Factors That Predict the Success of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis: A 10-Year Study

Intraoperative Cholangiogram Interpretation for Laparoscopic Transcystic Bile Duct Exploration: Is Concurrence Possible?

Background

Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) represents a secure and efficacious approach for managing common bile duct (CBD) stones, particularly in patients concurrently undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The decision to proceed with LTCBDE hinges on real-time assessment of the intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), which is highly operator-dependent and poorly interpreted. No established criteria exist to guide the evaluation of IOCs for LTCBDE. This study aims to ascertain the concordance among surgeons, experienced in LTCBDE, on critical aspects of IOC interpretation.

Methods

A retrospective collection of IOC images of 40 patients who underwent LC, IOC, and LTCBDE at a tertiary university hospital between 2017 and 2018 was undertaken. Two hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and 2 acute care surgery (ACS) specialists independently reviewed the images. They were tasked with assessing IOC features hypothesized to influence duct exploration and stone extraction complexity, along with overall suitability for LTCBDE based exclusively on the IOC images. Agreement percentages were calculated and Kappa inter-rater reliability statistics were assessed.

Results

The overall agreement percentages concerning IOC features ranged between 52.5% and 82.5% with agreements surpassing 75% deemed robust. Maximum agreement was achieved in the interpretation of cystic duct morphology, whether straight or characterized by spiral valves. The concurrence for amenability of LTCBDE also demonstrated substantial accord among surgeons (ACS: 92.5%, HPB: 95%, total: 87.5%). Consistently high agreement was evident within specialty groups.

Conclusions

Anatomical attributes displayed superior agreement levels, as opposed to variables necessitating measurements. We recommend the development of a structured approach for the interpretation of IOC to facilitate surgical education in LTCBDE.

The incidence, technical management and outcomes of impacted stones encountered during 1447 laparoscopic bile duct explorations

BACKGROUND

Stone impaction is an obstacle to successful laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). This study aims to identify the incidence, operative difficulties and techniques used to disimpact and remove impacted stones during LCBDE.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from a large series of LCBDE. Preoperative and operative findings in patients with impacted stones including the difficulty grading, impaction site, disimpaction methods, operative complications and postoperative outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

136 of 1447 (9.4%) LCBDEs had impacted stones; 63.2% females, median age 54 years. 88.2% were emergencies including 94 Jaundice (69.1%), 19 acute pains, 6 acute cholecystitis and 5 pancreatitis. 16.9% had previous ERCP, all at other units pre-referral. LCBDE was transcystic in 52 (38.2%) and via choledochotomy in 84 (61.8%), all requiring choledochoscopy. LCBDE was difficulty grade IV in 60 (44.1%) and grade V in 76 (55.9%). The number of stones ranged from 1 to 70 (median 2) and stone size 4-30 mm (median 11). Impaction was at lower CBD in 83 (61%), Mid-CBD 29 (21.3%), Intra-hepatic 15 (11%), intra and extra hepatic in 6 (4.4%) and intramural in 3. Disimpaction was by biopsy forceps fragmentation in 37 patients (27.2%), basket dislodgment in 35 (25.7%), biopsy forceps plus basket/hook retractor or cholecochoscope push in 20 (14.7%), Fogarty/Foley balloon with or without basket in 15 (11%), laser in 12 (8.8%), grasper fragmentation in 9 patients (6.6%), and open conversion in 7 (5.1%); 3 stone removal, 2 choledochoduodenostomy and 2 hepaticojejunostomy. Stones left for postoperative ERCP in four patients (2.8%). The median operative time was 160 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Impacted stones increase the difficulty of LCBDE. The evolution of techniques and instruments over the course of this study increased the success of transcystic exploration and reduced reliance on choledochotomy. The prediction of impaction, availability of lithotripsy and increasing experience should improve postoperative outcomes.

Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopy Plus Choledochoscopy Combined With Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Choledocholithiasis and Hepatolithiasis

Background

With the advancement of laparoscopic technology, the combination of laparoscopy, choledochoscopy, and holmium laser lithotripsy has emerged as an effective treatment modality for both choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiasis. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was conducted on the medical records of 76 patients diagnosed with choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiasis between April 2021 and March 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment plan: the control group, which underwent traditional laparotomy and choledochoscopy lithotripsy (n = 38), and the experimental group, which underwent laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy (n = 38). Comparative analysis was performed on various operation-related parameters, stone-free rate, complication rates, and changes in biochemical, liver function, inflammatory, stress response indicators, and pain scores between the two groups.

Results

The experimental group demonstrated significantly shorter stone removal time, reduced intraoperative bleeding, and shorter hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the experimental group exhibited lower incidence of postoperative complications and lower pain scores at 2 weeks to 3 months post-operation (P < 0.05). Biochemical indicators including total bile acid (TBA), total bilirubin (TBIL), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) were significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Additionally, stress and inflammation indicators were also lower in the experimental group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of laparoscopy, choledochoscopy, and holmium laser lithotripsy presents favorable therapeutic outcomes in the management of choledocholithiasis and hepatolithiasis, indicating its potential for widespread clinical application.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: what factors determine success?

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been shown to be effective in managing choledocholithiasis whilst avoiding ERCP-related complications. However, patient and technical factors effects outcome. This study aimed to explore the matters effecting the failure of LCBDE.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) between 2007 and 2021 were identified using a prospective database. Data were collected for patients who underwent LCBDE including demographics, pre-operative investigations, intra-operative findings, technique of bile duct clearance and clearance rates, and post-operative outcomes. Predictors of failed LCBDE were identified.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 3648 patients. Of these, 374 underwent LCBDE for suspected choledocholithiasis. Choledochoscopy was most frequently used (58.8%) with a success rate of 84.1%. Small cystic duct diameter (4.7 vs. 3.4 mm, P = 0.002), stone size >6 mm (P = 0.02), stone: cystic duct ratio >1 (P = 0.04), and >3 stones was associated with failed LCBDE by univariate analysis. Small cystic duct diameter (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26-0.77, P = 0.004) and stone size >6 mm (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.92), P = 0.04) correlated with failure by multivariate analysis. Failed LCBDE was associated with increased length of stay (6.6 days vs. 3.1 days, P = 0.001), however the rate of serious complications or mortality was unaffected.

CONCLUSION

LCBDE is safe and effective in managing choledocholithiasis. Factors such as cystic duct diameter, size and number of CBD stones, and stone: cystic duct ratio are associated with increased likelihood of inadequate clearance. The presence of these factors can help clinicians in decision making during LCBDE to improve chance of success.

A proposed difficulty grading system for laparoscopic bile duct exploration: benefits to clinical practice, training and research

BACKGROUND

A gap remains between the mounting evidence for single session management of bile duct stones and the adoption of this approach. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) is limited by the scarcity of training opportunities and adequate equipment and by the perception that the technique requires a high skill-set. The aim of this study was to create a new classification of difficulty based on operative characteristics and to stratify postoperative outcomes of easy vs. difficult LBDE irrespective of the surgeon's experience.

METHODS

A cohort of 1335 LBDEs was classified according to the location, number and size of ductal stones, the retrieval technique, utilisation of choledochoscopy and specific biliary pathologies encountered. A combination of features indicated easy (Grades I and II A & B) or difficult (Grades III A and B, IV and V) transcystic or transcholedochal explorations.

RESULTS

78.3% of patients with acute cholecystitis or pancreatitis, 37% with jaundice and 46% with cholangitis had easy explorations. Difficult explorations were more likely to present as emergencies, with obstructive jaundice, previous sphincterotomy and dilated bile ducts on ultrasound scans. 77.7% of easy explorations were transcystic and 62.3% of difficult explorations transductal. Choledochoscopy was utilised in 23.4% of easy vs. 98% of difficult explorations. The use of biliary drains, open conversions, median operative time, biliary-related complications, hospital stay, readmissions, and retained stones increased with the difficulty grade. Grades I and II patients had 2 or more hospital episodes in 26.5% vs. 41.2% for grades III to V. There were 2 deaths in difficulty Grade V and one in Grade IIB.

