Management and long-term follow-up of patients with positive cholangiograms during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To achieve consensus on the best practices in the management of ventral hernias (VH).

BACKGROUND

Management patterns for VH are heterogeneous, often with little supporting evidence or correlation with existing evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review identified the highest level of evidence available for each topic. A panel of expert hernia-surgeons was assembled. Email questionnaires, evidence review, panel discussion, and iterative voting was performed. Consensus was when all experts agreed on a management strategy.

RESULTS

Experts agreed that complications with VH repair (VHR) increase in obese patients (grade A), current smokers (grade A), and patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) ≥ 6.5% (grade B). Elective VHR was not recommended for patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m (grade C), current smokers (grade A), or patients with HbA1C ≥ 8.0% (grade B). Patients with BMI= 30-50 kg/m or HbA1C = 6.5-8.0% require individualized interventions to reduce surgical risk (grade C, grade B). Nonoperative management was considered to have a low-risk of short-term morbidity (grade C). Mesh reinforcement was recommended for repair of hernias ≥ 2 cm (grade A). There were several areas where high-quality data were limited, and no consensus could be reached, including mesh type, component separation technique, and management of complex patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was consensus, supported by grade A-C evidence, on patient selection, the safety of short-term nonoperative management, and mesh reinforcement, among experts; there was limited evidence and broad variability in practice patterns in all other areas of practice. The lack of strong evidence and expert consensus on these topics has identified gaps in knowledge where there is need of further evidence.

Laparoscopic versus endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the clinical effectiveness of the treatment of choledocholithiasis by laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration and by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A meta-analysis of studies about CBD stones was performed to analyze EST in comparison with laparoscopic CBD exploration procedures. Trials were identified by searching the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, CBM, and CNKI databases from January 1990 to December 2012 for laparoscopic CBD exploration or EST for CBD stones.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified in the meta-analysis. The incidence of bleeding or pancreatitis in the EST group was higher than that in the laparoscopic group. However, the incidence of bile leakage in the EST group was lower than that in the laparoscopic group. The differences in cases of retained stones or total complications were not statistically significant between the laparoscopic and EST groups (P>.05). There were more successful cases in the laparoscopic group than in the EST group (P<.05). Hospital cost was less in the laparoscopic group than in the EST group (P<.05). Mean operation time and hospital stay in the laparoscopic group were shorter than those in the EST group (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

To some degree, laparoscopic treatment of the CBD may be a better way of removing stones than EST.

Laparoscopic treatment for unsuspected common bile duct stones by transcystic sphincter of Oddi pneumatic balloon dilation and pressure-washing technique

BACKGROUND

Unsuspected common bile duct stones (CBDS) are found in 4-5 % of patients with cholelithiasis. The optimal strategy for the treatment of asymptomatic CBDS, diagnosed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), is not yet well established. A one-stage solution is preferable to solve the CBDS during the LC and to avoid the exposure of patients to the risks of a second procedure, such as complications or failure.

METHODS

We attempted to remove CBDS by transcystic sphincter of Oddi pneumatic balloon dilation and common bile duct pressure-washing in all cases of intraoperative identification of CBDS since September 2008.

RESULTS

In 29 cases, unsuspected CBDS was identified by intraoperative cholangiography; in 28 cases a single stone with a mean diameter of 4.3 mm (range = 3-6) was detected and in one case three 5-8-mm-diameter stones were identified. Clearance of the common bile duct was obtained in 27 cases (96 %), with a mean operative time of 54 min (range = 36-90) and mean length of hospital stay of 2.5 days.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of unsuspected CBDS detected by intraoperative cholangiography during LC with this original technique was safe and effective and a viable alternative of the transcystic endoscopic approach.

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.

Choledocholithiasis: Evolving standards for diagnosis and management

Cholelithiasis, one of the most common medical conditions leading to surgical intervention, affects approximately 10 % of the adult population in the United States. Choledocholithiasis develops in about 10%-20% of patients with gallbladder stones and the literature suggests that at least 3%-10% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy will have common bile duct (CBD) stones.

