Use of the laparoscopic-endoscopic approach, the so-called "rendezvous" technique, in cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a valid method in cases with patient-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis

Proper timing or ERCP and cholecystectomy on acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine if endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) should be performed with surgery or as a different step, on acute cholecystitis, and which strategy has the least complications and morbimortality.

METHODS

Various databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, clinical trials, Google Scholar) were searched for randomized trials comparing the different timings for ERCP and cholecystectomy. No language or time restrictions were applied. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 (Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2), and evidence certainty evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data synthesis used R-4.1.0 Project for Statistical Computing for Windows, with meta-analysis via fixed-effects model and I2 for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eleven studies was used, and meta-analysis was performed independently for each outcome. Different outcomes were evaluated, with preoperative ERCP as an intervention and intraoperative ERCP as the control: length of stays (four trials with mean differences - MD = -1.44; 95% confidence interval - 95%CI -3,87-0,98); bile leak (odds ratio - OR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.11-4.09); cholangitis (OR = 1.32; 95%CI 0.29-5.98); bleeding from sphincterotomy (OR = 0.98; 95%CI 0.20-4.86); wound infection (OR = 0.33; 95%CI 0.04-3.14); incisional bleeding (OR = 0.5; 95%CI 0.04-5.70); elevated amylase activity (OR = 5.22; 95%CI 2.17-12.59); acute pancreatitis (OR = 4.61; 95%CI 1.72-12.38); operative time (MD = -6,26; 95%CI -37.24-24.73); failure rate (OR = 1.74; 95%CI 0.99-3.05); conversion (OR = 1.34; 95%CI 0.6-2.96); morbidity (OR = 2.75; 95%CI 1.7-4.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of bias was significant due to lack of blindness. The morbidity, pancreatitis, and elevated amylase activity outcomes were the only ones to find statistical significance and favored the intraoperative approach.

One-Stage Intraoperative ERCP combined with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Two-Stage Preoperative ERCP Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Management of Gallbladder with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones, known as cholecystocholedocholithiasis, are clinically prevalent. There is currently no consensus on sequential versus simultaneous management approaches, and, if simultaneous, which approach to adopt. This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) versus two-stage ERCP followed by LC for treating concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in five databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, VIP, and Wanfang, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and retrospective studies published up to February 2024. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. The primary outcomes were CBD stone clearance rate and postoperative complications morbidity. Secondary outcomes included conversion to other procedures and length of hospital stay. Statistical analyses were performed using R (v.4.3.2) with weighted mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies involving 2120 patients have been included, with 898 patients receiving single-stage and 1222 patients undergoing two-stage treatment. Of these studies, 9 were RCTs and 8 were retrospective cohort study. The one-stage group demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of CBD stone clearance (OR = 2.07, p = 0.0004), overall morbidity (OR = 0.35, p < 0.0001), post-operative pancreatitis (OR = 0.49, p = 0.006), conversion to other procedures (OR = 0.38, p = 0.0006), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.6456, 95% CI - 3.5776; - 1.7136, p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in post-operative cholangitis (OR = 0.44, p = 0.12), post-operative bleeding (OR = 0.76, p = 0.47), or bile leakage (OR = 1.28, p = 0.54).

CONCLUSION

For patients with concomitant gallbladder and CBD stones, the one-stage approach combining ERCP and LC appears safer and more effective, with advantages including higher stone clearance rates, reduced postoperative complications (particularly pancreatitis), shorter hospital stays, fewer residual stones, and decreased need for additional procedures. However, additional high-quality clinical trials are needed to establish the optimal treatment approach for various patient scenarios.

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.

Perioperative strategies for patients undergoing subtotal cholecystectomy: a single-center retrospective review of 102 procedures

BACKGROUND

Calculous gall bladder disease is often handled by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In cases where a safe dissection of the hepatocystic triangle cannot be carried out, a subtotal cholecystectomy (STC) may be performed. The perioperative management of patients undergoing STC is characterized by limited evidence. This large single-center series explores some of the perioperative aspects and outcomes after STC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population includes all patients who underwent STC at Oslo University Hospital (Ullevål and Aker Hospitals) from 01.01.2014 to 30.09.2020. A STC was defined as a cholecystectomy where there was a failure to control the cystic duct during surgery. Study variables included demographic data, comorbidities, previous biliopancreatic disease, indication for surgery, perioperative information, subsequent interventions and outcome data.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2376 cholecystectomies were performed, and 102 (4.3%) were categorized as STC. Of all patients with STC, 48 (47.1%) had an intra- or postoperative ERCP during the index hospital admission. The indication for ERCP was bile leak in 37 (42.6%) of the cases. The bile leak resolution rate was 60.0 % in intraoperative ERCP vs 95.7% in postoperative ERCP. Among the STC patients, there were no injuries to the central bile ducts. Later, one patient has undergone a remnant cholecystectomy, following fenestrating STC.

CONCLUSION

STC was a safe bailout strategy for dissection in the hepatocystic triangle in difficult cholecystectomies. Intraoperative ERCP increased procedure time and was associated with a lower rate of leak resolution, as compared to postoperative ERCP.

The Safety and Cost Analysis of Outpatient Laparoendoscopy in the Treatment of Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The advantages of single-stage treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis are well established, but the conditions for carrying out treatment on an outpatient basis require a review of concepts and practices of medical corporations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the practice of treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis by laparoendoscopy on an outpatient basis with cost analysis.

METHOD

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis treated by combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic choledocholithotomy from January 2015 to January 2019. After collecting data from physical and digital medical records, the patients were divided into two groups-AR (n = 42)-ambulatory regimen and HR (n = 28)-hospitalization regimen-which were compared in terms of demographic, clinical and treatment variables and their results, as well as in terms of costs.