CONCLUSION

Difficulty grading of LBDE is useful in predicting outcomes and facilitating comparison between studies. It ensures fair structuring and assessment of training and progress of the learning curve. LBDEs were easy in 72% with 77% completed transcystically. This may encourage more units to adopt this approach.

Learning Curve of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Systematic Review

Background: Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with cholecystectomy has superior outcomes over two-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram with interval cholecystectomy. With decreasing trend of LCBDE, this study aims to summarize the literature on learning curve (LC) in LCBDE. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles from inception to June 3, 2022 (PROSPERO Ref No: CRD42022328451). Basic clinical demographics were collected. Poisson means (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) was used to determine the number of cases required to surmount the LC (NLC). Results: Eight articles (n = 2071 patients) reported LC outcomes in LCBDE with mean study period of 5.9 ± 2.8 years. Majority of studies (62.5%) used arbitrary methods of LC analysis. Most common outcomes reported were complications (any or major) (75%), open conversion (75%), length of stay (62.5%), and operating time (50%). Mean CBD diameter was 11.3 ± 4.8 mm (n = 1122 patients). Incidence of acute cholecystitis, acute cholangitis, and acute pancreatitis were 13.9% (n = 232/1668), 7.8% (n = 128/1629), and 13.7% (n = 229/1668), respectively. Pooled analysis of all the included studies showed NLC of 78.8 cases (95% CI: 71.9-86.3). Studies that used cumulative sum control chart analysis, nonarbitrary methods, and arbitrary-based LC had NLC of 152.0 (95% CI: 135.4-170.1), 108.0 (95% CI: 96.6-120.4), and 49.7 (95% CI: 42.0-58.3) cases, respectively. NLC was 37.0 cases (95% CI: 29.1-46.5) for single surgeon LC, and 99.8 cases (95% CI: 90.2-110.0) for institutional LC. Conclusion: Studies reporting NLC in LCBDE are heterogeneous. Further studies should use nonarbitrary methods of analysis for patient-reported outcome measures and procedure-specific morbidity.

Current management of concomitant cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones

The management policy of concomitant cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis is based on a one- or two-stage procedure. It basically includes either laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LCBDE) in the same operation or LC with preoperative, postoperative and even intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ERCP-ES) for stone clearance. The most frequently used worldwide option is preoperative ERCP-ES and stone removal followed by LC, preferably on the next day. In cases where preoperative ERCP-ES is not feasible, the proposed alternative of intraoperative rendezvous ERCP-ES simultaneously with LC has been advocated. The intraoperative extraction of CBD stones is superior to postoperative rendezvous ERCP-ES. However, there is no consensus on the superiority of laparoendoscopic rendezvous. This is equivalent to a traditional two-stage procedure. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation reduces recurrence. LCBDE and intraoperative ERCP have similar good outcomes. The risk of recurrence after ERCP-ES is greater than that after LCBDE. Laparoscopic ultrasonography may delineate the anatomy and detect CBD stones. The majority of surgeons prefer the transcductal instead of the transcystic approach for CBDE with or without T-tube drainage, but the transcystic approach must be used where possible. LCBDE is a safe and effective choice when performed by an experienced surgeon. However, the requirement of specific equipment and advanced training are drawbacks. The percutaneous approach is an alternative when ERCP fails. Surgical or endoscopic reintervention for retained stones may be needed. For asymptomatic CBD stones, ERCP clearance is the first-choice method. Both one-stage and two-stage management are acceptable and can ensure improved quality of life.