CBD stones may be discovered preoperatively, intraoperatively or postoperatively Multiple modalities are available for assessing patients for choledocholithiasis including laboratory tests, ultrasound, computed tomography scans (CT), and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy can be used routinely or selectively to diagnose CBD stones.

The most common intervention for CBD stones is ERCP. Other commonly used interventions include intraoperative bile duct exploration, either laparoscopic or open. Percutaneous, transhepatic stone removal other novel techniques of biliary clearance have been devised. The availability of equipment and skilled practitioners who are facile with these techniques varies among institutions. The timing of the intervention is often dictated by the clinical situation.

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.

Low incidence of retained common bile duct stones using a selective policy of biliary imaging

AIM

Biliary imaging has decreased since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study aimed to examine the incidence of retained common bile duct (CBD) stones, using a selective policy of biliary imaging.

METHODS

A prospective computerised database was used to study patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy by one surgeon over 36 months. Two hundred and thirty-five patients (191 female, 44 male) were operated on. Ages ranged from 15 to 82 years (mean 47 years). Follow-up periods ranged from six to 39 months (mean 23.3 months). Selection for pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatogram (ERCP), intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) or neither depended on liver function tests (LFTs) and CBD diameter on ultrasound prior to surgery. If LFTs were persistently raised and/or the CBD was dilated on ultrasound, patients underwent pre-operative ERCP. If LFTs were raised, and returned to normal promptly, IOC was performed.

RESULTS

Of 235 patients, 26 had pre-operative ERCP, 62 had IOC and 157 had neither. Ten patients had both ERCP and IOC. To date, one patient (0.43%) has radiologically-proven unsuspected retained CBD stones; these were successfully treated with ERCP.

CONCLUSION

Selective biliary imaging in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe. This process identifies the majority of patients with ductal calculi and minimises the need for unnecessary ERCP and peroperative cholangiography.

Biliary stones: including acute biliary pancreatitis

The widespread availability of endoscopic ultrasound has facilitated the evaluation of the pancreas and extrahepatic biliary system. Endosonography has been shown to be highly sensitive in the detection of choledocholithiasis (especially in patients with small stones and nondilated bile ducts) and gallbladder microlithiasis; however, the use of this technique in relation to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and laparoscopic surgery in gallstone disease remains confusing. This article highlights the clinical performance and results of endoscopic ultrasound in this context and proposes strategies in relation to its use in association with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and surgery in common clinical practice. Endosonography allows the correct identification of patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and proves an important adjunct in eliminating other causes of undetermined pancreatitis.

The long-term follow-up of patients with positive intraoperative cholangiograms during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The routine use of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for common bile duct (CBD) stones discovered during cholecystectomy would be further supported if the long-term outcomes were similar to those for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic papillotomy (ERCP/EP).

METHODS

A retrospective review was completed of 151 patients who had a positive intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). A "positive" IOC was defined as a filling defect or lack of contrast flow into the duodenum. A "successful" CBDE was defined as a negative IOC after completion of CBDE. Long-term follow-up was obtained using a standardized questionnaire to determine the incidence of recurrent biliary pain or need for subsequent ERCP/EP.

RESULTS

CBD exploration was attempted in 142 patients (transcystic LCBDE 126 and open CBDE 16) and was successful in 107 of 142 (75%). Transcystic LCBDE was successful in 90 of 126 (71%). ERCP/EP was used in 41 patients; 35 of these cases were for failed LCBDE. Pancreatitis was not observed in any patient after CBDE but was observed in 3 of 41 patients (7.3%) after ERCP/EP. Long-term follow-up of the LCBDE versus ERCP/EP patients revealed no difference in the incidence of recurrent biliary pain or need for subsequent ERCP (mean follow-up time of 61 months).

