Prospective evaluation of a minimally invasive approach for treatment of bile-duct calculi in the high-risk patient

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Impact of chronologic age in the elderly with gastric cancer

Purpose

Although the incidence of gastric cancer has declined in the general population, it is the second most frequent cause of death due to malignancy in the world with its incidence in the elderly increasing as a result of increased life expectancy. This present study tried to find the optimal treatment for patients aged 75 years or older with gastric cancer through comparison of the clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcomes, and identifying prognostic factors of survival.

Methods

Elderly patients who underwent gastric resection for gastric cancer from January, 1999 to February, 2009 (n = 470) were divided into two groups: very elderly patients, 75 years or older (n = 95), and younger elderly patients, between 65 and 74 years old (n = 365).

Results

Distinct characteristics of very elderly patients included more frequent underlying disease, deeper invasion, and more frequent lymph node metastasis. There were significant differences in overall survival between the two groups at stages III-B and IV. However, postoperative hospital stays, postoperative morbidity, mortality and early stage did not differ between curatively resected patients in the two groups.

Conclusion

Due to improved postoperative care, gastrectomy of gastric cancer is the treatment of choice in very elderly patients. Therefore, early diagnosis through regular medical screening and curative gastrectomy with lymph node dissection should be performed in very elderly gastric cancer patients.

Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

ERCP remains the prevailing method of treating CBDS; however, its ideal timing in respect to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is not defined. LC combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) was compared with preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (PES) followed by LC for management of preoperatively known cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

METHODS

Between June 2006 and September 2009, 198 patients diagnosed preoperatively by clinical assessment, liver chemistry, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) to have combined choledochocystolithiasis were eligible. They were randomly divided into two groups: PES/LC group (n = 100) and LC/IOES group (n = 98). The surgical times, surgical success rates, number of stone extractions, postoperative complications, retained common bile duct stones, and postoperative lengths of stay were compared prospectively.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in surgical time, surgical success rate, CBD diameter, stone size, or stone number between the two groups. The success rate was 95.3% and 97.8% for PES/LC and LC/IOES, respectively. There were no significant difference in postoperative retained stones, surgical time, and complications, but the total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LC/IOES group.

CONCLUSIONS

PES/LC and LC/IOES are both good options for dealing with preoperatively diagnosed CBDS, but when there is enough experience and facilities, LC/IOES, as a single-stage treatment, would be preferable.

Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus on the better therapeutic approach (endoscopic versus surgical) to choledocholithiasis. This study is a meta-analysis of the available evidence.

METHODS

A search of the Medline and ISI databases identified 12 studies that met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. The analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The outcome was calculated as an odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).

RESULTS

Outcomes of 1357 patients were studied. There was no significant difference in successful duct clearance (OR 0.85 (95 per cent c.i. 0.64 to 1.12); P = 0.250), mortality (RR 1.79 (95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 4.83); P = 0.250), total morbidity (RR 0.89 (95 per cent 0.71 c.i. to 1.13); P = 0.350), major morbidity (RR 1.34 (95 per cent c.i. 0.92 to 1.97); P = 0.130) or need for additional procedures (OR 1.37 (95 per cent c.i. 0.82 to 2.29); P = 0.230) between the endoscopic and surgical groups. There was also no significant difference between the endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery groups.

CONCLUSION

Both approaches have similar outcomes, and treatment should be determined by local resources and expertise.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy with or without cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis in high-risk surgical patients: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is recommended for patients with choledocholithiasis after ERCP with sphincterotomy (ES) and stone extraction.

AIM

We designed a decision model to address whether ES alone versus ES followed by LC (ES + LC) is the optimal treatment in high-risk patients with choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Our cohort were patients with obstructive jaundice who have undergone an ES with biliary clearance. Recurrent biliary complications over a 2-year period stratified by gallbladder status (in/out) and age-stratified surgical complication rates were obtained from the literature. Failure of therapy was defined as either recurrent symptoms or death attributed to biliary complications.