RESULTS

The mean age of the AR group was lower than that of the HR group and the physical status of the AR patients was better when assessed according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) (p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups regarding the risk of choledocholithiasis (p = 0.99). For the AR group, the length of stay was shorter: 11.29 h × 65.21 h (p = 0.02), as was the incidence of postoperative complications assessed by applying the Clavien-Dindo classification: 3 (7.1%) × 11 (39.2%) (p < 0.01). The total mean costs were higher for the HR group (USD 2489.93) than the AR group (USD 1650.98) (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Outpatient treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis by laparoendoscopy is safe and viable for most cases, has a lower cost and can support the reorientation of training and practice of hepatobiliary surgeons.

Systematic Appraisal of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current up-to-date guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key recommendations and corresponding evidence, focusing on the heterogeneity among these guidelines.

METHOD

Systematic searches across various databases were performed to identify the latest guidelines. The identified guidelines, which met the inclusion criteria, underwent evaluation using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The key recommendations and evidence from the included guidelines were extracted and reclassified using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) grading system, and the obtained results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Nine guidelines related to choledocholithiasis were included in this study, out of which 4 achieved an overall standardized score of more than 60%, indicating their suitability for recommendation. Upon closer examination of the main recommendations within these guidelines, we discovered significant discrepancies concerning the utilization of similar treatment techniques for different diseases or different treatment methods under comparable conditions, and discrepancies in the recommended treatment duration. High-quality research evidence was lacking, and some recommendations either failed to provide supporting evidence or cited inappropriate and low-level evidence.

CONCLUSION

The quality of guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis is uneven. Recommendations for the treatment of choledocholithiasis demonstrate considerable disparities among the guidelines, particularly regarding the utilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as a treatment method and the management approaches for difficult stone cases. Improvements by guideline developers for these factors contributing to the heterogeneity would be a reasonable approach to further update the guidelines for cholangiolithiasis.

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.

Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for the management of patients with common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis

Background

Cholelithiasis is a frequently occurring disease in clinic. Due to changes in people's living environments, dietary habits and the aging population, cholelithiasis incidence is increasing. Currently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the preferred treatment for gallbladder stones, but the surgical method for patients with choledocholithiasis is controversial. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pERCP) is performed preoperatively, followed by LC as the general treatment method. However, pERCP still has some disadvantages, such as prolonged hospital stay, increased incidence of postoperative pancreatitis, and increased duration of anesthesia. Therefore, intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) is proposed.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of one-stage treatment and two-stage treatment for the management of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis.

Search strategy

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through October 2022. The search terms include cholangiolithiasis/bile duct stones/calculi, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/ERCP, endoscopic sphincterotomy/EST, laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy/LC.

Selection criteria

For the treatment of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis in adults, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LC with iERCP vs. pERCP followed by LC were conducted.

Data collection and analysis

Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers. We used Revman version 5.3 to analyze the collected data. The trials were grouped according to the evaluation results such as the overall mortality rate, overall morbidity rate, clearance rate of choledocholithiasis, incidence of pancreatitis, the length of hospitalization, and the length of operation.

Results

9 RCTs (950 participants) were included in this meta-analyses. The overall morbidity rate in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.79, p = 0.0008). The clearance rate of choledocholithiasis in LC + iERCP group was almost the same as that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI = 0.98-1.08, p = 0.28). The incidence of pancreatitis in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.29, 95% CI = 0.13-0.67, p = 0.004). The length of operation of the LC + iERCP group seems to be similar to that of the LC + pERCP group (MD: 16.63 95% CI = -5.98-39.24, p = 0.15). LC + iERCP group has a shorter length of hospitalization than that in LC + pERCP group (MD: -2.68 95% CI = -3.39--1.96, p < 0.00001). LC + iERCP group has lower postoperative second ERCP rate than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.57, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Our study suggest that LC + iERCP may be a better option than LC + pERCP in the management of patients with both cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. This procedure can reduce the overall incidence of postoperative complications, especially the occurrence of postoperative pancreatitis. It could shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce postoperative second ERCP rate.

Open preperitoneal vs. open anterior repair for the treatment of emergency femoral hernia: a bicentric retrospective study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the postoperative results, in terms of complications and recurrence, between the anterior and open preperitoneal approaches in emergency femoral hernia.

METHODS

This bi-centric retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent emergency femoral hernia repair between January 2010 and December 2018. Postoperative complications and recurrence were analyzed comparing anterior and open preperitoneal approaches. The predictors of complications, mortality and recurrence were investigated using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients met the inclusion criteria. Open anterior approach was performed in 128 (62.7%) patients and open preperitoneal was performed in 76 (37.3%). Open preperitoneal approach was associated with lower rates of recurrence (P = 0.033) and associated midline laparotomies (P = 0.006). Multivariable analysis identified patients with chronic nephropathy (OR, 3.801; 95%CI, 1.034-13.974; P = 0.044), preoperative bowel obstruction (OR, 2.376; 95%CI, 1.118-5.047; P = 0.024) and required midline laparotomy (OR, 12.467; 95%CI, 11.392-102.372; P = 0.030) as risk factors for complications and ASA ≥ III (OR, 7.820; 95%CI, 1.279-47.804; P = 0.026), COPD (OR, 5.064; 95%CI, 1.188-21.585; P = 0.028), necrotic contents (OR, 36.968; 95%CI, 4.640-294.543; P = 0.001), and required midline laparotomy (OR, 11.047; 95%CI, 1.943-62.809; P = 0.007). as risk factors for 90-day mortality. Male gender (OR, 4.718; 95%CI, 1.668-13.347; P = 0.003) and anterior approach (OR, 5.292; 95%CI, 1.114-25.149; P = 0.036) were risk factors for recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Open preperitoneal approach may be superior to anterior approach in the emergency setting because it can avoid the morbidity of associated midline laparotomies, with a lower long-term recurrence rate.

