Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a safe and definitive treatment for elderly patients

Comparison of one-step laparoscopy and two-step endolaparoscopy in the treatment of secondary choledocholithiasis: A multicenter retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

There are two minimally invasive ways of treating cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis, but there remains some controversy regarding which technique is better, since they both have advantages and disadvantages. The one-step method involves laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, and primary close (LC + LCBDE + PC), while the two-step procedure consists of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic sphincterotomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + EST + LC).

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter retrospective study aimed to analyze and compare the effects of the two techniques.

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent either one-step LCBDE + LC + PC or two-step ERCP + EST + LC treatment for gallstones in the gallbladder and bile duct at the Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Shanghai Tongren Hospital, and Taizhou Fourth People's Hospital between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 were collected, and the preoperative indicators of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The surgical success rate of the one-step laparoscopic group was 96.23% (664/690), the transit abdominal opening rate was 2.03% (14/690), and there were 21 cases of postoperative bile leakage. The success rate of the two-step endolaparoscopic surgery was 78.95% (225/285), the transit opening rate was 2.46% (7/285), and there were 43 postoperative cases of pancreatitis and five of cholangitis. Postoperative cholangitis, pancreatitis, postoperative stone recurrence, postoperative hospitalization, and treatment costs were significantly lower (P< 0.05) in the one-step laparoscopic group than in the two-step endolaparoscopic group. However, the amount of intraoperative bleeding, the postoperative extraction time of the abdominal drainage tube, and the incidence of bile leakage were higher (P< 0.05) in the one-step laparoscopic group than in the two-step endolaparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

The two methods of treating choledocholithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis that were analyzed in this study were safe and effective, and each method had its own advantages.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Safe For The Oldest old patients?

Background

This study aimed to identify the risk factors for postoperative complications of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in the oldest old patients aged 80 years or older.

Methods

From March 2001 to October 2020, 363 patients underwent LCBDE with stone removal. Based on their ages, they were divided into two groups, those younger than 80 years (n=240) and those 80 years old or older (n=123). We compared patient demographics, disease characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications based on these groups.

Results

The older group had a higher proportion of patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 (p<0.001) and the American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status classification ≥3 (p<0.001). In addition, the older group had longer postoperative hospital stays than younger group (7.5±6.1 days vs. 6.2±3.9 days, p=0.013). However, there were no significant differences between groups according to the postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 20.3%, p=0.130). According to multivariate analysis, the risk factors for postoperative complications were Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 (odds ratio [OR]=2.307; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.162–4.579; p=0.017) and operative time >2 hours (OR=3.204; 95% CI, 1.802–5.695; p<0.001).

Conclusion

In patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index <5 and operation time <2 hours, LCDBE with stone removal can be considered safe for the oldest old patients.

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is safe and feasible for patients with non-severe acute cholangitis

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) have been confirmed in elective settings. However, the suitability of primary closure after LCBDE in the treatment of patients with non-severe acute cholangitis in emergency settings remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to explore the safety and feasibility of LCBDE with primary closure in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with gallbladder stones treated by LCBDE with primary closure at our institution from January 2015 to April 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. These patients were divided into two groups: emergency group (patients with non-severe acute cholangitis) and elective group (patients without acute cholangitis). The demographic and perioperative data of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two patients received LCBDE combined with primary closure during this period, including 70 in the emergency group and 52 in the elective group. Baseline characteristics were balanced in both groups, except for higher levels of white blood cells (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and albumin in the emergency group. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. Compared to the elective group, the emergency group had a longer operation time (P = 0.011), and more estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of conversion (2.9% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.507), use of baskets (84.2% vs. 78.8%, P = 0.481), use of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) (2.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 1.000), or postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.214). The incidence of postoperative complications was comparable between the two groups. During the follow-up period, none of the patients experienced biliary stricture, and 1 case of stone recurrence occurred in the elective group.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE with primary closure for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe acute cholangitis has the equivalent efficacy and morbidity to elective surgery. Primary closure after LCBDE is a safe and feasible option for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe acute cholangitis.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Puncture and discission with a needle: A new method for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

This study aimed to describe a novel puncture and discission with a needle (PDN) method facilitating laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).The clinical data of 81 patients with cholelithiasis or choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE with PDN between January, 2017 and December, 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Time for puncture and discission of the bile duct, blood loss, postoperative complications (such as bile leakage, common bile duct [CBD] strictures, and recurrence of choledocholithiasis), and postoperative hospital stay were recorded to evaluate the safety of the method.PDN was performed in all 81 patients with a 100% surgical success rate. Surgery went smoothly. Neither mortality nor complications associated with PDN (portal vein injury or biliary leakage) were observed. The mean time for puncture and discission of the CBD was 2.4 minutes and the maximum blood loss was 100 mL. CBD strictures or recurrence of choledocholithiasis were not noted after 12 to 24 months of follow-up.LCBDE with PDN is a novel method and has the advantages of reliability, convenience, and efficiency without additional costs or complications.

