systematically review the existing literature to clarify differences in recurrence rates, complication rates, and overall survival. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched thoroughly for the literature review. Studies were included if they reported the effects of surgical and conservative interventions on predefined patient outcomes. A critical appraisal of the studies included was performed using CASP criteria. Fourteen studies were included, comprising prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, with sample sizes varying from 52 to 234 patients. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (D-LC), combined endoscopic-laparoscopic techniques, and percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (E-LC) were the analyzed interventions. The primary conclusions showed that, in comparison to D-LC, E-LC significantly reduced hospital stays (p < 0.05), since the times were 58 and 167 hours for E-LC and D-LC, respectively. Additionally, E-LC resulted in fewer recurrent biliary events (4.3 compared to 36.2% of D-LC) and lower overall costs. ES demonstrated efficacy in mitigating the requirement for emergency cholecystectomy in patients at high risk, as evidenced by its 94% success rate in endoscopic stone removal. Without increasing postoperative complications, combined endoscopic-laparoscopic techniques showed high success rates for stone removal (95.6% common bile duct clearance rate). This systematic review highlights the favorable long-term effects of cholecystectomy in managing biliary sepsis. It emphasizes the importance of individualized treatment processes and considers conservative control for patients with high surgical risk and significant comorbidities. It also highlights the need for advancement in CM and provides insights that can help clinical decision-making to optimize outcomes in affected patients.

Clinical Evaluation of Primary Suturing of Normal-Diameter Common Bile Ducts After Microincision of Cystic Duct Confluence for Stone Removal

PURPOSE

In patients with gallstones complicated by common bile duct (CBD) stones, both normal and dilated common bile ducts have been reported. The goal of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of primary suturing after microincision of the cystic duct confluence in treating these patients.

METHOD

Between July 2018 and December 2021, 104 patients were admitted to the Department of General Surgery at Guannan County People's Hospital with gallstone complications, and their records were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into 2 groups: normal CBD group (n=70, CBD diameter: 6.0 to 8.0 mm) and dilated CBD group (n=34, CBD diameter: >8.0 mm). In these 104 patients, there were 75 cases of CBD stones with acute cholangitis, 12 cases of CBD stones without cholangitis, and 17 cases of mild biliary pancreatitis with CBD stones (including 2 cases of biliary pancreatitis with cholangitis). Among all patients, there were 37 cases with jaundice, 67 cases without jaundice, and 5 cases of emergency surgery. All patients underwent microincision of the cystic duct confluence followed by primary suturing. Both groups were compared on a variety of general and perioperative indicators.

RESULT

All patients underwent laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy; there were no cases of biliary tract injury or conversion to laparotomy. There was no statistically significant difference in operation duration ( P =0.286), blood loss ( P =0.06), length of stay ( P =0.821), and time to drainage tube removal ( P =0.096) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Microincision of the cystic duct confluence, followed by a primary suture, is a safe and effective treatment for CBD stones in patients with a normal CBD diameter, as determined by preoperative imaging.

Antegrade balloon dilatation of the duodenal papilla during laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with acute choledocholithiasis: a case control matched study

INTRODUCTION

In acute obstructive common bile duct (CBD) stones endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for CBD stone removal before cholecystectomy (ChE) ('ERC-first') is the gold standard of treatment. Intraoperative antegrade balloon dilatation of the duodenal papilla during ChE with flushing of CBD stones to the duodenum ('ABD-during-ChE') may be an alternative 'one-stop-shop' treatment option. However, a comparison of outcomes of the 'ABD-during-ChE' technique and the'ERC-first' approach has never been performed.

METHODS

Retrospective case control matched study of patients suffering from obstructive CBD stones (< 8 mm) without severe pancreatitis or cholangitis that underwent the traditional 'ERC-first' approach versus the 'ABD-during-ChE' technique. Primary endpoint was the overall Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) from diagnosis to complete CBD stone removal and performed ChE.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were included (35 patients each in the 'ERC first'- and 'ABD-during-ChE'-group). There were no statistical significant differences in terms of demographics and disease specific characteristics between the two study groups. However, there was a not significant difference towards an increased overall CCI® in the 'ERC-first' group versus the 'ABD-during-ChE' group (14.4 ± 15.4 versus 9.8 ± 11.1, p = 0.225). Of note, six major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ IIIa) occurred in the 'ERC-first' group versus two in the 'ABD-during-ChE' group (17% versus 6%, p = 0.136). In addition, significantly more interventions and a longer overall time from diagnosis to complete clearance of bile ducts and performed ChE was found, when comparing the 'ERC-first' group and the 'ABD-during-ChE' group (3.7 ± 0.8 versus 1.1 ± 0.4, p < 0.001; 160.5 ± 228.6 days versus 12.0 ± 18.0 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients suffering from acute obstructive CBD stones smaller than 8 mm, compared to the 'ERC-first' approach, the 'ABD-during-ChE' technique resulted in significantly less interventions and reduced overall treatment time from diagnosis to complete clearance of bile ducts and performed ChE. This comes together with a strong trend of less intervention related complications in the 'ABD-during-ChE' group.

Changes in the Management of Common Bile Duct Stones: 1980 to Date

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of treating patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), surgical exploration, or a combination of ES and surgical CBD exploration (the rendezvous technique).

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature.

SUMMARY OF DATA

Before 1990, 17 cohort studies indicated that ES cleared CBD stones in 92.0% of patients, with a mortality rate of 1.5%. Surgery removed CBD stones in 90.2% of patients, with a 2.1% mortality rate. A single randomized controlled trial in 1987 showed that ES removed CBD stones in 91% of 55 patients, with a 3.6% mortality rate and a 27% complication rate, whereas surgical CBD exploration removed CBD stones in 92%, with a 1.8% mortality rate and a 22% complication rate. Since 1991, 26 randomized controlled trials have shown that laparoscopic-ES rendezvous is as effective as ES alone and laparoscopic surgery alone but is associated with fewer complications, a reduced need for additional procedures, and a shorter hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic-ES rendezvous appears to be the optimal approach to the treatment of CBD stones in younger and fit patients. The choice between ES alone and laparoscopic-ES rendezvous in older or high-risk patients remains uncertain.