Is early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after clearance of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography superior?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

With medical advancement, common bile duct stones were treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), considered the standard treatment. However, ERCP might induce complications including pancreatitis and cholecystitis that could affect a subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), leading to conversion to open cholecystectomy perioperative complications. It is not yet known whether or not the time interval between ERCP and LC plays a role in increasing conversion rate and complications. Bides, in the traditional sense, after ERCP, for avoiding edema performing LC was several weeks later. Even no one study could definite whether early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after ERCP affected the prognosis or not clearly.

OBJECTIVE

Comparing some different surgical timings of LC after ERCP.

METHOD

Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the included studies should meet the demands of this meta-analysis. In all interest outcomes below, we took full advantage of RevMan5 and WinBUGS to assess; the main measure was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence. Moreover, considering the inconsistency of the specific time points in different studies, we set a subgroup to analyze the timing of LC after ERCP. For this part, Bayesian network meta-analysis was done with WinBUGS.

RESULT

In the pool of conversion rate, the result suggested that the early LC group was equal compared with late LC (OR = 0.68, I2 = 0%, P = .23). Besides, regarding morbidity, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (OR = 0.74, I2 = 0%, P = .26). However, early LC, especially for laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous that belonged to performing LC within 24 hours could reduce the post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR = 0.16, I2 = 29%, P = .0003). Considering early LC included a wide time and was not precise enough, we set a subgroup by Bayesian network, and the result suggested that performing LC during 24 to 72 hours was the lowest conversion rate (rank 1: 0%).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, LC within 24 to 72 hours conferred advantages in terms of the conversion rate, with no recurrence of acute cholecystitis episodes.

One-stage approach to cholecystocholedocholithiasis treatment: a feasible surgical strategy for emergency settings and frail patients

BACKGROUND

Cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL) occurs in up to 18% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The two-stage treatment using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by LC is the treatment of choice for CCL. However, only 10 to 60% of patients have common bile duct (CBD) stones at the time of ERCP, thus exposing patients to unnecessary ERCPs, causing 3 to 15% of post-interventional pancreatitis. One-stage laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (LERV) is an alternative for the treatment of CCL. Given the selective top-to-bottom CBD cannulation, LERV reduces the risk of pancreatitis and failed CBD cannulation. Additionally, LERV is performed exclusively in patients presenting CBD stones at intraoperative cholangiography, avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Despite its advantages, considering the logistical burden of coordinating different specialties, LERV is performed in few centers. Here, we present the largest retrospective series of LERVs performed at our department, analyzing elective and emergency procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing LERV for CCL between January 2014 and December 2021 were included. LERV success rate, operative time, biliary outflow restoration rate, postoperative complications (POC), length of hospital stay (LOS), and recurrences were analyzed.

RESULTS

181 patients were included (61 elective LERVs, 120 emergency LERVs). We reported a 100% LERV success rate, a 97.79% biliary outflow restoration rate, a 0% conversion rate, a mean intraoperative time of 120.17 ± 31.35 min, and LOS of 4.00 ± 2.82 days. POC included 7 Clavien-Dindo type 1, 11 type 2, and 3 type 3 cases. Seven patients presented with CBD stone recurrence: 2 within 30 days after discharge, 3 within 6 months after discharge, and 2 patients at 1 year. No statistically significant difference was found between elective and emergency patients.

CONCLUSION

LERV is safe, representing a valid option even in emergency settings, thus enabling the management of CCL within a single procedure, consequently sparing additional anesthesia and decreasing post-ERCP complications.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: Our patient series over a period of 10 years

Aim

Laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) for Common bile duct (CBD) stones with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an alternative to open CBD exploration, in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). It is being performed at few centres with adequate surgical expertise. Herein, we present our experience of LCBDE with LC over a period of 10 years.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data of 121 consecutive patients was performed from February 2010 to November 2019, who underwent LC and LCBDE by choledochotomy in a single surgical unit. These included all patients with failed pre-operative ERCP.

Results

Out of 121 patients, LCBDE successfully cleared the CBD in 118, and three patients were converted to open surgery. All these patients underwent choledochotomy for adequate exploration of CBD. T-tube closure of CBD was performed in 103 patients and removed after a mean of 14.6 ± 2.4 days. Primary closure was performed in 15 patients. The mean hospital stay post-procedure was 3.4 ± 0.7 days. Complete ductal clearance was achieved in 115 patients, and residual stone fragments reported in three patients were removed by ERCP. None of the patients experienced biliary peritonitis, biliary fistula, pancreatitis or cholangitis. There was no 30-day mortality and no recurrent stones reported with a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 3.9 months.

Conclusion

With adequate surgical expertise, LCBDE is a feasible alternative to open surgery for CBD stones after failed ERCP with early recovery and low morbidity.

National clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease: 2021 recommendations from the Danish Surgical Society

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Gallstones are highly prevalent, and more than 9000 cholecystectomies are performed annually in Denmark. The aim of this guideline was to improve the clinical course of patients with gallstone disease including a subgroup of high-risk patients. Outcomes included reduction of complications, readmissions, and need for additional interventions in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease, acute cholecystitis, and common bile duct stones (CBDS).

METHODS

An interdisciplinary group of clinicians developed the guideline according to the GRADE methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were primarily included. Non-RCTs were included if RCTs could not answer the clinical questions. Recommendations were strong or weak depending on effect estimates, quality of evidence, and patient preferences.