3D laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus 2D in choledocholithiasis patients: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to investigate whether 3D laparoscopic common bile duct (LCBDE) could improve surgical outcomes in choledocholithiasis patients compared with 2D LCBDE.

METHOD

Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to balance the bias in baseline characteristic between two groups.

RESULTS

213 patients underwent 3D LCBDE and 212 patients receiving 2D LCBDE were enrolled in this study. The operation time and blood loss in 3D group were significantly less than that in 2D group. After propensity score matching, a total of 114 paired cases were selected from the two groups. The operation time and blood loss in 3D group remain significantly lower than in 2D group. In the end, the subgroup analysis based on abdominal adhesion level was performed and it was observed that for patients with adhesion level 1 and level 2, 3D surgery could obviously decrease the operation time and intraoperative blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

3D LCBDE would significantly reduce operation time, blood loss, and conversion rate to laparotomy in choledocholithiasis patients versus 2D LCBDE. For patients with abdominal adhesions level 1 and level 2, 3D LCBDE could provide better surgical outcomes than 2D LCBDE.

Two-stage versus single-stage procedure for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis in elderly patients: a retrospectively cohort study

BACKGROUND

there is an increasing incidence rate of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis associated with the increasing proportion of senile individuals.

METHODS

a total of 100 elderly patients (over 80 years of age) suffering both from cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis were retrospectively studied from January 2010 to December 2016. Patients were scheduled for either a single-stage or two-stage procedure. The LCBDE group (n = 54) included cases that underwent a single stage procedure of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct combined with cholecystectomy. The ERCP/EST group (n = 46) included cases that underwent a two stage procedure of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography with endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by cholecystectomy. Comorbidity conditions, presenting symptoms, bile duct clearance, length of hospital stay and the frequency of procedural, postoperative and long-term complications were recorded.

RESULTS

the LCBDE group had a higher stones clearance rate than the ERCP/EST group (100.0% vs 89.1%, p < 0.05). Postoperative complications and hospitalization length were comparable in the two groups (p > 0.05). There were more procedural complications in the ERCP/EST group than in the LCBDE group (10.8% vs 0%, p < 0.05). Furthermore, a patient in the ERCP/EST group died due to duodenal perforation. More patients in the ERCP/EST group experienced long-term complications than those in the LCBDE group (23.9% vs 3.7%, p < 0.05) during a mean follow-up period of 28.4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

the single-stage procedure is a safe and effective technique for elderly patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. LCBDE provides a good stone clearance rate with few long term complications.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations

Background

A history of abdominal biliary tract surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), and there are very few reports about laparoscopic procedures in patients with a history of abdominal biliary tract surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 227 consecutive patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations at our institution between December 2013 and June 2019. A total of 110 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE, and 117 consecutive patients underwent open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE). Patient demographics and perioperative variables were compared between the two groups.

Results

The LCBDE group performed significantly better than the OCBDE group with respect to estimated blood loss [30 (5–700) vs. 50 (10–1800) ml; p = 0.041], remnant common bile duct (CBD) stones (17 vs. 28%; p = 0.050), postoperative hospital stay [7 (3–78) vs. 8.5 (4.5–74) days; p = 0.041], and time to oral intake [2.5 (1–7) vs. 3 (2–24) days; p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences in the operation time [170 (60–480) vs. 180 (41–330) minutes; p = 0.067]. A total of 19 patients (17%) in the LCBDE group were converted to open surgery. According to Clavien’s classification of complications, the LCBDE group had significantly fewer postoperative complications than the OCBDE group (40 vs. 57; p = 0.045). There was no mortality in either group. Multiple previous operations (≥ 2 times), a history of open surgery, and previous biliary tract surgery (including bile duct or gallbladder + bile duct other than cholecystectomy alone) were risk factors for postoperative adhesion (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000, respectively).

Conclusion

LCBDE is ultimately the least invasive, safest, and the most effective treatment option for patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations and is especially suitable for those with a history of cholecystectomy, few previous operations (< 2 times), or a history of laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been becoming more and more popular in patients with symptomatic choledocholithiasis. However, the safety and effectiveness of LCBDE in elderly patients with choledocholithiasis is still uncertain. This meta-analysis is aimed to appraise the safety and feasibility of LCBDE for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies comparing elderly patients and younger patients who underwent LCBDE for common bile duct stone were reviewed and collected from the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were stone clearance rate, overall complication rate, and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were operative time, conversion rate, pulmonary complication, bile leakage, reoperation, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate.

RESULTS

Nine studies, including two prospective studies and seven retrospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 2004 patients in this meta-analysis, including 693 elderly patients and 1311 younger patients. There was no statistically significant difference between elderly patients and younger patients regarding stone clearance rate (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.42-1.26; p = 0.25), overall complication rate (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.94-1.82; p = 0.12), and mortality rate (OR 2.80; 95% CI 0.82-9.53; p = 0.10). Similarly, the operative time, conversion rate, bile leakage, reoperation, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate showed no significant difference between two groups (p > 0.05). While elderly patients showed high risk for pulmonary complication (OR 4.41; 95% CI 1.78-10.93; p = 0.001) compared with younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Although there is associated with higher pulmonary complication, LCBDE is still considered as a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis.