Minimally invasive management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To update a 2018 meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy and safety of four surgical techniques in patients with concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), LC plus preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP), LC plus intraoperative ERCP (IntraERCP), and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP) were included. Primary and secondary outcomes were compared using odds ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs involved 3145 patients were included. Of these, 1188 (37.8%) underwent LC + PreERCP, 1183 (37.6%) LC + LCBDE, 689 (21.9%) LC + IntraERCP, and 85 (2.7%) LC + PostERCP. This analysis demonstrated that LC plus IntraERCP was the most likely approach to achieve technical success and reduce morbidity. No significant differences were observed between the four treatments concerning major morbidity, mortality, and operative time. LC plus LCBDE was effective for increasing biliary leak and conversion as well as decreasing postoperative hemorrhage and total costs. Additionally, LC plus PreERCP was associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis, while LC plus IntraERCP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity in operative time, hospital stay, and total costs (τ2 > 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides evidence that LC plus IntraERCP appears to be the optimal strategy for patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones owing to its advantage in technical success and morbidity. LC plus LCBDE is associated with higher biliary leak and lower postoperative hemorrhage, whereas LC plus PreERCP is associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis.

A Predictive Tool for Choledocholithiasis in Patients Undergoing Emergency Cholecystectomy

Background: Management of acute cholecystitis with emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been established; however, detection and management of concurrent choledocholithiasis are debated. The aim of this study is to develop a more accurate choledocholithiasis predictive model. Materials and Methods: A 9-year audit of emergency cholecystectomies and evaluation of preoperative factors in predictive models. Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) analysis/Youdon Index was used to identify thresholds maximizing these associations for continuous variables. Results: 1601/1828 patients were analyzed. Patients who were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis were more likely to be febrile on admission, have a higher C-reactive Protein, and higher median bilirubin (25.0 μmol/L versus 11.0 μmol/L, P < .001). When excluding bilirubin, multivariate analysis detected several significant variables, including fever, biliary tree dilatation, or a common bile duct stone seen on ultrasound. When bilirubin was included into the model, bilirubin of 20-39 μmol/L (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74-3.44) and ≥40 μmol/L (OR 4.84, 95% CI: 3.40-6.91) were shown to have increased likelihood of choledocholithiasis detection on intraoperative cholangiogram, with the ROC model having a significant C-statistic of 0.796 (P < .001). Discussion: A perfect predictive model for concurrent choledocholithiasis in acute cholecystitis does not exist; however, the results from this study are encouraging that high and low predictive groups can be established.

Outcomes following common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic stone extraction before, during and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are two methods of retrieving common bile duct (CBD) stones. The best method for CBD stone removal is debatable. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following LCBDE and/or ERCP, including laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing LCBDE and/or ERCP at a single centre from 2008 to 2018. Patients were grouped by intention-to-treat (single-stage LCBDE, pre-operative-, intra-operative-, or post-operative ERCP) and eventual plan (surgical or endoscopic). Outcomes included complication rates (minor Clavien-Dindo 1/2, major Clavien-Dindo 3/4, non-biliary complications) and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 671 patients, 578 patients received LCBDE and 93 patients received ERCP as primary care. Endoscopic clearance had significantly higher complications and mortality compared to surgical clearance. On an intention-to-treat basis LCBDE had the lowest minor-, major- and non-biliary complications, and mortality (5.2%, 6.1%, 2.9% and 0.5%, respectively), whilst pre-operative ERCP the worst (39.6%, 27.1%, 29.2% and 8.3%, respectively) (p=<0.001). LCBDE and postERCP had similar major complications and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Surgical clearance of CBD stones was potentially safer than endoscopic clearance. Pre-operative ERCP had the worst outcomes. LCBDE and postERCP are likely to have similar short-term patient outcomes.

EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones.

METHODS

We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions.

RESULTS

The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL ).

CONCLUSION

We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions.

GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER

IPGRP-2022CN170.

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

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

Epidemiological Survey of Different Treatments for Choledocholithiasis in Taiwan: A Nationwide, Population-Based Cohort Analysis

(1) Background: Open, laparoscopic, and endoscopic choledocholithotomy (OC, LC, and EC, respectively) are accepted choledocholithiasis treatment modalities. However, an assessment of the nationwide trends in their outcomes is lacking. This nationwide population-based analysis evaluated treatment outcomes of choledocholithiasis in Taiwan; (2) Methods: A total of 13,139,306 individuals were randomly enrolled from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (LHID) between 2000 to 2013 for cohort analysis. All patients with newly diagnosed choledocholithiasis aged 18 years or older who were treated during the study period were enrolled and allocated to the OC, LC, EC, or combined endoscopy and open choledocholithotomy (CEOC) groups. Age, readmission, retained stone, comorbidities, hospital stay, medical cost, complications, mortality were analyzed; (3) Results: A total of 58,064 individuals met the inclusion criteria, including 46.54%, 1.10%, 47.52%, and 4.85% who underwent OC, LC, EC, and CEOC, respectively. The endpoint characteristics showed that the LC group had higher readmission, longer hospital stay, and higher medical cost. Cox regression analysis showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of complications for EC was 1.259 times higher than that for OC. The adjusted HRs of readmission within 90 days for LC, EC, and CEOC were higher than that of OC. The adjusted HR of retreatment with surgery was higher in LC. The adjusted HR of retreatment with endoscopy was higher in CEOC. The adjusted HR of mortality in EC was 1.603 times that of OC; (4) Conclusions: Different choledocholithiasis treatments lead to different outcomes. However, further studies on other large or national data sets are required to support these findings.