RESULTS

For patients with acute cholecystitis, acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended (16 RCTs, strong recommendation). Gallbladder drainage may be used as an interval procedure before a delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with temporary contraindications to surgery and severe acute cholecystitis (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). High-risk patients are suggested to undergo acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy instead of drainage (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). For patients with CBDS, a one-step procedure with simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBDS removal by laparoscopy or endoscopy is recommended (22 RCTs, strong recommendation). In high-risk patients with CBDS, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is suggested to be included in the treatment (6 RCTs, weak recommendation). For diagnosis of CBDS, the use of magnetic resonance imaging or endoscopic ultrasound prior to surgical treatment is recommended (8 RCTs, strong recommendation). For patients with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, observation is suggested as an alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2 RCTs, weak recommendation).

CONCLUSIONS

Seven recommendations, four weak and three strong, for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease were developed. Studies for treatment of high-risk patients are few and more are needed.

ENDORSEMENT

The Danish Surgical Society.

Laparo-endoscopic management of chole-choledocholithiasis: Rendezvous or intraoperative ERCP? A single tertiary care center experience

Introduction

The management of chole-choledocholithiasis remains a matter of debate to preserve minimal invasive management and different options have been proposed, with single- or two-stage approaches. Two techniques of single-stage approach are intraoperative ERCP and laparoscopic rendezvous, which have the great advantage of reducing the length of hospital stay with increased patient compliance. This retrospective study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of intraoperative ERCP and rendezvous technique for more than 15 years.

Materials and methods

Clinical records of 113 patients who underwent single-stage management for chole-choledocholithiasis between January 2003 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed using a prospectively maintained database. Patients were separated into two groups: those managed with intraoperative ERCP and those with rendezvous, and their intraoperative and postoperative parameters were compared. All patients were followed up for 6 months in an outpatient setting.

Results

A total of 68 (60%) patients were treated with intraoperative ERCP, while the remaining 45 (40%) were treated with rendezvous. There were no significant differences in terms of comorbidities. ERCP was performed with a median operative time of 145 min (104–168) and an endoscopic time of 27 min (15–36). Meanwhile, rendezvous was performed with a significantly lower operative [120 min (94–147)] and endoscopic time [15 min (12–22)]. No intraoperative complications were recorded. Patients treated with rendezvous had a significantly shorter median hospitality stay [4 (3–5) vs. 3 (2–4) days, p < 0.05]. No hospital readmissions or mortalities were observed in either group after 30 days. Ten mild pancreatitis cases were observed, mainly in the intraoperative ERCP group (9 vs. 1, p < 0.05), and all were treated conservatively. Only two patients treated with intraoperative ERCP developed biliary complications later on.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic rendezvous should be considered a preferable alternative to intraoperative ERCP for the treatment of patients with concomitant CBD stones and gallstones.

Destiny for Rendezvous: Is Cholecysto/Choledocholithiasis Better Treated with Dual- or Single-Step Procedures?

Biliary lithiasis is common worldwide, affecting almost 20% of the general population, though few experience symptoms. The frequency of choledocholithiasis in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be 10-33%, depending on patients' age. Unlike gallbladder lithiasis, the medical and surgical treatment of common bile duct stones is uncertain, having changed over the last few years. The prior gold standard treatment for cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis was open cholecystectomy with bile duct clearance, choledochotomy, and/or surgical sphincterotomy. In the last 10-15 years, new treatment approaches to the complex pathology of choledocholithiasis have emerged with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic surgery, and advanced diagnostic procedures. Although ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred mode of management, a single-step strategy (laparo-endoscopic rendezvous) has gained acceptance due to lesser morbidity and a lower risk of iatrogenic damage. Given the above, a tailored approach relying on careful evaluation of the disease is necessary in order to minimize complication risks and overall costs. Yet, the debate remains open, with no consensus on the superiority of laparo-endoscopic rendezvous to more conventional approaches.

Single-stage intraoperative ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus preoperative ERCP Followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

The optimal treatment strategy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. We conducted an up-to-date meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of the intra- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) + LC procedure with the traditional pre-ERCP +  laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) procedure in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to September 2020. Published randomized controlled trials comparing intra-ERCP + LC and pre-ERCP + LC were considered. This meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager Version 5.3, and outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 977 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding CBD stone clearance (RR = 1.03, P = .27), postoperative papilla bleeding (RR = 0.41, P = .13), postoperative cholangitis (RR = 0.87, P = .79), and operation conversion rate (RR = 0.71, P = .26). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the intra-ERCP + LC group (MD = -2.75, P < .05), and intra-ERCP + LC was associated with lower overall morbidity (RR = 0.54, P < .05), postoperative pancreatitis (RR = 0.29, P < .05) and cannulation failure rate (RR = 0.22, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-ERCP + LC was a safer approach for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. It could facilitate intubation, shorten hospital stay, and lower postoperative complications, especially postoperative pancreatitis, and reduce stone residue and reduce the possibility of reoperation for stone removal.

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.

Management of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis: Endoscopic and surgical approaches

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

Postoperative rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography as an option in the management of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) is a well-established method for treatment of choledocholithiasis. The primary aim of this study was to determine how different techniques for management of common bile duct stone (CBDS) clearance in patients undergoing cholecystectomy have changed over time at tertiary referral hospitals (TRH) and county/community hospitals (CH). The secondary aim was to see if postoperative rendezvous ERCP is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to intraoperative rendezvous ERCP in the management of CBDS.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the Swedish registry for cholecystectomy and ERCP (GallRiks) 2006-2016. All cholecystectomies, where CBDS were found at intraoperative cholangiography, and with complete 30-day follow-up (n = 10,386) were identified. Data concerning intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmission and reoperation within 30 days were retrieved for patients where intraoperative ERCP (n = 2290) and preparation for postoperative ERCP were performed (n = 2283).

