Cost-effective method for laparoscopic choledochotomy

Management of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis: Endoscopic and surgical approaches

Gallstone disease and complications from gallstones are a common clinical problem. The clinical presentation ranges between being asymptomatic and recurrent attacks of biliary pain requiring elective or emergency treatment. Bile duct stones are a frequent condition associated with cholelithiasis. Amidst the total cholecystectomies performed every year for cholelithiasis, the presence of bile duct stones is 5%-15%; another small percentage of these will develop common bile duct stones after intervention. To avoid serious complications that can occur in choledocholithiasis, these stones should be removed. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the ideal management strategy to perform such. For a long time, a direct open surgical approach to the bile duct was the only unique approach. With the advent of advanced endoscopic, radiologic, and minimally invasive surgical techniques, however, therapeutic choices have increased in number, and the management of this pathological situation has become multidisciplinary. To date, there is agreement on preoperative management and the need to treat cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis, but a debate still exists on how to cure the two diseases at the same time. In the era of laparoscopy and mini-invasiveness, we can say that therapeutic approaches can be performed in two sessions or in one session. Comparison of these two approaches showed equivalent success rates, postoperative morbidity, stone clearance, mortality, conversion to other procedures, total surgery time, and failure rate, but the one-session treatment is characterized by a shorter hospital stay, and more cost benefits. The aim of this review article is to provide the reader with a general summary of gallbladder stone disease in association with the presence of common bile duct stones by discussing their epidemiology, clinical and diagnostic aspects, and possible treatments and their advantages and limitations.

Lessons learnt from the first 200 unselected consecutive cases of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct stones at a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

The management of choledocholithiasis evolves with diagnostic imaging and therapeutic technology, facilitating a laparoscopic approach. We review our first 200 cases of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct, highlighting challenges and lessons learnt.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied the first 200 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration between 2006 and 2019. The database contains demographics, clinicopathological characteristics, diagnostic modalities, operative techniques, duration and outcomes.

RESULTS

We compared two approaches: transcystic vs. transcholedochal in our 200 cases. Choledocholithiasis was suspected preoperatively in 163 patients. 21 cases found no stones. Of the remainder, 111/179 cases were completed via the transcystic route and the remaining were completed transcholedochally (68/179); 25% of the transcholedochal cases were converted from a transcystic approach. CBD diameter for transcystic route was 8.2 vs. 11.0 mm for transcholedochal. Total clearance rate was 84%. Retained or recurrent stones were noted in 7 patients. Length of stay was 5.8 days, 3.5 days in the transcystic route vs. 9.4 days after transcholedochal clearance. Eight patients required re-operation for bleeding or bile leak. No mortalities were recorded in this cohort, but 2 cases (1%) developed a subsequent CBD stricture.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant laparoscopic common bile duct clearance with cholecystectomy is feasible, safe and effective in a district general hospital, despite constraints of time and resources. The transcystic route has a lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay, and hence our preference of this route for all cases. Advancements in stone management technology will allow wider adoption of this technique, benefitting more patients.

The Efficiency of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration in Endoscopic Retrograde-Cholangiopancreatography-Limited Setting in a Peripheral University Hospital

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate complications and costs in patients treated with laparoscopic and open method for common bile duct (CBD) stones. Secondary aim is to compare the effectiveness, safety, and outcomes of these methods. In addition, it is aimed to review the feasibility of laparoscopic method in rural areas. Methods: Seventy-one patients were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups as open and laparoscopic surgical method. These groups were analyzed comparatively in terms of complications and costs. Subgroups were formed from patients who underwent T-tube drainage, primary closure, and biliary anastomosis as choledochotomy management. As a secondary outcome, these three subgroups were investigated in terms of complications and cost. Results: The cost was lower in open method compared to laparoscopic method (484$, 707$, P = .002). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between groups (P = .257). While the mean hospital stay was longer in the open group, the operation time was shorter (P = .002, P = .03). The mean length of hospital stay in the T-tube group was significantly higher than the primary closure (P = .001). The cost in the T-tube group was significantly higher than the primary closure and biliary anastomosis groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic CBD exploration by experienced surgeons in endoscopic retrograde-cholangiopancreatography-limited settings is an effective and safe method in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. This procedure should not be limited to reference centers and should be performed safely in rural areas by well-trained surgeons.