Endoscopic Stone Extraction followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Tandem for Concomitant Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Single-session endoscopic stone extraction (ESE) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has the best outcome in managing concomitant cholelithiasis (gallstone disease [GSD]) and choledocholithiasis (common bile duct stone [CBDS]). Traditional rendezvous technique with an intraoperative cholangiogram is associated with various technical (bowel distention, frozen Calot's triangle, limitation of intraoperative cholangiogram and so on) and logistical difficulties (lack of trained personnel and equipment for ESE in the operating room). We modified our approach of ESE-LC (tandem ESE-LC) to study the safety of the approach and overcome these disadvantages of the traditional rendezvous approach.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients with GSD and suspected CBDS from January 2017 to December 2019 was conducted. Tandem ESE-LC involves ESE and LC under the same general anaesthesia in a single day, while ESE is performed in the endoscopic suite using carbon dioxide insufflation, a balloon/basket was used for achieving bile duct clearance and the same was confirmed with an occlusion cholangiogram. Patients were then shifted to the operating room for LC. The primary outcome included bile duct clearance and safety of the procedure.

RESULTS

Of 56 patients assessed for eligibility, 42 were included in the study (median age: 53 years, 25 [60%] women). Biliary colic was the most common presenting symptom (n = 24, 57%), followed by acute cholecystitis (n = 11, 26%). The median number of stones and stone size was 1 (1-6) and 4 mm (3-10), respectively. All patients had successful bile duct clearance. Stenting was performed in 5 (12%) patients. Intraoperatively, Calot's dissection was difficult and frozen in 10 and 11 patients respectively. The cystic duct was short and wide in 13 (31%) patients. Subtotal cholecystectomy was performed in 6 (14%) patients. The median duration of postprocedural hospital stay was 1 (0-13) day. Three patients had tandem ESE-LC on a day-care basis. One patient had post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancretography pancreatitis, and another required percutaneous drainage for gall bladder fossa collection. No patient had retained CBDS at a median follow-up of 18 (3-28) months.

CONCLUSION

Tandem ESE-LC is safe and effective method in managing concomitant GSD and CBDS.

Comparison of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treating gallstones and common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time.

RESULTS

Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones.

Factors That Predict the Success of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis: A 10-Year Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) can be performed to treat choledocholithiasis at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to identify factors that predict the success of LCBDE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective audit was performed on patients who underwent LCBDE for the management of choledocholithiasis at Northern Health between 2008 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 513 patients were identified with an overall success rate of 90.8%. Most LCBDE were done through a transcystic approach with the remainder through a choledochotomy. When comparing patients with a successful operation to those that were unsuccessful, univariate analysis demonstrated significant differences in preoperative white cell count and number of duct stones found. Age and elevated nonbilirubin liver function tests were found to be significant factors associated with the failure of LCBDE on multivariate analysis. The likelihood of a failed operation in those with multiple stones was observed to be almost halved compared with patients with single stone although this did not reach significance [odds ratio (OR): 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-1.01, P=0.055]. Multivariate analysis indicated that unsuccessful procedures (OR: 10.13, 95% CI: 4.34-23.65, P<0.001) and multiple duct stones (OR: 3.79, 95% CI: 1.66-8.67, P=0.002) were associated with an increased risk of severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A single impacted stone may be more difficult to remove, however complications were more likely to be associated with multiple duct stones. With no other clinically relevant predictive factors, and because of the high success of the procedure and the low morbidity, LCBDE remains an option for all patients with choledocholithiasis.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (IO-ERCP + LC) for the treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library from their inception dates to April 2020, for studies that compared the efficacy and safety of LCBDE + LC with those of IO-ERCP + LC in patients with gallbladder and CBD stones. The technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, biliary leak, postoperative pancreatitis, conversion, retained stones, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between these two approaches.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 860 patients were evaluated. Overall, no significant difference was found between LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC regarding technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and the conversion rate. Biliary leak and retained stones were significantly more prevalent in the LCBDE + LC group, while postoperative pancreatitis was significantly more prevalent in the IO-ERCP + LC group.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC have similar efficacy and safety in terms of technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and conversion rate. However, LCBDE + LC is associated with a higher biliary leak rate, lower postoperative pancreatitis rate, and higher rate of retained stones.

Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, the optimal technique for extracting common bile duct stones remains unclear. Recent studies have noted improved outcomes with single-stage techniques, such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); however only few studies have directly compared those two single-stage techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we retrospectively analyzed the postoperative outcomes of all patients who underwent single-stage LC for choledocholithiasis from 2005 to 2017. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, we stratified patients into two cohorts: those who underwent iERCP and LCBDE. Applying univariate techniques, we evaluated baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes for both cohorts. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality; our secondary outcomes included rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 1814 single-stage LC patients during our 13-year study period, 1185 (65.3%) underwent LCBDE; 629 (34.6%) underwent iERCP. Our univariate analysis showed that the two cohorts were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics, including demographics, preoperative comorbidities, laboratory values, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. 30-day postoperative morbidity (including infectious and noninfectious complications) and overall mortality between groups were low and comparable. The mean operative time was slightly longer with LCBDE (125.1 ± 62.0 min) than iERCP (113.5 ± 65.2 min; P < 0.001), however the mean hospital length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate were similar.

CONCLUSION

We found that both iERCP and LCBDE resulted in low, comparable rates of morbidity and mortality. Centers with readily available endoscopic expertise might favor iERCP for its ease of access and shorter operative time. However, LCBDE remains an appropriate technique for patients with choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention is unavailable.

Decision analysis of minimally invasive management options for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is controversial with the risks and benefits of one versus two-stage approaches debated. This study aims to perform decision analysis of minimally invasive laparo-endoscopic approaches.