CONCLUSION

LCBDE is safe and effective in the majority of cases when an attempt at transcystic LCBDE was made. In addition, after long-term follow-up of >5 years, the outcomes were similar if the stones were removed by intraoperative laparoscopic methods versus postoperative ERCP. LCBDE seems worthy of pursuing when an intraoperative CBD stone is discovered.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is gaining favor in the treatment of patients with gallstones and CBD stones. Our aim is to report our results with this procedure, focusing on the technical aspects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients with proven CBD stones undergo laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration, preferably, or a choledochotomy if the former is not feasible. According to CBD stone load and diameter, a biliary drainage tube is positioned for postoperative biliary decompression.

RESULTS

Among 284 patients who underwent laparoscopic CBD exploration, 4 (1.4%) were converted to open surgery. Transcystic CBD exploration was feasible in 163 cases (58.2%), but a choledochotomy was required in 117 (41.8%). Biliary drains were positioned in 204 patients (72.8%). Minor complications included hyperamylasemia (11; 3.9%) and minor subhepatic bile collection (7; 2.5%). Major complications were bile leakage (5; 1.8%), hemoperitoneum from cystic artery bleeding (2; 0.7%), subhepatic abscess (2; 0.7%), acute pancreatitis (1; 0.3%), and jejunal perforation (1; 0.3%). Retained CBD stones in 15 patients (5.3%) were removed through the biliary drainage sinus tract (8) or after endoscopy and sphincterotomy (6). In one patient, a small stone passed spontaneously (overall success rate 94.6%). Death from a cardiovascular complication was observed in one elderly high-risk patient (0.3%). Recurrent ductal stones in 5 patients (1.8%) were treated with ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy. One patient with re-recurrent ductal stones underwent hepaticojejunostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic CBD exploration during LC in unselected patients solves two problems during the same anesthesia with high success rates (94.6%), low minor (6.4%) and major (3.8%) morbidity rates, and a low mortality rate (0.3%). Standardization of the technique is mandatory to achieve high success rates.

The laparoscopic finding of pericholedochitis at cholecystectomy predicts the presence of unsuspected bile duct stones

Routine laparoscopic cholangiography and sonography have been recommended for identification of unsuspected bile duct stones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The increased prevalence of retained stones seems, however, to confirm that cholangiography has been used rather selectively. The aim of this study was to investigate the kind and extent of a possible correlation between inflammatory changes in the bile duct mucosa and the hepatoduodenal ligament in patients with and without unsuspected bile duct stones. Sixty-eight patients, without symptoms or signs of bile duct stones in their case histories, laboratory findings, and preoperative sonography results, underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease and diagnostic transcystic cholangiography and cholangioscopy. The initial step at laparoscopy revealed edema of the periductal loose tissue, vascular dilation, and petechiae on the external surface of the distal portion of the extrahepatic bile duct in 47 of 68 patients. Cholangioscopy revealed inflammatory changes in the mucosa of the distal and sphincteric portions of the extrahepatic bile duct in 45 of 47 patients, and unsuspected ductal stones were identified in 41 of these 45 patients. Neither the external surface of the bile duct nor its mucosa exhibited any signs of inflammation in the 21 remaining patients (controls), all of whom showed stone-free bile ducts. Inflammatory changes in the bile duct mucosa, occurring along with unsuspected mobile ductal stones in this study, were reflected on the external surface of the bile duct with a specificity of 87%. The changes in the external surface of the bile duct can be recognized at the initial inspection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, as in this study, and indicate that more accurate diagnostic procedures to identify unsuspected ductal stones should be used.

Management of unsuspected common bile duct stones found during laparoscopic cholecystectomy by means of transcystic catheter placement and papillary dilation

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy for treatment of bile duct stones first diagnosed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been established. We prospectively treated unsuspected bile duct stones by means of intraoperative placement of a transcystic catheter followed by postoperative pharmacologic papillary dilation or endoscopic papillary balloon dilation.