RESULTS

Intraoperative ERCP increased (7.5% 2006; 43.1% 2016) whereas preparation for postoperative ERCP decreased (21.2% 2006; 17.2% 2016) during 2006-2016. CBDS management differed between TRHs and CHs. Complications were higher in the postoperative rendezvous ERCP group: Odds Ratio [OR] 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-2.45) for intraoperative complications and OR 1.50 (CI 1.29-1.75) for postoperative complications. Intraoperative bleeding OR 2.46 (CI 1.17-5.16), postoperative bile leakage OR 1.89 (CI 1.23-2.90) and postoperative infection with abscess OR 1.55 (CI 1.05-2.29) were higher in the postoperative group. Neither post-ERCP pancreatitis, postoperative bleeding, cholangitis, percutaneous drainage, antibiotic treatment, ICU stay, readmission/reoperation within 30 days nor 30-day mortality differed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Techniques for management of CBDS found at cholecystectomy have changed over time and differ between TRH and CH. Rendezvous ERCP is a safe and effective method. Even though intraoperative rendezvous ERCP is the preferred method, postoperative rendezvous ERCP constitutes an acceptable alternative where ERCP resources are lacking or limited.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The ideal management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), combined with laparoscopy and endoscopy, is a novel and attractive technique. The aim of this research was to compare LERV with traditional two-stage management, preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), for treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHOD

Four databases, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Medline, all updated to through September 2019, were searched to identify comparative studies on LERV versus ERCP + LC for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Total operative time, successful common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance, postoperative morbidity, conversion to other procedures, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Pooled data were measured by odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 1061 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 542 patients who received LERV and 519 patients who received ERCP + LC. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding successful CBD stone clearance (OR 2.20, P = 0.10), postoperative bleeding (OR 0.67, P = 0.37), postoperative cholangitis (OR 0.66, P = 0.53), postoperative bile leak (OR 0.87, P = 0.81), or conversion to other procedures (OR 0.75, P = 0.62). The total operative time was longer in the LERV group (MD = 44.93, P < 0.00001), while LERV was associated with less postoperative pancreatitis than the two-stage management group (OR 0.26, P = 0.0003). The incidence of overall morbidity was lower in the LERV group than in the two-stage management group (OR 0.41, P < 0.0001), and the LERV group had a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 3.52, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

LERV is equivalent to traditional two-stage procedures in terms of CBD stone clearance and conversion, with less pancreatitis, lower overall morbidity, and shorter hospital stay but longer operation time. More clinical trials are needed to determine the best treatment for patients in different conditions.

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.

Cardiovascular complications after common bile duct stone extractions

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct stone (CBDS) is a common condition the rate of which increases with age. Decision to treat in particular elderly and frail patients with CBDS is often complex and requires careful assessment of the risk for treatment-related cardiovascular complications. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative cardiovascular events in CBDS patients treated with the following: ERCP only; cholecystectomy only; cholecystectomy followed by delayed ERCP; cholecystectomy together with ERCP; or ERCP followed by delayed cholecystectomy.

METHODS

The study was based on data from procedures for gallstone disease registered in the Swedish National Quality Register for Cholecystectomy and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks) 2006-2014. ERCP and cholecystectomy procedures performed for confirmed or suspected CBDS were included. Postoperative events were registered by cross-matching GallRiks with the National Patient Register (NPR). A postoperative cardiovascular event was defined as an ICD-code in the discharge notes indicating myocardial infarct, pulmonary embolism or cerebrovascular disease within 30 days after surgery. In cases where a patient had undergone ERCP and cholecystectomy on separate occasions, the 30-day interval was timed from the first intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 23,591 underwent ERCP or cholecystectomy for CBDS during the study period. A postoperative cardiovascular event was registered in 164 patients and death within 30 days in 225 patients. In univariable analysis, adverse cardiovascular event and death within 30 days were more frequent in patients who underwent primary ERCP (p < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, adjusting for history of cardiovascular disease or events, neither risk for cardiovascular complication nor death within 30 days remained statistically significant in the ERCP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary ERCP as well as cholecystectomy may be performed for CBDS with acceptable safety. More studies are required to provide reliable guidelines for the management of CBDS.

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

Purpose

Transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) seems safer than transductal LCBDE and is associated with fewer biliary complications. It has traditionally been limited to smaller bile duct stones however. This study aimed to assess the ability of laser-assisted bile duct exploration by laparoendoscopy (LABEL) to increase the rate of successful transcystic LCBDE in patients with bile duct stones at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Patients undergoing LCBDE between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Baseline demographic and medical characteristics were recorded, as well as intra-operative findings and post-procedure outcomes. Standard LCBDE via the transcystic route was initially attempted in all patients, and LABEL was only utilised if there was failure to achieve transcystic duct clearance. The transductal route was utilised for failed transcystic extraction.

Results

One hundred and seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent LCBDE; 119 (66.5%) underwent unaided transcystic extraction, 29 (16.2%) required LABEL to achieve transcystic extraction and 31 (17.3%) failed transcystic extraction (despite the use of LABEL in 7 of these cases) and hence required conversion to transductal LCBDE. As such, LABEL could be considered to increase the rate of successful transcystic extraction from 66.5% (119/179) to 82.7% (148/179). Patients requiring LABEL were however more likely to experience major complications (CD III–IV 5.6% vs 0.7%, p = 0.042) although none were specifically attributable to the laser intra-operatively.

Conclusions

LABEL is an effective adjunct to LCBDE that improves the rate of successful transcystic extraction.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: a retrospectively cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of strategies for the treatment of patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis (CCL). Although the surgical approach of choice is preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), controversy remains regarding which procedure is optimal for CCL.