METHODS

An advanced decision tree was constructed to compare pre, intra and post-operative ERCP and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in terms of primary ductal clearance and significant complications for patients intended to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomised controlled trials following a comprehensive literature search. Model uncertainties were extensively tested through deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. Utility outcomes were 1 and 0.5 for successful primary clearance without and with complications, respectively, and 0 for failure of primary clearance of the duct.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (n = 2697) were included in the analysis. At base case analysis, a laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach had the highest utility output (0.90; no complication probability: 0.87/complication probability 0.06). Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was ranked second with a utility output 0.87 (no complication probability: 0.82/complication probability 0.10). Pre-operative ERCP utility score was 0.84 (no complication probability: 0.78/ complication probability 0.11) and post-operative ERCP utility score was 0.78 (no complication probability: 0.71/complication probability 0.13). Monte Carlo analysis showed that laparo-endoscopic rendezvous and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration had an equal mean utility output of 0.57 (standard deviation 0.36; variance 0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.99 versus standard deviation 0.34; variance 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.98). Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous had a superior treatment selection frequency of 39.93% followed by laparoscopic bile duct exploration (36.11%), pre-operative ERCP (20.67%) and post-operative ERCP (2.99%).

CONCLUSION

One-stage approach to the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is superior to two-stage, in terms of primary clearance of the duct and risk of operative morbidity. Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach could offer marginal additional benefit but more high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

How to choose the most appropriate technique for the single-stage treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis?

BACKGROUND

We utilized transcystic clearance and intra-operative papillotomy through a rendezvous technique for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reliability of pre-operative parameters to address the most suitable surgical procedure.

METHODS

A total of 180 patients affected by calculi of the gallbladder and bile duct underwent the single-stage treatment. According to several pre-operative parameters, 141 patients had to supposedly undergo transcystic clearance of the bile duct, while 39 patients had to be treated with the rendezvous technique. All patients were treated with the sequential procedure: first, we tried the transcystic procedure and, if there was a failure, we used a rendezvous technique. We prospectively analysed each group based on a series of variables such as sex, age, operative time, success rate of proposed treatment, conversion rate, post-operative complications and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Transcystic clearance was successful in 134 out of 141 patients (95.0%), while 2 patients needed to undergo a laparo-endoscopy procedure (failure). Thirty-five out of 39 patients (89.7%) obtained common bile-duct (CBD) clearance through the rendezvous technique, while 1 patient obtained clean-up through the simple transcystic procedure (failure). Five out of 141 patients with transcystic clearance and 3 out of 39 patients with the rendezvous technique underwent laparotomy CBD clearance with conversion rates of 3.5% and 7.7%, respectively. Post-operative complications showed similar percentages for both procedures. However, the surgical time turned out to be longer for the rendezvous technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The one-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis was possible in 94% of the cases utilizing a surgical technique selected according to the patient's case history. The pre-operative parameters, such as jaundice, CBD diameters and stone diameters, have certified their reliability as good predictors of the most suitable procedure to follow.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus surgery for choledocholithiasis - A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is no consensus on the best treatment option for choledocholithiasis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and common bile duct surgery (CBDS) for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERCP and CBDS in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. MEDLINE and EMBASE were the used databases. RCTs assessing mortality, bile duct clearance failure, complications, or length of hospital stay were considered eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects model, through the Mantel-Haenszel method for binary outcomes and through the inverse variance method for continuous outcomes. The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO platform (CRD42017073196).

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs (2466 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence of significant difference between interventions regarding mortality (risk ratio - RR=1.31, 95% confidence interval - 95% CI=0.60-2.85, p=0.49), bile duct clearance failure (RR=1.17, 95% CI=0.86-1.59, p=0.31), complications (RR=0.99, 95% CI=0.82-1.20, p=0.94) and length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference - MD=1.06, 95% CI=-0.62-2.73, p=0.22). Sensitivity analyses failed to demonstrate significant changes in results compared to the main analyses. The quality of the evidence was considered to be low.

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of significant difference between ERCP and CBDS for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of 4 Combinations of Laparoscopic and Intraoperative Techniques for Management of Gallstone Disease With Biliary Duct Calculi: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

Several techniques are used for surgical treatment of gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi, but the safety and efficacy of these approaches have not been compared.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of 4 surgical approaches to gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI-Web of Science databases, articles published between 1950 and 2017 and searched from August 12, 2017, to September 14, 2017. Search terms used were LCBDE, LC, preoperative, ERCP, postoperative, period, cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic, retrograde, rendezvous, intraoperative, one-stage, two-stage, single-stage, gallstone, gallstones, calculi, stone, therapy, treatment, therapeutics, surgery, surgical, procedures, clinical trials as topic, random, and allocation in several logical combinations.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing at least 2 of the following strategies: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC); LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCDBE); LC plus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (IntraERCP); and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to show the probability that each approach would be the best for each outcome.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were the safety to efficacy ratio using overall mortality and morbidity rates as the main indicators of safety and the success rate as an indicator of efficacy. Secondary outcomes were acute pancreatitis, biliary leak, overall bleeding, operative time, length of hospital stay, total cost, and readmission rate.

Results

The 20 trials comprised 2489 patients (and 2489 procedures). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP had the highest probability of being the most successful (SUCRA, 87.2%) and safest (SUCRA, 69.7%) with respect to morbidity. All approaches had similar results regarding overall mortality. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LCBDE was the most successful for avoiding overall bleeding (SUCRA, 83.3%) and for the shortest operative time (SUCRA, 90.2%) and least total cost (SUCRA, 98.9%). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP was the best approach for length of hospital stay (SUCRA, 92.7%). Inconsistency was found in operative time (indirect estimate, 19.05; 95% CI, 2.44-35.66; P = .02) and total cost (indirect estimate, 17.06; 95% CI, 3.56-107.21; P = .04). Heterogeneity was observed for success rate (τ, 0.8), operative time (τ, >1), length of stay (τ, >1), and total cost (τ, >1).

Conclusions and Relevance

The combined LC and IntraERCP approach had the greatest odds to be the safest and appears to be the most successful. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LBCDE appears to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis but may be associated with a higher risk of biliary leak.