METHODS

In 17 patients with bile duct stones first found at laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a catheter was introduced via the cystic duct into the bile duct. If postoperative cholangiography via a transcystic catheter showed stones 5 mm or less in diameter, glyceryl trinitrate was infused via the catheter into the bile duct. Patients in whom medical dilation was unsuccessful or who had larger stones underwent endoscopic papillary balloon dilation.

RESULTS

Stone diameter measured 3 to 11 mm (mean 6.4 mm). Postoperative cholangiography revealed spontaneous passage in four patients. After pharmacologic papillary dilation, two of five patients with stones 5 mm or less in diameter had stone clearance. The remaining 11 patients underwent successful endoscopic papillary balloon dilation with stone clearance. In two patients, a guidewire introduced via a transcystic catheter through the papilla facilitated selective biliary cannulation. One early minor complication occurred. All patients remained without symptoms for a mean follow-up of 13 months.

CONCLUSION

For unsuspected bile duct stones (usually small ones), this strategy is a simple and effective alternative to laparoscopic bile duct exploration and postoperative sphincterotomy and may minimize early and late complications. Transcystic catheterization ensures access to the bile duct, thereby avoiding endoscopic treatment failures.

Bile duct stones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a decision analysis to assess the roles of intraoperative cholangiography, EUS, and ERCP

BACKGROUND

The least costly management strategy for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unclear.

METHODS

A decision model incorporating cost ratios, test accuracy, complication, and failure rates was used to determine the costs of 4 peri-laparoscopic cholecystectomy strategies: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), intraoperative cholangiography (IOCG), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and expectant management.

RESULTS

Expert IOCG is least costly for intermediate-risk patients when the risk of stones is between 17% and 34%. If expert EUS is available, 0% to 10% ("low" risk) merits expectant management; 11% to 55% ("intermediate" risk) merits EUS; and greater than 55% ("high" risk) merits ERCP. Thresholds were most sensitive to changes in the risks of symptoms and complications due to retained stones; and to procedural costs, sensitivity, and success rates. Neither IOCG nor EUS appears likely to reduce overall costs unless their accuracy and success rates are greater than 90% and their procedural cost is less than 60% to 70% that of ERCP. When neither are available, ERCP is preferable when the risk of stones is greater than 22%. Thresholds were relatively insensitive to changes in the risk and severity of ERCP-induced pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The least costly strategy for laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients depends primarily on the risk of stones and stone-related symptoms, but procedural costs and operator expertise are also critical.

The management of choledocholithiasis in children in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the procedure of choice for gallbladder removal in children, the treatment of children who have choledocholithiasis remains unclear. For adults who have suspected choledocholithiasis, preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a well-described and effective approach, however, its use for common bile duct stones in children has not been defined. The authors reviewed the records of 131 consecutive children undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on two surgical services to define the efficacy of ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in managing choledocholithiasis in children. Fourteen children were suspected of having common duct stones noted on preoperative ultrasound scan and laboratory data. At ERCP, six children had no stones visualized; eight had stones and underwent stone extraction and sphincter dilation or sphincterotomy. All 14 underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy a mean of 3.8 days after ERCP. None of the 14 had evidence of retained stones. Only one of 117 children undergoing primary laparoscopic cholecystectomy had unsuspected common bile duct stones and was treated with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and stone removal. A management plan incorporating ERCP followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe and effective strategy for children who have choledocholithiasis.