T-Tube Use After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration

Background and Objectives:

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been verified to be an effective technique in treating choledocholithiasis, and T-tube insertion has been widely performed after LCBDE. With growing doubts regarding the effectiveness and safety of T-tube drainage (TTD), it has been suggested to replace such with primary duct closure (PDC). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of PDC compared with TTD after LCBDE.

Methods:

The PubMed, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were used to accomplish a systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials and pro-/retrospective cohort studies that compared PDC alone or PDC combined with biliary drainage stenting (PDC+BD) with TTD after LCBDE. A subgroup analysis was established to compare PDC+BD with TTD. RevMan 5.3 was used for the statistical analysis.

Results:

A total of 2552 patients from 26 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio supported PDC, which yielded lower postoperative overall morbidity and incidence of bile leak and bile peritonitis and shorter surgical time and postoperative hospital stay when compared with TTD. In the subgroup analysis, PDC+BD showed significantly better results in terms of postoperative overall morbidity, incidence of bile leak and bile peritonitis, surgical time, and postoperative hospital stay than did TTD. PDC and PDC+BD showed no difference in the incidence of recurrent stones and biliary stricture during the long-term follow-up period compared with TTD.

Conclusion:

PDC alone or PDC+BD is superior to TTD as a duct-closure method after LCBDE.

Should T-Tube Drainage be Performed for Choledocholithiasis after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been verified to be a comparatively effective treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and it has been previously proposed that the primary duct closure (PDC) technique, in which the bile duct can directly be sutured in only 1 step compared with the T-tube drainage (TTD), can be deemed a choice after LCBDE; however, the conventional TTD performance is controversial in the minimally invasive surgery era. On the basis of the above-mentioned point, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess the different effects between TTD and PDC after LCBDE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, literature search was conducted to screen out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare PDC with TTD. The analyzed outcome variables included overall morbidity, biliary-specific morbidity (retained stones, biliary leak, biliary peritonitis), other morbidities, operating time, postoperative hospital stay, reintervention (surgery, endoscopy/radiology), and median hospital expenses.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, there are 4 RCTs qualifying for inclusion, including 396 patients in all (222 in PDC and 214 in TTD). With respect to postoperative overall morbidity (P<0.05), biliary peritonitis (P<0.05), surgery time (P<0.05), length of stay (P<0.05), and median hospital expenses (P<0.05), PDC presented remarkably better results than TTD (P<0.05). Statistically, no remarkable distinction was found between the 2 groups as to biliary-specific morbidity, retained stones, biliary leak, other morbidities, or reintervention (radiology/endoscopy, surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, there was no evidence provided for clinical benefits of using TTD after LCBDE. Therefore, TTD should not routinely be performed after LCBDE. However, multicenter, large sample size, RCTs should be conducted to clarify this issue.

Various approaches of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus primary duct closure for choledocholithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Common bile duct (CBD) stones may occur in up to 3%-14.7% of all patients with cholecystectomy. Various approaches of laparoscopic CBD exploration plus primary duct closure (PDC) are the most commonly used and the best methods to treat CBD stone. This systematic review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the various approaches of laparoscopic CBD exploration plus PDC for choledocholithiasis.

DATA SOURCES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) (case-control studies or cohort studies) were searched from Cochrane library (until Issue 2, 2015), Web of Science (1980-January 2016), PubMed (1966-January 2016), and Baidu search engine. After independent quality assessment and data extraction, meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and 18 NRCTs were included. When compared with choledochotomy exploration (CE) plus T-tube drainage (TTD) (CE + TTD), CE plus PDC (CE + PDC) and CE + PDC with biliary drainage (BD) (CE + PDC + BD) had a lower rate of postoperative biliary peritonitis (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.88; P < 0.05; OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.84; P < 0.05; respectively) where T-tubes were removed more than 3 weeks. The operative time of CE + PDC was significantly shorter (WMD = -24.82; 95% CI: -27.48, -22.16; P < 0.01) than that of CE + TTD in RCTs. Cystic duct exploration (CDE) plus PDC (CDE + PDC) has a lower rate of postoperative complications (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67; P < 0.01) when compared with CE + PDC. Confluence part micro-incision exploration (CME) plus PDC (CME + PDC) has a lower rate of postoperative bile leakage (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.74; P < 0.05) when compared with CE + PDC.