Recurrent common bile duct stones as a late complication of endoscopic sphincterotomy

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) has become well established as a modality for the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS), especially in the setting of associated cholangitis. Our study aims to determine the rate of long term morbidity of recurrent CBDS post ES.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ERCP and ES (ERCP+ES) was undertaken on a prospectively maintained database from 1998 to 2012 at the Northern Hospital, Melbourne. Primary CBDS were defined as those detected at least 6 months after complete clearance of the CBD. Prior cholecystectomy was a requirement for inclusion and patients with primary CBD stones in the setting of an intact sphincter were excluded.

Results

A total of 1148 patients underwent ERCP, of which 573 had an ES. Fifty-one patients underwent an ES prior to developing primary CBDS (8.9%). The time to recurrence ranged from 6 months to 15 years (mean 3.3 years). The number of procedures per patient ranged from 2 to 11, with 51% requiring 3 or more ERCPs. Factors associated with primary CBDS recurrence included a dilated CBD > 12 mm, stricture of the major papilla post ES to 2 - 5 mm and presence of the ampulla within or on the edge of a duodenal diverticulum.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate that ERCP + ES has an inherent long-term complication of recurrent primary CBDS formation. While this can be managed with repeat ERCP, the advent of laparoscopic bile duct exploration should lead us to re-examine the role of ERCP + ES in younger patients.

Single-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: a surgical procedures review

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for simple gallbladder stones, in cases in which common bile duct stones are also present, clinical and diagnostic elements, along with intraoperative findings, define the optimal means of treatment. All available options must be accessible to the surgical team which must necessarily be multidisciplinary and include a surgeon, an endoscopist, and a radiologist in order to identify the best option for a truly personalized surgery. This review describes the different techniques and approaches used based on distinctive recommendations and factors, according to the specific cases treated and the results achieved.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic bile duct exploration versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) stones exploration (LCBDE) with LC plus endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of patients with gallstones and CBD stones.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to identify relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled to compare stone clear, retained stone, conversion to other procedures, and complications. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were pooled to compare operative time, and length of hospital stay. A fixed-effects model or random-effects model was used to pool the estimates, according to the heterogeneity among the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1663 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimate suggested that LC-LCBDE had comparable effects with LC-EST in terms of CBD stone clear rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.09; P = .583), retained stones rate (RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.51, 3.19; P = .607), and length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.96 days, 95% CI: -2.20, 0.28). In addition, LC-LCBDE was associated with significantly higher conversion rate (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.35; P = .019) and less operative time (WMD = -11.55 minutes, 95% CI: -16.68, -6.42; P < .001) than LC-EST. The incidence of complications was not significant difference between the 2 surgical approaches (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.34; P = .550).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, both LC-LCBDE and LC-EST were highly effective in detecting and removing CBD stones and were equivalent in complications. However, our results might be biased by the limitations. Large-scale well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings.

Comparison of one stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intra-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus two-stage pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of pre-operatively diagnosed patients with common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for symptomatic gallstone disease is one of the most common surgical procedures. Concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones are detected with an incidence of 4-20% and the ideal management is still controversial. The frequent practice is to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy pre-operatively (POES) followed by LC, to allow subsequent laparoscopic or open exploration if POES fails. However, POES has shown different drawbacks such as need for two hospital admissions, need of two anesthesia inductions, higher rate of pancreatitis, and longer hospital stay. Hence, an intra-operative endoscopic sphincerotomy (IOES) has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 1 stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with IOES versus 2-stage POES followed by LC for the management of pre-operatively known cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search terms bile duct stones/calculi, ERCP, endoscopic sphincterotomy, laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), and laparoscopic ductal clearance/choledochotomy/exploration were used. A comprehensive hand-based search of reference lists of published articles and review articles was performed to ensure inclusion of all possible studies and exclude duplicates.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing 1 stage LC combined with IOES versus 2-stage POES followed by LC for the management of pre-operatively known cholecystocholedocholithiasis in adults.

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

Three reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were entered in revman version 5.3. The trials were grouped according to the outcome measure assessed such as success rate of CBD stone clearance, incidence of pancreatitis, overall morbidity, and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 629 patients in 5 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The success rate of CBD clearance (IOES = 93%, POES = 92%) was the same in both groups (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.45-0.97; p = 0.60). Findings showed that IOES was associated with less pancreatitis (0.6%) than POES (4.4%) (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.06-0.67; p = 0.01; I ² = 43%). The incidence of overall morbidity was lower in the IOES group (6%) than the POES group (11%) (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.96; p = 0.03; I ² = 20%). The mean days of hospital stay for IOES group (M = 3.52, SD = 1.434, N = 5) was significantly less than the POES group (M = 6.10, SD = 2.074, N = 5), t(8) = 2.29, p <= 0.051.

CONCLUSION

IOES is at par with two-stage POES in terms of CBD clearance, with less incidence of post-operative pancreatitis, overall morbidity, and less hospital stay.

Cost-analysis and effectiveness of one-stage laparoscopic versus two-stage endolaparoscopic management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

One-stage laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) for cholecystocholedocholithiasis ( CCL) can be performed with similar short and long-term outcomes than two-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiography followed by subsequent LC (ERCP+LC). This study examined retrospectively the outcome and hospital costs of one-stage versus two-stage treatment of CBD stones.

METHODS

From January 1999 and December 2014, 217 consecutive, elective patients underwent one-stage (LCBDE + LC ) or two-stage (ERCP + subsequent LC ) treatment for CBD stones. The data from the one-stage management was collected prospectively, and from the two-stage management retrospectively. The main measure of outcome was hospital costs, with the success of one-stage versus two-stage management, postoperative morbidity and postoperative stay as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

One-stage laparoscopic transcystic management was the least costly option compared to laparoscopic one-stage transductal approach (TC 5455€ versus TD 9364, p < 0.001) or two-stage management (6913 €, p = 0.02). Overall success rate of primary intervention (including conversions to open surgery) for CBD stone clearance was 96.9%, 97.0% and 98.3% after transcystic one-stage, transductal one-stage and two-stage approach, p = 0.79. Postoperative morbidity was 15.5% versus 7.5%, p = 0.64, and postoperative hospital stay median 2 days (IQR 2-5) versus 4.5 days ( IQR 3-7), p < 0.001 in the one-stage and two-stage management groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that laparoscopic one-stage transcystic management of CCL results in high rate of CBD clearance, fewer procedures per patient, shorter hospital and lower costs than the two-stage management. Therefore the one-stage transcystic management seems to be an attractive strategy for the treatment of CCL depending on local resources and surgical expertise .