The laparoscopic surgical value package and how surgeons can influence costs

"Quality first and costs second" should be our motto. As surgeons we need to get involved with our procedures, but with the knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of both outcome and cost analysis-that is, value assessment. The key to evaluating a procedure is to determine its value. This can be done only by physicians cognizant of the disease process and value assessment. The value is determined by assessing a procedure's utilization, outcomes, and costs. Utilization allows early treatment and avoids neglected disease. Therefore, the appropriateness of the utilization can be determined only by an outcome study. An outcome study is another term for quality assessment. Outcomes deal with morbidity, mortality, and the long- and short-term effects of the procedure. Overall, an increase of quality in a global perspective decreases the costs of the procedure to the health care community. Costs must remain secondary to outcomes. A cost analysis of LC has shown that surgeons can influence the majority of OR costs, and these are the direct variable type. Costs are usually not comparable between hospitals. Within each hospital, costs can be successfully used to assess efficiency and demand elasticity. An attempt to decrease costs directly is a maneuver that, when applied solely by nonmedical individuals, will most likely decrease quality. When the quality can be maintained (as assessed only by a practitioner), then a decrease in global costs increases value. The concept of increasing value by increasing quality without an attempt to decrease costs is a very important principle that the health care system must learn in our ever-challenging medical environment. Business administrators have decreased costs without consideration of quality assessment. Consider the additional impact of taking these cost savings and paying dividends to investors rather than reinvesting the monies into medical research or new technology. Quality declines first in patient choice, then referring physician choice, and finally short- and long-term results. When will this decline be apparent if quality assessments are not completed concurrently with cost analysis?

Do preoperative indicators predict the presence of common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Criteria have been suggested to help decide if an intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) should be performed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). They are a clinical history of passing a common bile duct (CBD) stone, elevated serum amylase, elevated liver function tests, or ultrasound findings suggesting a CBD stone. What is the sensitivity and specificity of the above criteria when the presence or absence of CBD stones is already known by IOC? What is the probability that these criteria will predict a CBD stone or be normal if a stone is absent, ie, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)?

METHODS

We reviewed 420 cases of elective LC done between May 1990 and December 1992. In our teaching hospital, IOC is routine and acted as the reference standard for the presence of CBD stones. All 420 films were reviewed as well as the results of any preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (30 were done). The following preoperative indicators of CBD stones were recorded: any clinical history of CBD stones; an elevated amylase, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, or bilirubin level; and ultrasound findings. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated.

RESULTS

CBD stones were found in 12% of these elective LC cases. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, respectively, for each preoperative indicator were: a history suggestive of CBD stones (36%, 94%, 45%, and 91%), serum biochemistries as a group (43%, 86%, 30% and 91%), and ultrasound findings of CBD stones (22%, 92%, 28% and 89%). We compared any elevation versus > 2x from the normal range of the serum indicators and did not improve their accuracy. Combination of the indicators increased sensitivity and NPV but lowered specificity and PPV. The best predictor of CBD stones was the history (45%) and this was in a hospital with a CBD stone prevalence rate of 12%.

CONCLUSION

There are no predictive tests that can sufficiently increase an observer's probability estimate of the presence or absence of CBD stones to allow for "selective" IOC decisions.

Technology and surgery. Dilemma of the gimmick, true advances, and cost effectiveness

The key to evaluating a procedure in regard to a true advance versus a gimmick is to determine its value. This can be done only by physicians cognizant of a disease process. The value is determined by assessing a procedure's utilization, outcomes, and costs. Utilization allows early treatment and avoids neglected disease. Therefore, the appropriateness of the utilization can be determined only by an outcome study. An outcome study is another term for quality assessment. Outcomes deal with morbidity, mortality, and also the long- and short-term effects of the procedure on the disease. Overall, an increase of quality in a global perspective decreases the costs of the procedure to the health care community. Costs must remain secondary to outcomes. An attempt to decrease costs directly is a maneuver that, when applied by nonmedical individuals, will most likely decrease quality. When the quality can be maintained (as assessed only by a practitioner), then a decrease in global costs will increase value. The concept of increasing value by increasing quality without an attempt to decrease costs is a very important principle that the health care system must learn in our ever-challenging medical environment. Is a new procedure a gimmick or a true advance? The decision is made jointly by the stakeholders in our health care system--the patient, provider, payer, employer, and industry. If the procedure does not receive negative votes, then its adoption is almost assured. Comparing two procedures through these perspectives ultimately allows us to determine the potential for new procedures. A procedure not adopted through this method could be called a gimmick.