Incidence and management of choledocholithiasis on routine intraoperative cholangiogram: a 5-year tertiary centre experience

BACKGROUND

The incidence of choledocholithiasis on routine intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) during cholecystectomy is approximately 12%. Cholecystectomy without IOC may lead to undiagnosed choledocholithiasis placing patients at risk of complications such as pancreatitis or cholangitis. This study aims to determine the incidence of choledocholithiasis intraoperatively as well as the associated risk factors and the methods of management.

METHODS

A retrospective observational analysis of all laparoscopic cholecystectomies with IOC at the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service from 1 January 2016 to 2 December 2021 was carried out. Patient demographics, operative data and cholangiogram findings were collected from electronic medical systems.

RESULTS

A total of 3904 cholecystectomies were carried out over the study period. 3520 (90.1%) had an IOC, and 474 (13.4%) had positive IOC findings. 158 (33.3%) of the cases were managed intraoperatively with hyoscine butylbromide with or without intravenous glucagon followed by biliary tree flushing alone, 183 (38.6%) received transcystic bile duct exploration (TCBDE) with a success rate of 83% and 167 (35.2%) received endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Choledocholithiasis was incidental in 44 (9.28%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Incidental choledocholithiasis during routine IOC is not uncommon. Management predominantly includes intraoperative TCBDE or postoperatively via an ERCP. This study has not found reliable preoperative factors to predict choledocholithiasis based on preoperative clinical, radiological and biochemical factors. A small proportion of patients received preoperative endoscopic intervention, and the decision-making process requires further investigation.

Factors Influencing Suture Difficulty of T-tube Fixation and Closure in Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

BACKGROUND

Suture under the laparoscopy was considered as one of the most difficult and time-consuming tasks in laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration. Difficult suturing can lead to prolonged suturing time and decreased suturing quality. The aim of this study was to identify preoperative factors associated with the difficulty of T-tube suture following laparoscopic bile duct exploration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who experienced successful laparoscopic CBD exploration with T-tube drainage were collected. Perioperative outcomes and short-term and long-term complications were recorded. Associations of the average suture time per stitch with preoperative demographic data and laboratory tests in patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 106 cases (46 males and 60 females) were included in this study. The average suture time per stitch was between 3 and 7.5 minutes with a median of 4.5 minutes (4, 5). There were no biliary leakage and other T-tube-related complications in all patients during follow-up. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that biliary tract reoperation (r=0.384, P<0.0001) and a higher body mass index (r=0.486, P<0.0001) were positively correlated with the average suture time per stitch, while there was no association between the average suture time per stitch and other preoperative demographic data and preoperative blood parameters, including CBD diameter, age, sex, operative time, preoperative white cell count, alanine transaminase, total bilirubin, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified 2 preoperative variables (biliary tract reoperation and a higher body mass index) that were positively associated with the suture difficulty under laparoscopy. An adequately powered prospective multicentre study is needed to validate our findings.

Inpatient Choledocholithiasis Management: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Management Algorithms

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis is commonly encountered. It is frequently managed with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (either preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative relative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective method to manage inpatient choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A decision tree model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a ceiling willingness to pay threshold assumed of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Model parameters were determined through review of published literature and institutional data. Costs were from the perspective of the healthcare system with a time horizon of 1 year. Sensitivity analyses were performed on model parameters.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was cost-effective, resulting in 0.9909 quality-adjusted life years at an expected cost of $18,357. Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography yielded more quality-adjusted life years (0.9912) at a higher cost ($19,717) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,789,025, exceeding the willingness to pay threshold. Both preoperative and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies were eliminated for being both more costly and less effective. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective if the probability of successful biliary clearance was above 0.79, holding all other variables constant. If its base cost remained below $18,400 and intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography base cost rose above $18,200, then laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is the most cost-effective method to manage choledocholithiasis. Efforts to ensure availability of local expertise and resources for this procedure are warranted.