Acute calculous cholecystitis: Review of current best practices

Acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is the most frequent complication of cholelithiasis and represents one-third of all surgical emergency hospital admissions, many aspects of the disease are still a matter of debate. Knowledge of the current evidence may allow the surgical team to develop practical bedside decision-making strategies, aiming at a less demanding procedure and lower frequency of complications. In this regard, recommendations on the diagnosis supported by specific criteria and severity scores are being implemented, to prioritize patients eligible for urgency surgery. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the best treatment for ACC and the procedure should ideally be performed within 72 h. Early surgery is associated with better results in comparison to delayed surgery. In addition, when to suspect associated common bile duct stones and how to treat them when found are still debated. The antimicrobial agents are indicated for high-risk patients and especially in the presence of gallbladder necrosis. The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and in some cases with antifungal agents is related to better prognosis. Moreover, an emerging strategy of not converting to open, a difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy and performing a subtotal cholecystectomy is recommended by adept surgical teams. Some authors support the use of percutaneous cholecystostomy as an alternative emergency treatment for acute Cholecystitis for patients with severe comorbidities.

Endoscopic versus laparoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims: Overall, 5 % to 15 % of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis have concomitant bile duct stones, and the incidence of choledocholithiasis increases with age. There is no clear consensus on the best therapeutic approach (endoscopic versus surgical). Patients and methods: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was performed to compare three treatment options for patients with choledocholithiasis at the National Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Havana, Cuba from November 2007 to November 2011. The patients were randomized in three groups. Group I: patients who underwent intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) to confirm the choledocholithiasis followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) associated with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), group II: patients who underwent preoperative ERCP followed by LC during the same hospital admission and group III: patients who underwent IOC to confirm the choledocholithiasis followed by LC associated with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Results: A total of 300 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis were included in the trial and were randomized. As a result, a total of 134 patients were diagnosed with the presence of choledocholithiasis and treated during the study period. There were no significant differences in success rates of ductal stone clearance, but retained stone, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were better in group I. Conclusions: Intraoperative ERCP/ES shows a higher rate of common bile duct stones clearance, a shorter hospital stay, and lower morbidity, but further research with a larger study population is necessary to determine the additional benefits of this procedure. The results to date suggests that in appropriate patients, single-stage treatments are the best options.

Pancreatic cancer: Open or minimally invasive surgery?

Pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma is one of the most fatal malignancies, with R0 resection remaining the most important part of treatment of this malignancy. However, pancreatectomy is believed to be one of the most challenging procedures and R0 resection remains the only chance for patients with pancreatic cancer to have a good prognosis. Some surgeons have tried minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, but the short- and long-term outcomes of pancreatic malignancy remain controversial between open and minimally invasive procedures. We collected comparative data about minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery. The available evidence suggests that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is as safe and feasible as open PD (OPD), and shows some benefit, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Despite the limited evidence for MIPD in pancreatic cancer, most of the available data show that the short-term oncological adequacy is similar between MIPD and OPD. Some surgical techniques, including superior mesenteric artery-first approach and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with major vein resection, are believed to improve the rate of R0 resection. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is less technically demanding and is accepted in more pancreatic centers. It is technically safe and feasible and has similar short-term oncological prognosis compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

Single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is this strategy feasible in Australia?

Currently in Australasia, concomitant cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis are usually managed with two procedures: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and pre or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This approach exposes the patient to the risk of complications from the common bile duct stone(s) while awaiting ERCP, the risks of the ERCP itself (particularly pancreatitis) and the need for a second anaesthetic. This article explores the evidence for a newer hybrid approach, single stage LC and intraoperative ERCP (SSLCE) and compares this approach with the commonly used alternatives. SSLCE offers reduced rates of pancreatitis, reduced length of hospital stay and reduced cost compared with the two-stage approach and requires only one anaesthetic. There is a reduced risk of bile leak compared with procedures that involve a choledochotomy, and ductal clearance rates are superior to trans-cystic exploration and equivalent to the standard two-stage approach. Barriers to widespread implementation relate largely to operating theatre logistics and availability of appropriate endoscopic expertise, although when bile duct stones are anticipated these issues are manageable. There is compelling justification in the literature to gather prospective evidence surrounding SSLCE in the Australian Healthcare system.

Randomized clinical trial of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus laparoscopic bile duct exploration in patients with choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Various minimally invasive approaches exist for the management of choledocholithiasis at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) and test the hypothesis that intraoperative ERCP is no different to LBDE in terms of rate of bile duct clearance or retained stones.

METHODS

Eligible patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to intraoperative ERCP or LBDE in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcomes were rates of bile duct clearance and retained stones. Secondary outcomes were postprocedure complication rate, mortality rate, postoperative length of hospital stay, conversion to open surgery rate, procedural time and total duration of surgery.

RESULTS

Some 104 patients were randomized, and 52 patients in each group were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Duct clearance rates were 87 per cent for patients who had intraoperative ERCP and 69 per cent for those in the LBDE group (P = 0·057). The rate of retained stones was lower in the ERCP group than in the LBDE group: 15 versus 42 per cent respectively (P = 0·004). Median postoperative length of stay was shorter with ERCP (2 days versus 3 days for LBDE; P = 0·015).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative ERCP is more effective than LBDE in terms of minimizing the rate of retained stones in patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12613000761763 (http://www.anzctr.org.au/).