RESULTS

For age 70-79 years, ES failed in 15% whereas ES + LC failed in 17% of cases. Mortality in the EC + LC group was 3.4 times that of the ES alone cohort. For age 80+ years, ES was dominant with an incremental success rate of 8%. Mortality in the ES + LC was 7.6 times that of ES. For age <70, ES + LC was the dominant strategy with an incremental success rate 5%. Sensitivity analysis in the groups confirmed our conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of choledocholithiasis by ES and stone clearance, but without cholecystectomy, should be considered for patients aged 70+. For low-risk patients, ES + LC should be performed to prevent recurrent biliary complications.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

10% to 18% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct (CBD) stones. Treatment options for these stones include pre- or post-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or open or laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the management of CBD stones by four approaches: (1) ERCP versus open surgical bile duct clearance. (2) Pre-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (3) Post-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (4) ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance in patients with previous cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched key relevant electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant papers, and abstracts of relevant subspecialty meetings until November 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The quality of included trials was assessed by adequacy of allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Published and unpublished data relevant to 12 predefined outcome measures were used to conduct fixed- and random-effects models meta-analyses, with exploration of heterogeneity and use of sensitivity and subgroup analysis where required.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials randomised 1351 patients. Eight trials (n = 760) compared ERCP with open surgical clearance, three (n = 425) compared pre-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance, and two (n = 166) compared post-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance. There were no trials of ERCP versus laparoscopic clearance in patients without an intact gallbladder. Methodology was considered adequate in at least two of three assessable fields in ten trials. A significantly increased number of total procedures (including for complications) per patient was seen in the ERCP arms in all three comparisons with weighted mean differences of 0.62 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.09), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.96), and 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.24), respectively. ERCP was less successful than open surgery in CBD stone clearance (Peto OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.81 to 4.61) with a tendency towards higher mortality (risk difference 1%, 95% CI -1% to 4%). Laparoscopic CBD stone clearance was as efficient as pre- (Peto OR 1.00, CI 0.53 to 1.80) and post-operative ERCP (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.37 to 13.9) and with no significant difference in morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic trials universally reported shorter hospital stays in surgical arms. Insufficient data were reported for cost analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the era of open cholecystectomy, open bile duct surgery was superior to ERCP in achieving CBD stone clearance. In the laparoscopic era, data are close to excluding a significant difference between laparoscopic and ERCP clearance of CBD stones. The use of ERCP necessitates increased number of procedures per patient.

Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparoscopic exploration can be used to identify the causative pathology of acute abdominal pain. Laparoscopic surgery also allows treatment of many intraabdominal disorders. This report was prepared to describe the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to laparotomy or nonoperative treatment.

METHODS

A panel of European experts in abdominal and gynecological surgery was assembled and participated in a consensus conference using Delphi methods. The aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the most common diseases that may cause acute abdominal pain.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Laparoscopic surgery was found to be clearly superior for patients with a presumable diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer, acute cholecystitis, appendicitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. In the emergency setting, laparoscopy is of unclear or limited value if adhesive bowel obstruction, acute diverticulitis, nonbiliary pancreatitis, hernia incarceration, or mesenteric ischemia are suspected. In stable patients with acute abdominal pain, noninvasive diagnostics should be fully exhausted before considering explorative surgery. However, diagnostic laparoscopy may be useful if no diagnosis can be found by conventional diagnostics. More clinical data are needed on the use of laparoscopy after blunt or penetrating trauma of the abdomen.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to diagnostic and therapeutic advantages, laparoscopic surgery is useful for the majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, but noninvasive diagnostic aids should be exhausted first. Depending on symptom severity, laparoscopy should be advocated if routine diagnostic procedures have failed to yield results.