CONCLUSION

PDC with other various approaches are better than TTD in the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

Comparative Study of Three Bile Duct Closure Methods Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

There are three choledochotomy closure methods available following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: T-tube insertion, antegrade stenting, and primary choledochorrhaphy. We reviewed the experience of 12 years at our center searching for the optimal closure technique.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospectively 146 patients that underwent one of the three closure methods from February 2004 to March 2016. Hospital stay, need for readmission, incidence of early and long-term complications, and biliary leakage development and their clinical impact were determined for each technique.

RESULTS

Hospital stay was more prolonged, and need for readmission was higher in the T-tube group. Nine patients of the T-tube group (17.3%), 5 patients (8.6%) of the antegrade stenting group, and 1 patient of the primary suture group (2.8%) developed Dindo-Clavien ≥3 complications (P = .076). The incidence of biliary leakage was 3.8%, 8.6%, and 16.7% for the T-tube group, antegrade stenting group, and primary suture group, respectively. There was no grade C biliary fistula in the primary suture group, and all grade B leaks in these patients were only due to prolonged duration. The T-tube removal caused adverse events in 21.1% of the patients, and complications directly related with stents occurred in 9.6%.

CONCLUSION

Antegrade stents or T-tube insertion do not provide any added value for choledochotomy closure but are charged with specific morbidity. On the contrary, despite biliary leaks being more frequent after primary suture, they are of little clinical consequence and may be managed on an outpatient basis.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

With advances in laparoscopic instrumentation and acquisition of advanced laparoscopic skills, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is technically feasible and increasingly practiced by surgeons worldwide. Traditional practice of suturing the dochotomy with T-tube drainage may be associated with T-tube-related complications. Primary duct closure (PDC) without a T-tube has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement (TTD) after LCBDE. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PDC when compared to TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage. Studies were reviewed for the primary outcome measures: overall postoperative complications, postoperative biliary-specific complications, re-interventions, and postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes assessed were: operating time, median hospital expenses, and general complications.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies comparing PDC and TTD qualified for inclusion in our meta-analysis, with a total of 1770 patients. PDC showed significantly better results when compared to TTD in terms of postoperative biliary peritonitis (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.76, P = 0.02), operating time (WMD, -22.27, 95% CI -33.26 to -11.28, P < 0.00001), postoperative hospital stay (WMD, -3.22; 95% CI -4.52 to -1.92, P < 0.00001), and median hospital expenses (SMD, -1.37, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.77, P < 0.00001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly decreased in the primary duct closure with internal biliary drainage (PDC + BD) group when compared to TTD group (WMD, -2.68; 95% CI -3.23 to -2.13, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrates that PDC after LCBDE is feasible and associated with fewer complications than TTD. Based on these results, primary duct closure may be considered as the optimal procedure for dochotomy closure after LCBDE.

Single-session minimally invasive management of common bile duct stones

Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones. To avoid serious complications, these stones should be removed. There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for such patients. Traditionally, open surgery was offered but with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) minimally invasive approach had nearly replaced laparotomy because of its well-known advantages. Minimally invasive approach could be done in either two-session (preoperative ERCP followed by LC or LC followed by postoperative ERCP) or single-session (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or LC with intraoperative ERCP). Most recent studies have found that both options are equivalent regarding safety and efficacy but the single-session approach is associated with shorter hospital stay, fewer procedures per patient, and less cost. Consequently, single-session option should be offered to patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiaisis provided that local resources and expertise do exist. However, the management strategy should be tailored according to many variables, such as available resources, experience, patient characteristics, clinical presentations, and surgical pathology.