Long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open transhiatal resection for patients with Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction

BACKGROUND

Insufficient information is available about the long-term outcomes of patients with Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) who undergo laparoscopic transhiatal approach (LTH). Here we evaluated the oncological safety of LTH for patients with Siewert type II AEG compared with the open transhiatal approach (OTH).

METHODS

Subjects included 79 patients with Siewert type II AEG who underwent gastrectomy combined with lower esophagectomy from 2008 to 2018 at our institution. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), status of adjuvant chemotherapy, late-phase complications, and recurrence patterns were compared between the OTH (n = 29) and LTH groups (n = 43).

RESULTS

The median observation periods were 60 months (6-120 months) and 36 months (1-88) for the OTH and LTH groups, respectively. The 5-year OS rates were significantly different: 74% (95% CI 71-77%) and 98% (95% CI 97-99) in the OTH and LTH groups (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.83), respectively, though the OTH group included more patients with advanced disease. After stratification, according to pathological stage to adjust for selection bias, the 5-year OS and RFS rates were longer, but not significantly different among patients in the LTH group with pStage III (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.05-3.47; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.10-2.12, respectively). Recurrence patterns were similar in the both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes of the LTH group were not inferior to those of the OTH group, suggesting the possibility of LTH as a treatment option for selected patients with Siewert type II AEG.

Safety and efficacy of emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in elderly patients with complicated acute cholangitis

Background

Acute cholangitis (AC) is an acute inflammation of the biliary tract caused by bacterial infection, which occurs due to biliary obstruction primarily because of bile duct stones. We aimed to study the effect of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in the treatment of complicated AC for elderly patients.

Method

Elderly patients with complicated AC admitted to our hospital from August 2014 to August 2018 were considered. According to the patients’ general conditions and the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) grade, 98 patients were divided into three groups: ASA grade II, 38 patients; ASA grade III, 33 patients; and ASA grade IV, 27 patients; all patients underwent emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration within 8 h of admission. The perioperative data of these patients were analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences between the three groups in preoperative laboratory test results, except for albumin levels. Conversely, when compared in every group, there were some significant differences in changes between pre- and postoperative laboratory test results, except for albumin levels. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of perioperative data (operation time, blood loss, peritoneal drainage time, postoperative time to flatus, and postoperative hospital stay). Although four patients had postoperative complications, there were no significant differences in the rate of complications between the groups.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is a safe, effective, and feasible method for treating complicated AC in elderly patients. It should be actively used in clinical work to rapidly relieve biliary obstruction.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Is a Safe and Effective Strategy for Elderly Patients

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely used to remove common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, surgery is not considered as the first treatment choice for elderly patients with CBD stones because of the potential risk of postoperative complications. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficiency of LCBDE for elderly patients.

METHODS

From April 2011 to October 2016, 265 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE. We performed a retrospective study and divided these patients into 2 groups. The younger group was younger than 70 years old (n = 179), and the elderly group was 70 years old or older (n = 86). We compared patient demographics, clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications, and incidence of recurrent stone between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The elderly patients had higher preoperative morbidity of chronic diseases, such as pulmonary diseases, heart diseases, arterial hypertension, and abdominal operation history ( P < .05). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate to open surgery, total cost, overall complications, and incidence of recurrent stone ( P > .05).

CONCLUSION

LCBDE can also be carried out as a safe and effective approach to remove CBD stones in elderly patients, although they have higher risk of chronic diseases.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration; a preferential pathway for elderly patients

Background

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has emerged as a recommended alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the management of choledocholithiasis. However, its use in the elderly has been limited, and evidence of its safety and efficacy in these patients is yet to be established. This study describes our experience of LCBDE in elderly patients, analysing the safety and efficacy of this technique in comparison to younger patients.

Methods

All patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with LCBDE for choledocholithiasis in our unit between January 2015 and January 2017 were included. Data pertaining to patient demographics, comorbidities, investigations, operative technique and outcomes were analysed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on age (Group A:<65 years vs Group B: >/ = 65 years) for comparative analysis.

Results

124 patients (Group A: 65, Group B: 59) were included. Group B were more co-morbid and had a higher ASA grade than Group A. However, there was no significant difference between groups in rates of conversion to open or complications, including bile leak (3.1% vs 5.1%, p = 0.67), retained stone (4.6% vs 1.7%, p = 0.62), or complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification (p = 0.78). Re-intervention rates were also similar between groups (7.7% vs 3.4%, p = 0.44 and 3.1% vs 3.4%, p = 1.0 respectively), as was length of stay.

Conclusion

Despite higher frequency of comorbidities and ASA grade, LCBDE in elderly patients is safe and effective, and has similar outcomes to younger patients. Therefore elderly patients with choledocholithiasis should be offered LCBDE as an alternative to ERCP.