Management of acute cholangitis

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is the treatment of choice for patients with (severe) acute cholangitis. For fit patients without co-morbidity with mild cholangitis and CBD stones with a gallbladder in situ, the one-stage laparoscopic approach could be considered as an alternative in centers with sufficient experience. The results of both procedures are comparable. Open surgery is relatively safe. It has a high success rate, good/excellent long-term results, but is not very attractive for the patient and should not be used routinely nowadays. Therefore, the indication should be limited for management of severe complications after ES as perforations of the duodenum, large CBD stones and patients with Mirizzi's syndrome or intrahepatic stones with stenosis of the bile duct. ES as primary treatment for CBD stones should be followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 'fit' patients. In patients with malignant disease, particularly after repeated stent failure and subsequent cholangitis, bypass surgery should be considered in patients with a life expectancy of >3 months.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe and effective in patients 90 years of age and older

GOALS

To review our experience of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients 90 years and older.

BACKGROUND

ERCP is effective in the investigation and treatment of biliary disease; however, in the very elderly, a perception of high procedural risk and lack of efficacy may limit its use.

STUDY

Retrospective analysis of ERCPs performed on patients 90 years of age and older from one institution.

RESULTS

Between 1987-2000, 23 ERCPs were performed on patients 90 years of age and more (16 women; age range, 90-96 years). The primary indications were obstructive jaundice (16 patients), pancreatitis (2), cholangitis (1), unexplained abdominal pain (1), and planned follow-up (3). The main endoscopic findings were common bile duct (CBD) stone (15 patients), pancreatic carcinoma (2), cholangiocarcinoma (2), and dilated duct (only 1). Sixteen sphincterotomies were performed, with successful common duct clearance in 10 patients. Seven biliary stents were inserted for benign disease and three, for malignancy. In two patients, CBD cannulation was unsuccessful. Three minor hemorrhages were controlled endoscopically. Three patients died of nonprocedural causes.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP is safe and effective in the very elderly. The decision to undergo ERCP should be determined by clinical need.

Preoperative selective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy without cholangiography

The aim of this study was to show that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely without routine intraoperative cholangiography. We performed a retrospective analysis of 1750 consecutive patients (1170 females and 580 males with a mean age of 51 years) who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between January 1991 and January 2000. In all, 193 patients (11%) were selected to undergo preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on the basis of several criteria for risk of stones. No patients underwent intraoperative cholangiography. ERCP allowed us to make a diagnosis of biliary stones in 62.7% (121 cases). Extraction of the stones was successful in 96% of the cases. In 12% of cases ERCP findings were normal; in the remaining 26.3%, useful diagnostic information was obtained. There were three complications (bleeding and pancreatitis) after endoscopy (complication rate: 1.5%). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was successful in 92.7% of patients, with a postoperative morbidity rate of 3% (0.5% of major complications). There were no deaths in this series. During a mean follow-up of 60 months (range, 12-120), 7 patients (0.43%) were found to have residual biliary stones (5 had not had preoperative ERCP). The study confirms the hypothesis that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be safely performed without routine intraoperative cholangiography, with selective use of preoperative ERCP.

Laparoendoscopic approach to treatment of common bile duct stones

Whereas laparoscopic cholecystectomy represents the gold standard treatment for gallstones, there is no universal consensus on the optimal treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. The options available are various: preoperative or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and sphincterotomy, laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration, laparoscopic choledochotomy, and traditional open choledochotomy. A few reports describe intraoperative endoscopic clearance of the CBD. The choice of one of these methods depends on the timing of the detection of CBD stones with regard to the cholecystectomy, the expertise of the surgeon, the technology available, and the wishes of the patient. In the surgical department of the "Ospedale Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza," a large referral medical center in Italy, we perform an intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in the presence of findings suspicious for CBD stones in the course of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The procedure is readily available thanks to the nearby presence of a skilled endoscopist and is greatly aided by the insertion of a transcystic guidewire, which makes the papilla easily identifiable by the endoscope for the spincterotomy. We have used the technique successfully in 43 of 45 patients over a 7-year period in an overall caseload of 1775 laparoscopic cholecystectomies, with no complications, minimal added operative time, and no added postoperative hospital stay. The technique allows us to completely and definitively manage CBD stones detected intraoperatively at the time of the performance of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy with no added discomfort to the patient.