Use of biliary stent in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

INTRODUCTION

It is well supported in the literature that laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis has equal efficacy when compared to ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Decompression after supra-duodenal choledochotomy is common practice as it reduced the risk of bile leaks. We conducted a prospective non-randomized study to compare outcomes and length of stay in patients undergoing biliary stent insertion versus T-tube drainage following LCBDE via choledochotomy.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The study involved 116 patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE and decompression of the biliary system by either ante-grade biliary stent or T-tube insertion. A 7 French straight/duodenal curve biliary Diagmed™ stent (9-11 cm) was placed in 82 patients (Biliary Stent Group). T-tube insertion was used for 34 patients (T-tube group). The length of hospital stay and complications for the selected patients were recorded. All trans-cystic common bile duct explorations were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

The mean hospital stay for patients who underwent ante-grade biliary stent or T-tube insertion after LBCDE were 1 and 3.4 days, respectively. This is a statistically significant result with a p value of less than 0.001. Of the T-tube group, two patients required laparoscopic washout due to bile leaks, one had ongoing biliary stasis and one reported ongoing pain whilst the T-tube was in situ. A complication rate of 11.2%, this was a significant finding. There were no complications or concerns reported for the Biliary Stent Group.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that there is a significant reduction in length of hospital stay and morbidity for patients that have ante-grade biliary stent decompression of the CBD post laparoscopic choledochotomy when compared T-tube drainage. This implies that ante-grade biliary stent insertion is likely to reduce costs and increase overall patient satisfaction. We support the use of ante-grade biliary stent insertion during LCBDE when primary closure is not preferred.

One-stage versus Two-stage Management for Concomitant Gallbladder Stones and Common Bile Duct Stones in Patients with Obstructive Jaundice

No consensus exists regarding the optimal management of concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones (CBDS). Previous studies showed a significant association between the presence of obstructive jaundice and increased risk of postoperative complications and conversion to open surgery. This retrospective study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of one-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration) management versus two-stage (preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterotomy 1 LC) management for patients with obstructive jaundice, concomitant gallbladder stones, and CBDS. One-stage management (n = 88) or two-stage management (n = 122) was used for 210 eligible patients between January 2009 and March 2011. Both types of management proved to be effective and safe. No significant difference was observed in terms of stone clearance from the common bile duct (CBD), postoperative morbidity, mortality, or conversion to open surgery. However, one-stage management was more cost-effective and decreased the number of procedures. In addition, postoperative hospital stay and operative time were shorter for patients who received one-stage management. Especially for patients with CBD greater than 1 cm in diameter, one-stage management is a better choice.

Does laparoscopic approach impair T-tube-related sinus-tract formation?

PURPOSE

Postoperative morbidity after bile duct exploration with T-tube insertion is mainly related to tube removal and incomplete sinus-tract formation leading to serious complications. Laparoscopic surgery reduces abdominal adhesion formation and diminishes tissue trauma and inflammatory response to surgery, which is essential for sinus-tract formation. This study evaluates if complication rate of T-tube removal is increased after laparoscopic bile duct exploration.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and January 2011, 94 patients underwent a T-tube insertion following choledocolithotomy (44 and 50 patients in the laparoscopic and open surgery group, respectively). Epidemiological data, preoperative characteristics, day of tube removal, and morbidity rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Global T-tube removal-related biliary complication rate was 14.9% (18.2% in the laparoscopic group vs. 12% in the open surgery group). Although the day of T-tube removal was significantly delayed, there was a slight increased incidence of biliary peritonitis requiring reintervention in the laparoscopic surgery group (6.9% vs. 2%).

