Single-stage laparoscopic and endoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: a novel approach

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous for the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Different approaches are available for the treatment of combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis including totally laparoscopic (TL) treatment, simultaneous laparoendoscopic treatment, and sequential treatments (ST) combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with cholecystectomy. This review aimed to clarify the issue of the simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous (RV).

METHODS

A careful analysis of papers was performed to determine the results, technical differences, limits, disadvantages, and advantages of RV compared with other options.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 27 papers concerning 795 patients. The overall effectiveness of RV was 92.3%. The morbidity rate was 5.1%, and the mortality rate was 0.37%. Almost all the authors were satisfied with the procedure. The authors' comparison to ST and TL showed that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages mostly related to logistical problems.

CONCLUSIONS

There is confusion concerning the definitions and techniques of RV due to differences in combining surgical and endoscopic steps of the procedure. The results are at least comparable with those of the other available approaches. The effectiveness of RV is greater with reciprocal implementation of surgical and endoscopic procedures. The morbidity and the risk of iatrogenic damage seem lower than with ERCP-ES and the risk of residual stones lower than with TL treatment. The RV procedure is safe and can sometimes be the preferable option, but collaboration between surgeon and endoscopist is mandatory.

Management of choledocholithiasis: Comparison between laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy

AIM: Choledocholithiasis is present in 5 to 10 percent of patients who have cholelithiasis. In the area of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) have been used to treat choledocholithiasis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and hospital costs of LCBDE with IOES.

METHODS: Between November 1999 and October 2002, patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing LC plus LCBDE (Group A, n = 45) were retrospectively compared to those undergoing LC plus IOES (Group B, n = 57) at a single institution.

RESULTS: Ductal stone clearance rates were equivalent for the two groups (88% versus 89%, P = 0.436). The conversion rate was higher for Group B (8.8% versus 4.4%, P = 0.381), as was the morbidity (12.3% versus 6.7%, P = 0.336). There were no other significant differences between the two groups. The complications were mainly related to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), and the hospital costs were significantly increased in this subset of Group B (median, 23910 versus 14955 RMB yuan, P = 0.03). Although hospital stay was longer in Group A (median, 7 versus 6 days, P = 0.041), the patients in Group A had a significantly decreased cost of hospitalization compared with those in Group B (median, 11 362 versus 15 466 RMB yuan, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate equivalent ductal stone clearance rates for the two groups. LCBDE management appears safer, and is associated with a significantly decreased hospital cost. The findings suggest LCBDE for choledocholithiasis is a better option.