Transcystic or transductal stone extraction during single-stage treatment of choledochocystolithiasis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Choledochocystolithiasis can be managed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) or laparoscopically by transcystic (TC) or transductal (TD) stone extraction.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically review safety and effectiveness of combined endoscopic/laparoscopic management versus total laparoscopic management for choledochocystolithiasis with specific emphasis on TC versus TD stone extraction.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched systematically to identify trials on combined endoscopic/laparoscopic and total laparoscopic management for choledochocystolithiasis. Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration was divided into TD and TC approach. Primary outcomes were successful stone clearance from CBD, postoperative/procedural morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Eight randomized trials with 965 patients were included. Successful bile duct clearance varied between 52.6 and 97 % in the ERCP groups, 80.4 and 100 % in the TC groups, and 58.3 and 100 % in the TD groups. There were more bile leaks after TD stone extraction (11 %) than after ERCP (1 %) and TC stone extraction (1.7 %). Total morbidity varied between 9.1 and 38.3 % in the ERCP groups, 7 and 10.5 % in the TC groups, and 18.4 and 26.7 % in the TD groups. Methodological and statistical heterogeneity among the trials precluded a meaningful meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stone clearance rates are comparable between the three modalities, but TD stone extraction is associated with a higher risk of bile leaks and should only be performed by highly experienced surgeons. TC stone extraction seems a more accessible technique with lower complication rates. If unsuccessful, per- or postoperative endoscopic stone extraction is a viable option.

One-Session Laparoscopic Management of Combined Common Bile Duct and Gallbladder Stones Versus Sequential ERCP Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic management of common bile duct (CBD) stones in a single session in comparison with two-session procedures including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The most popular approach to treat CBD stones that were detected before LC is with ERCP followed by LC. This two-session approach has some disadvantages, which include spontaneous passage of stones found on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography while awaiting ERCP, the risk for CBD stone passage between ERCP and LC or during LC due to excessive gallbladder handling, and the need for multiple anesthesia sessions and hospital admissions within a short interval.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective outcome analysis was done for 150 patients with CBD stones treated either laparoscopically in a single session with either transcystic exploration (conducted in 23 cases) or CBD exploration (conducted in 46 cases) (Group I included 75 patients) or via two sessions using ERCP followed by cholecystectomy (Group II included 75 patients).

RESULTS

The rate of CBD clearance in Group I was 94.7%, whereas it was 97% in Group II. Group I is superior to Group II with regard to the operative time. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding conversion to the open procedure, hospital stay, or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-session laparoscopic management of CBD stones is as safe and effective as the gold standard sequential ERCP followed by LC with nearly the same rate of success, hospital stay, and complications.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ultrasound versus liver function tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ultrasound, serum bilirubin, or serum alkaline phosphatase. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test result, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test result as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used the bivariate model to summarise sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies including 523 participants reported the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. One studies (262 participants) compared the accuracy of ultrasound, serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase in the same participants. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants without previous cholecystectomy but this information was not available from the remaining studies. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. The sensitivities for ultrasound ranged from 0.32 to 1.00, and the specificities ranged from 0.77 to 0.97. The summary sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.95). At the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.408, the post-test probability (95% CI) associated with positive ultrasound tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91), and negative ultrasound tests was 0.17 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.33).The single study of liver function tests reported diagnostic accuracy at two cut-offs for bilirubin (greater than 22.23 μmol/L and greater than twice the normal limit) and two cut-offs for alkaline phosphatase (greater than 125 IU/L and greater than twice the normal limit). This study also assessed ultrasound and reported higher sensitivities for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase at both cut-offs but the specificities of the markers were higher at only the greater than twice the normal limit cut-off. The sensitivity for ultrasound was 0.32 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.54), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). The specificity for ultrasound was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). No study reported the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or combinations with ultrasound.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ultrasound or liver function test. Such people may have to be re-tested with other modalities if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms. False-positive results are also possible and further non-invasive testing is recommended to confirm common bile duct stones to avoid the risks of invasive testing.It should be noted that these results were based on few studies of poor methodological quality and the results for ultrasound varied considerably between studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ERCP or IOC. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones; with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive techniques for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of patients with symptomatic gallstones and possible or proven common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstones is still evolving. Today a number of options exist: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pre-op ERCP), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and postoperative ERCP (post-op ERCP). This meta-analysis was done to compare these management options and determine if any single option was clearly superior.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using several electronic databases. The search revealed 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six comparing pre-op ERCP with LCBDE, five comparing pre-op ERCP with IOES, two comparing IOES with LCBDE and two comparing post-op ERCP with LCBDE, comprising a total of 1992 patients.

RESULTS

The pre-op ERCP group had a significantly higher incidence of ERCP related complications (odds ratio: 2.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-4.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence provided by this meta-analysis suggests that both of these approaches would appear comparable. To fully address which would be the better approach would require an RCT as discussed above.

Management of choledocholithiasis in an emergency cohort undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Minimally-invasive options for the management of choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy include laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches. This study reviews the effectiveness of both approaches in an emergency setting.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for a cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Outcomes assessed were duct clearance, the number of procedures performed (NPP), length of stay (LOS) and complication rate.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomies received intervention for choledocholithiasis. The duct clearance rate was lower in the laparoscopic group, 63% versus 86% (P = 0.001). However, the median NPP was also lesser in the laparoscopic group, 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-2) versus 2 (IQR 2-2) (P < 0.001), as was the median LOS, 5 days (IQR 3-8) versus 7 days (IQR 6-10) (P = 0.009). Forty-eight laparoscopic endobiliary stents were attempted; stent deployment was successful in 37 patients. A larger proportion of patients with laparoscopic endobiliary stents had duct clearance by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) compared with those without, although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.208).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic clearance is not as effective as post-operative ERCP in an emergency cohort, but is associated with fewer procedures required and a shorter inpatient stay. Thus, laparoscopic clearance may still be an attractive option for surgeons especially where conditions are favourable during an emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Modern approach to cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