CONCLUSIONS

We reveal that T-tube removal is associated with significant morbidity. There was no statistical difference between the laparoscopic and the open surgery group, although global biliary complications after tube removal were slightly increased and bile spillage was worse delimited when T-tube was inserted laparoscopically. Laparoscopic approach may diminish inflammatory response and adherence development and impair, and therefore sinus-tract formation.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Stones may be removed at the time of cholecystectomy by opening and clearing the common bile duct. The optimal technique is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure without biliary stent after open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using Review Manager (RevMan) analyses. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials randomising 359 participants, 178 to T-tube drainage and 181 to primary closure. All trials were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (4/178 (weighted percentage 1.2%) in the T-tube group versus 1/181 (0.6%) in the primary closure group; RR 2.25; 95% CI 0.55 to 9.25; six trials). There was no significant difference in the serious morbidity rate between the two groups (24/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 145 events per 1000 patients) in the T-tube group versus 9/136 (weighted serious morbidity rate, 66 events per 1000 patients) in the primary closure group; RaR 2.19; 95% CI 0.98 to 4.91; four trials). Quality of life and return to work were not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 28.90 minutes; 95% CI 17.18 to 40.62 minutes; one trial). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 4.72 days; 95% CI 0.83 days to 8.60 days; five trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

T-tube drainage appeared to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay compared with primary closure without any apparent evidence of benefit on clinically important outcomes after open common bile duct exploration. Based on the currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. T-tube drainage should not be used outside well designed randomised clinical trials. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias and assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects of T-tube drainage, including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage may prevent bile leak from the biliary tract following bile duct exploration and it offers post-operative access to the bile ducts for visualisation and exploration. Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of four authors independently identified the studies for inclusion and extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager (RevMan) Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials randomising 295 participants: 147 to T-tube drainage versus 148 to primary closure. All trials had a high risk of bias. No one died during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with serious morbidity (17/147 (weighted percentage 11.3%) in the T-tube drainage versus 9/148 (6.1%) in the primary closure group; RR 1.86; 95% CI 0.87 to 3.96; three trials), and no significant difference was found in the serious morbidity rates (weighted serious morbidity rate = 97 events per 1000 patients) in participants randomised to T-tube drainage versus serious morbidity rate = 61 events per 1000 patients in the primary closure group; RR 1.59; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.83; three trials). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. The operating time was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 21.22 minutes; 95% CI 12.44 minutes to 30.00 minutes; three trials). The hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube drainage group compared with the primary closure group (MD 3.26 days; 95% CI 2.49 days to 4.04 days; three trials). According to one trial, the participants randomised to T-tube drainage returned to work approximately eight days later than the participants randomised to the primary closure group (P < 0.005).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

T-tube drainage appears to result in significantly longer operating time and hospital stay as compared with primary closure without any evidence of benefit after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Based on currently available evidence, there is no justification for the routine use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with common bile duct stones. More randomised trials comparing the effects of T-tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration may be needed. Such trials should be conducted with low risk of bias, assessing the long-term beneficial and harmful effects including long-term complications such as bile stricture and recurrence of common bile duct stones.

Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of T-tube free (TTF) versus T-tube drainage (TTD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

BACKGROUND

LCBDE has been proven to be an effective and preferred treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and the appropriateness of T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct (CBD) stones is still under debate.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Springer-Link, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Postoperative complications were evaluated/graded according to the modified Clavien classification. Other variables extracted including primary closures of the CBDs and the associated assistant methods, T-tube types, and placement durations. Stratified and sensitivity analyses were performed both to explore heterogeneity between studies and to assess the effects of the study qualities.

RESULTS

A total of 956 patients from 12 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio for postoperative complications and biliary-specific complications in TTF was found to be 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.91; P = 0.02], 0.62 (95% CI, 0.36-1.06; P = 0.08), respectively, when compared with TTD. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly decreased in the TTF group, with the pooled weighted mean differences being 18.84 minutes (95% CI, -27.01 to 10.67; P < 0.01) and 3.22 days (95% CI, -4.59 to 1.84; P < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that among patients undergoing laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones, primary closure of the CBD alone is superior to TTD; however, there is no significant benefit in terms of primary duct closure with various internal or external drainage techniques. Further randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited to prove these findings.

Antegrade common bile duct (CBD) stenting after laparoscopic CBD exploration

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been found to be a safe, efficient and cost-effective treatment for choledocholithiasis. Following LCBDE, the clearance may be ascertained by a cholangiogram or choledochoscopy. The common bile duct (CBD) may be closed primarily with or without a stent in situ or may be drained by means of a T-tube or a biliary enteric anastomosis.