METHODS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) versus ERCP + LC for CCL, a total of 528 patients with CCL were retrospectively studied from January 2013 to December 2018. The patients were scheduled to undergo either the LERV or ERCP + LC procedure. The LERV group included 123 cases, whereas the ERCP + LC group contained 137 cases. The incidence of postoperative complications, success of stone clearance, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization charges were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The incidence of pancreatitis was lower in the LERV group than in the ERCP + LC group (3/123 vs. 12/137, P = 0.0291). The median level of post-ERCP amylase was much lower in the LERV group (202.5 U/dL vs. 328.1 U/dL, P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in the stone clearance rate or other early complications between the two groups. Further study showed that the length of hospital stay and cost in the LERV group were less than those in the ERCP + LC group (12 days vs. 18 days, P < 0.01; 53591.4¥ vs. 60089.2¥, P < 0.01). In addition, more patients in the two-stage procedure group experienced later biliary complications compared with those in the one-stage approach group (34/137 vs. 4/123, P < 0.05). However, the median operation time was 107.7 min in the two-stage group and 139.8 min in the one-stage group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The LERV technique is a safe and effective approach for CCL with lower pancreatitis; it was associated with few later biliary complications, shortened hospital stays, and fewer charges but significantly longer operative time.

Comprehensive and innovative techniques for laparoscopic choledocholithotomy: A surgical guide to successfully accomplish this advanced manipulation

Surgeries for benign diseases of the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) are classified as lithotomy (i.e., choledocholithotomy) or diversion (i.e., choledochojejunostomy). Because of technical challenges, laparoscopic approaches for these surgeries have not gained worldwide popularity. The right upper quadrant of the abdomen is advantageous for laparoscopic procedures, and laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy is safe and feasible. Herein, we summarize tips and pitfalls in the actual procedures of choledocholithotomy. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with primary closure of the transductal incision and transcystic C-tube drainage has excellent clinical outcomes; however, emergent biliary drainage without endoscopic sphincterotomy and preoperative removal of anesthetic risk factors are required. Elastic suture should never be ligated directly on the cystic duct. Interrupted suture placement is the first choice for hemostasis near the EHBD. To prevent progressive laceration of the EHBD, full-layer interrupted sutures are placed at the upper and lower edges of the transductal incision. Cholangioscopy has only two-way operation; using dedicated forceps to atraumatically grasp the cholangioscope is important for smart maneuvering. The duration of intraoperative stone clearance accounts for most of the operative time. Moreover, dedicated forceps are an important instrument for atraumatic grasping of the cholangioscope. Damage to the cholangioscope requires expensive repair. Laparoscopic approach for choledocholithotomy involves technical difficulties. I hope this document with the visual explanation and literature review will be informative for skillful surgeons.

Single-stage approach for the management of choledocolithiasis with concomitant cholelithiasis. Implementation of a protocol in a secondary hospital

BACKGROUND

Current evidence shows that single-stage treatment of concomitant choledocholithiasis and cholelithiasis is as effective and safe as two-stage treatment. However, several studies suggest that single-stage approach requires shorter hospitalization time and is more cost-effective than the two-stage approach, even though it requires considerable training. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of a protocol for managing concomitant choledocholithiasis and cholelithiasis using single-stage treatment.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis who were treated with the single-stage treatment - transcystic instrumentation, choledocotomy or intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) - between September 2010 and June 2017 was assessed. The primary outcomes were complications, hospital stay, operative time and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

164 patients were enrolled. 141 (86%) were operated laparoscopically. Preoperatively diagnosed stones were not found by intraoperative imaging or disappeared after "flushing" in 38 patients (23.2%). Surgical approach was transcystic in 45 patients (27.41%), choledochotomy in 74 (45.1%), intraoperative ERCP in 4 (2.4%), and bilioenteric derivation in 3 (1.8%). Mean hospitalization stay was 4.4 days. Mean operative time was 166 min 27 patients (16.5%) had complications and 1 patient was exitus (0.6%). Recurrence rate was 1.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage approach is a safe and effective management option for concomitant cholelithiasis and choledocolithiasis. Furthermore, a significant number of common bile duct stones pass spontaneously to duodenum or can benefit from a transcystic approach, with presumable low morbidity and cost-efficiency.

Same-Day versus Conventional Different-Day Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

Same-day endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and cholecystectomy (LC) could potentially reduce hospital length of stay (HLOS). Patients undergoing same-day procedures (N = 164) between 2012 and 2014 were compared with different-day procedures performed in the second half of 2014 (N = 276), in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California database. Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. ERCP success rate (97.5% vs 93.5%), overall postoperative morbidity (3.66% vs 3.99%), and retained stones (2.5% vs 5.8%) were not different between groups ( P > 0.05); however, HLOS was shorter in the same-day group (2.99 ± 2.34 vs 3.84 ± 2.52 days, P < 0.001). Morbidity, procedure success, and HLOS were not different in the same-day group, whether ERCP was performed before or after LC ( P > 0.05). In the same-day group, those undergoing single anesthesia had higher BMI (40.1 ± 10.8 vs 30.3 ± 6.6) and were more likely to have gastric bypass (30% vs 0%) than those undergoing separate anesthesia sessions ( P < 0.01). Longer HLOS (4.8 ± 3.5 vs 2.9 ± 2.2 days) and higher estimated blood loss (65 ± 90 mL vs 20 ± 29 mL) were also associated with the single-anesthetic session ( P < 0.01). ERCP performed on the same day of LC reduces HLOS without increasing morbidity. This approach does not affect postoperative morbidity and ERCP success rate, whether ERCP was performed before or after LC.

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.

Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct

BACKGROUND

The management of gallbladder stones (lithiasis) concomitant with bile duct stones is controversial. The more frequent approach is a two-stage procedure, with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal from the bile duct followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous combines the two techniques in a single-stage operation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (the single-stage rendezvous technique) versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (two stages) in people with gallbladder and common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded Web of Science, and two trials registers (February 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that enrolled people with concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones, regardless of clinical status or diagnostic work-up, and compared laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy procedures in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We excluded other endoscopic or surgical methods of intraoperative clearance of the bile duct, e.g. non-aided intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or laparoscopic choledocholithotomy (surgical incision of the common bile duct for removal of bile duct stones).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised clinical trials with 517 participants (257 underwent a laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous technique versus 260 underwent a sequential approach), which fulfilled our inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. Trial participants were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy because of suspected cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Male/female ratio was 0.7; age of men and women ranged from 21 years to 87 years. The run-in and follow-up periods of the trials ranged from 32 months to 84 months. Overall, the five trials were judged at high risk of bias. Athough all trials measured mortality, there was just one death reported in one trial, in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group (low-quality evidence). The overall morbidity (surgical morbidity plus general morbidity) may be lower with laparoscopic rendezvous (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.20; participants = 434, trials = 4; I² = 28%; low-quality evidence); the effect was a little more certain when a fixed-effect model was used (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the two approaches on the failure of primary clearance of the bile duct (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.38; participants = 517; trials = 5; I² = 58%; very low-quality evidence). The effects of either approach on clinical post-operative pancreatitis were unclear (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; participants = 517, trials = 5; I² = 24%; low-quality evidence). Hospital stay appeared to be lower in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group by about three days (95% CI 3.51 to 2.50 days shorter; 515 participants in five trials; low-quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence that suggested longer operative time with laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (MD 34.07 minutes, 95% CI 11.41 to 56.74; participants = 313; trials = 3; I² = 93%). The Trial Sequential Analyses of operating time and the length of hospital stay indicated that all the trials crossed the conventional boundaries, suggesting that the sample sizes were adequate, with a low risk of random error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on mortality and morbidity. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous procedure may lead to longer operating times, but it may reduce the length of the hospital stay when compared with preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, no firm conclusions could be drawn because the quality of evidence was low or very low. If confirmed by future trials, these data might re-design the scenario of treatment of this condition, albeit requiring greater organisational effort. Future trials should also address issues such as quality of life and cost analysis.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis: a single series of 200 patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although the ideal management of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis is controversial, the two-stage approach, namely the common bile duct (CBD) clearance through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, remains the standard way of management. However, whenever feasible, the one-stage approach, using the so-called "laparoendoscopic rendezvous" (LERV) technique, offers some advantages, mainly reducing the hospital stay and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and the efficacy of the one-stage approach, and to compare our results with data from available large studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed our series of consecutive patients with cholecysto-choledocholitiasis treated by LERV from January 2003, to October 2016. Both elective and emergency cases were included. The primary end-point was the efficacy to obtain the CBD stones clearance. Secondary end-points were morbidity and mortality, operative time, conversion rate, and in-hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients underwent a LERV procedure for the intra-operative diagnosis by intra-operative cholangiogram of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis. In 187 patients (93.5%), it was possible to cannulate the cystic duct with the jag-wire. Success rate was 95%. Conversion rate was 3%. The mean operative time was 135 min and the mean in-hospital stay was 4 days. 29 (14.5%) were the early complications, six mild pancreatitis. Four patients required re-operation during the hospital stay. 11 patients (5.5%) developed late complications during a median follow-up of 57.7 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that LERV technique is a safe procedure with high success rates for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis. The major advantages include the single-stage treatment, the shorter hospital stay, and the lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Surgery in biliary lithiasis: from the traditional "open" approach to laparoscopy and the "rendezvous" technique

BACKGROUND

According to the current literature, biliary lithiasis is a worldwide-diffused condition that affects almost 20% of the general population. The rate of common bile duct stones (CBDS) in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be 10% to 33%, depending on patient's age. Compared to stones in the gallbladder, the natural history of secondary CBDS is still not completely understood. It is not clear whether an asymptomatic choledocholithiasis requires treatment or not. For many years, open cholecystectomy with choledochotomy and/or surgical sphincterotomy and cleaning of the bile duct were the gold standard to treat both pathologies. Development of both endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic surgery, together with improvements in diagnostic procedures, influenced new approaches to the management of CBDS in association with gallstones.

DATA SOURCES

We decided to systematically review the literature in order to identify all the current therapeutic options for CBDS. A systematic literature search was performed independently by two authors using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central.

RESULTS

The therapeutic approach nowadays varies greatly according to the availability of experience and expertise in each center, and includes open or laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, various combinations of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP and combined laparoendoscopic rendezvous.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred in the majority of hospitals worldwide, the optimal treatment for concomitant gallstones and CBDS is still under debate, and greatly varies among different centers.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous may be an effective alternative to a failed preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Background:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), remains the standard way of management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), a combined procedure for removing the gallbladder laparoscopically and clearing the common bile duct (CBD) endoscopically at the same time, could be an attractive alternative. The aim of this study was to compare LERV with classic ERCP in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

Methods:

886 patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis were treated either with the LERV technique (90 patients), or with the 2-stage approach, which includes preoperative ERCP followed by LC (796 patients). The primary endpoint was any difference in the success of CBD cannulation and clearance; secondary endpoints were the detection of differences in morbidity (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis [PEP]), and the feasibility of the two approaches.

Results:

Successful cannulation of the CBD was more frequent with conventional ERCP compared with the LERV technique (89.8% vs. 75.5%, P=0.0001). LERV appears to be as effective as conventional ERCP for complete CBD clearance (85.5% vs. 82.8%, P<0.1). None of the patients in the LERV group had an episode of clinical PEP, whereas in the conventional ERCP group there were 23 episodes of PEP and one death. The median amylase level was higher in patients undergoing conventional ERCP group compared to patients in LERV group.