Gallstones and common bile duct calculi are found to be associated in 8%-20% of patients, leading to possible life-threatening complications, such as acute biliary pancreatitis, jaundice and cholangitis. The gold standard of care for gallbladder calculi and isolated common bile duct stones is represented by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, respectively, while a debate still exists regarding how to treat the two diseases at the same time. Many therapeutic options are also available when the two conditions are associated, including many different types of treatment, which local professionals often administer. The need to limit maximum discomfort and risks for the patients, combined with the economic pressure of reducing costs and utilizing resources, favors single-step procedures. However, a multitude of data fail to strongly demonstrate the superiority of any technique (including a two or multi-step approach), while rigorous clinical trials that include so many different types of treatment are still lacking, and it is most likely unrealistic to conduct them in the future. Therefore, the choice of the best management is often led by the local presence of professional expertise and resources, rather than by a real superiority of one strategy over another.

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.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with rendezvous cannulation reduces pancreatic injury

AIM: To examine whether rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with less pancreatic damage, measured as leakage of proenzymes, than conventional ERCP.

METHODS: Patients (n = 122) with symptomatic gallstone disease, intact papilla and no ongoing inflammation, were prospectively enrolled in this case-control designed study. Eighty-one patients were subjected to laparoscopic cholecystectomy and if intraoperative cholangiography suggested common bile duct stones (CBDS), rendezvous ERCP was performed intraoperatively (n = 40). Patients with a negative cholangiogram constituted the control group (n = 41). Another 41 patients with CBDS, not subjected to surgery, underwent conventional ERCP. Pancreatic proenzymes, procarboxypeptidase B and trypsinogen-2 levels in plasma, were analysed at 0, 4, 8 and 24 h. The proenzymes were determined in-house with a double-antibody enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Pancreatic amylase was measured by an enzymatic colourimetric modular analyser with the manufacturer’s reagents. All samples were blinded at analysis.

RESULTS: Post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) occurred in 3/41 (7%) of the patients cannulated with conventional ERCP and none in the rendezvous group. Increased serum levels indicating pancreatic leakage were significantly higher in the conventional ERCP group compared with the rendezvous ERCP group regarding pancreatic amylase levels in the 4- and 8-h samples (P = 0.0015; P = 0.03), procarboxypeptidase B in the 4- and 8-h samples (P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001) and trypsinogen-2 in the 24-hour samples (P = 0.03). No differences in these markers were observed in patients treated with rendezvous cannulation technique compared with patients that underwent cholecystectomy alone (control group). Post procedural concentrations of pancreatic amylase and procarboxypeptidase B were significantly correlated with pancreatic duct cannulation and opacification.

CONCLUSION: Rendezvous ERCP reduces pancreatic enzyme leakage compared with conventional ERCP cannulation technique. Thus, laparo-endoscopic technique can be recommended with the ambition to minimise the risk for post ERCP pancreatitis.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Routine use of simultaneous laparoendoscopic approach in patients with confirmed gallbladder and bile duct stones: fit for laparoscopy fit for "rendezvous"

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present work was to determine the feasibility and efficacy, in terms of equipment coordination and timing, of the laparoendoscopic intraoperative rendezvous technique (RVT) for the treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct stones (CBDS).

METHODS

The procedure was considered in 269 unselected patients with a suspicion or preoperative imaging demonstration of CBDS who were fit for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Common bile duct stones were confirmed by intraoperative laparoscopic cholangiography (IOC) in only 113 of these patients (42 %). In 17 (15 %) patients the planned procedure was aborted because of organizational problems, mainly the unavailability of endoscopists in the urgent setting. The remaining 96 patients (84 %) underwent a formal attempt at RVT. Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) was performed, during LC, by means of a guidewire that reached the duodenum through the cystic duct.

RESULTS

In 18 patients (19 %) the complete procedure failed, either because of difficulty in passing the guidewire through the papilla or because of other technical difficulties that required conversion to laparotomy. An intraoperative ERC was completed in six patients in the classical way (no guidewire) without conversion. No mortality and few complications were recorded (3 % overall: 1 perforation and 2 cholangitis). Retained stones were successively detected in 6 patients (6 %) and successfully retreated by a further ERC. Globally, the one-stage procedure (with and without the guidewire) was possible in 84 of 96 patients (87 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The RVT appears to be effective and safe as it was performed at our institution, with an overall percentage of definitive success (passed guide wire and no further ERC) of 81 %. The RVT should be considered as a good option for the treatment of simultaneous gallstones and CBDS.

Synchronous vs sequential laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A 10-year study of rendezvous intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Rendezvous intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (RV-IOERC), also called guidewire-facilitated IOERC, is one of the single-stage options available for managing common bile duct stones (CBDS) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The objective of this study is to investigate procedure-related complications in IOERC patients and stone clearance.

METHODS

All patients who underwent IOERC between January 2000 and December 2009 were identified from the local registry of Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge. Medical charts and ERC reports were studied, and descriptive statistics were obtained. Outcomes were procedure-related complications, especially post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), stone clearance, and mortality.

RESULTS

307 patients were identified. In 264 of the patients, the rendezvous cannulation technique was successful (86 %); in the remaining 43 patients, conventional cannulation technique was necessary. In total, PEP occurred in seven patients (2.28 %). One of the PEP patients was in the rendezvous cannulated group (0.37 %), whereas six patients developed PEP in the nonrendezvous group (13.95 %, p < 0.001). The primary stone clearance rate was 88.27 % (271/307). There was no mortality within 90 days in the series.

CONCLUSIONS

IOERC with RV cannulation technique for management of CBDS during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has a low PEP rate and a high stone clearance rate, making it a safe and feasible method for removing CBDS. However, the technique requires logistics to perform IOERC in the operating theater. The present data suggest that IOERC with RV cannulation is superior to conventional cannulation with respect to risk of PEP.