Is the use of T-tube necessary after laparoscopic choledochotomy?

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the common bile duct (CBD) is closed with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy and removal of CBD stones. However, the insertion of a T-tube is not without complication.

AIM OF WORK

This randomized study was designed to compare the use of T-tube and primary closure of choledochotomy after laparoscopic choledochotomy to determine whether primary closure can be as safe as closure with T-tube drainage.

METHODS

Between February 2006 and June 2009, 122 consecutive patients with proven choledocholithiasis had laparoscopic choledochotomy. They were randomized into two equal groups: T-tube (n = 61) and primary closure (n = 61). Demographic data, intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, and postoperative stay were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in both groups. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics or clinical presentations between the two groups. Compared with the T-tube group, the operative time and postoperative stay were significantly shorter and the incidences of overall postoperative complications and biliary complications were statistically and significantly lower in the primary closure group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure without external drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy is feasible, safe, and cost-effective. After verification of ductal clearance, the CBD could be closed primarily without T-tube insertion.

Laparoscopic Primary Closure of Common Bile Duct Combined with Percutaneous Cholangiographic Drainage for Treating Choledocholithiasis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) combined with percutaneous transhepatic cholangiographic drainage (PTCD) and laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube placement for the treatment of CBD stones. Between January 1991 and July 2002, 50 patients with choledocholithiasis and a CBD diameter larger than or equal to 1 cm underwent laparoscopic CBD explorations. The study group consisted of 10 patients undergoing laparoscopic primary closure of the CBD combined with PTCD. The control group consisted of 40 patients undergoing laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube placement. Parameters were compared statistically. The study group showed higher female/male ratio (6/4 vs 8/32, P = 0.02), less stone numbers (1.90 ± 0.88 vs 3.40 ± 1.65, P = 0.0078), shorter operation time (138 ± 37 minutes vs 191 ± 75 minutes, P = 0.014), and shorter postoperative stays (7 ± 3 days vs 10 ± 3 days, P = 0.0013). It seems that laparoscopic primary closure of the CBD combined with PTCD can shorten the operation time and postoperative stays as compared with laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with T-tube placement for the treatment of CBD stones.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration

BACKGROUND

Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is controversial. We were unable to identify any meta-analysis or systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine primary closure versus T-tube drainage following laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without a biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from the one identified trial. We analysed the data using the fixed-effect model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial with 55 patients randomised: 27 to the primary closure and 28 to the T-tube group. This trial was of inadequate methodological quality. There was no mortality in either group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes except for the hospital stay (WMD -2.8 days, 95% CI -1.93 to -3.67), which was lower in the primary closure group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have insufficient evidence to recommend T-tube drainage over primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration or vice versa. Further randomised trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage compared with primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Open common bile duct exploration is an important operation when endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography fails or when expertise for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is not available. The optimal method for performing open common bile duct exploration is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of primary closure versus routine T-tube drainage in open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 324 patients randomised: 165 to primary closure without stent and 159 to T-tube. Three of the five trials were considered to have adequate methodological quality, but all lacked blinded outcome assessment. The primary closure group had significantly lower positive bile culture (3 trials, OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45) and wound infection (5 trials, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.56). When only trials with high methodological quality were included, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the outcomes except positive bile culture, which became non-significant when the random-effects model was used. The deaths of the three patients in the T-tube group were directly related to surgery and sepsis. Bile peritonitis was higher in the T-tube group (2.9%) than in the primary closure group (1%) (not statistically significant). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube group compared with the primary closure group in three of the four trials, which reported on the hospital stay. The only trial comparing primary closure with stent (37 patients) versus T-tube drainage (44 patients) did not reveal any statistically significant difference in any of the reported outcomes (mortality, re-operations, wound infection, and hospital stay). There was one case of stent migration, which could not be retrieved after two attempts of ERCP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure after common bile duct exploration seems at least as safe as T-tube drainage. We need randomised trials that assess whether stents may offer benefits.