Conclusion:

Classic ERCP has a higher rate of successful CBD cannulation and a similar rate of CBD clearance compared to LERV.

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.

Efficacy of the Laparoendoscopic "Rendezvous" to Treat Cholecystocholedocholithiasis in 210 Consecutive Patients: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

The simultaneous laparoendoscopic "rendezvous" (LERV) represents an alternative to sequential or totally laparoscopic approaches for patients affected by cholecystocholedocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to analyze the results in a large series of 210 consecutive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2002 to 2016 all patients affected by cholecystocholedocholithiasis were treated with a standardized "tailored" LERV. The relevant technical features of the procedure were recorded. An analysis of feasibility, effectiveness in stone clearance, and safety was performed.

RESULTS

Among 214 patients with common bile duct stones, 210 were treated with LERV and 4 with open rendezvous approach. Intraoperative cholangiography confirmed common bile duct stones in 179 patients (85.2%) or sludge in 18 (8.5%) and in 98.9% stone clearance was obtained endoscopically. Endoscopic papilla cannulation was feasible in 161 patients (76.7%), whereas in 49 (23.3%) a transcystic guidewire was needed. The overall LERV feasibility was 96.6%. The conversion rate to open surgery was 3.3%. Minor morbidity was observed in 1.9% of cases, mortality in 0.47%, and the mean hospital stay was 4.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the high effectiveness of LERV. This approach to treat cholecystocholedocholithiasis should be preferred and therefore implemented where a strong collaboration between surgeons and endoscopists is possible.

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.

A 23 year experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is as effective as two-stage endo-laparoscopic treatment, but with shorter hospital stay, lower cost and recurrent stone rate. Aim of this paper was to report the authors' experience with LCBDE during LC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LCBDE for ductal stones was performed. Recurrent stones were defined as CBD stones detected beyond 6 months from the procedure. Postoperative biliary stricture was defined as a symptomatic reduction of CBD diameter.

RESULTS

Out of 3444 patients who underwent LC, 384 (11%) had CBD stones treated by trans-cystic duct exploration [214 (6%) patients, TCD-CBDE] or choledochotomy [170 (5%) patients, C-CBDE]. For TCD-CBDE and C-CBDE, mean operative time was 127 ± 69 and 191 ± 74 min, respectively. Major morbidity rate was 3% (n = 6) in TCD-CBDE and 6% (n = 11) in C-CBDE. The incidence of residual stones was 5% (n = 20) and complete ductal clearance rate was 95% (n = 364). After long-term follow-up (mean 189 ± 105 months) the recurrent stone rate was 2%.

DISCUSSION

In expert centers, LCBDE during LC is safe and effective with low short and long term morbidity rates.

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.

Rendezvous technique for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systemic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the rendezvous technique for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS: From February 31, 2006 to February 31, 2016, RCTs evaluating the rendezvous technique for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy were retrieved from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI database, Wanfang and VIP database. The data were extracted and analyzed using the RevMan 5.3.5 software.

RESULTS: Six RCTs were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Among 616 patients analyzed, the rendezvous technique was used in 307 patients and POERCP + LC in 309 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed significant differences between the rendezvous technique group and POERCP + LC group regarding stone clearance rate (OR = 2.24, 95%CI: 1.26-4.65, P = 0.08), cannulation failure rate (OR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.18-0.83, P = 0.01), and overall morbidity (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004). Sub-group analysis of morbidity also revealed significant differences between the rendezvous technique group and POERCP + LC group regarding post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.05-0.44, P = 0.0005) and hyperamylasemia (OR = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.09-0.36, P = 0.0001), but the differences in the complication morbidity of LC and conversions rate were not significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The rendezvous technique is superior to POERCP + LC in terms of stone clearance, cannulation success, complication morbidity of ERCP and hospital stay. Large, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are still needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.

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.

Single-session minimally invasive management of common bile duct stones

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

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.

Rendezvous technique for cholecystocholedochal lithiasis in octogenarians: is it as effective as in younger patients, or should endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy be preferred?

BACKGROUND

The treatment of cholecystocholedochal lithiasis (CCL) requires cholecystectomy and common bile duct (CBD) clearance, which can be achieved surgically or with a combination of surgery and endoscopy. The latter includes a two-stage-approach-preoperative retrograde cholangiography (ERC) and sphincterotomy (ST) followed by delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), or vice versa-or a one-stage-approach-the rendezvous technique (RVT), where ERC, ST, and LC are performed during the same procedure. No data on the use of RVT in octogenarians have been reported in the literature so far. The study aims to show whether the RVT is as effective in elderly as in younger patients. Moreover, results of RVT are compared with those of a two-stage sequential treatment (TSST) in octogenarians, to identify the best approach to such a population.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 131 consecutive patients undergoing RVT for biliary tract stone disease were retrospectively analyzed. Two analyses were performed: (1) results of RVT (operative time, conversion rate, CBD clearance, morbidity/mortality, hospital stay, costs, and need for further endoscopy) were compared between octogenarians and younger patients, and (2) results of RVT in the elderly were compared with those of 27 octogenarians undergoing TSST for CCL.

RESULTS

Octogenarians undergoing RVT were in poorer general condition (P<.0001) and had a higher conversion rate (P<.0001) and a longer hospital stay (P<.007) than younger patients. No differences in the rates of CBD clearance, surgery-related morbidity, mortality, and costs were recorded. Although octogenarians undergoing RVT were in poorer general condition than those undergoing TSST, the results of the two approaches were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

RVT in the elderly seems to be as cost-effective as in younger patients; nevertheless, it may lead to a higher conversion rate and longer hospital stay. In octogenarians, RVT is not inferior to TSST in the treatment of CCL even for patients in poor condition.

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.

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.