Laparo-endoscopic “Rendezvous” to treat cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: Effective, safe and simplifies the endoscopist’s work

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A meta-analysis

PURPOSES

Patients with cholecysto- and choledocholithiasis usually undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/-endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, differences in the timing of LC after the ERCP may alter the post-operative outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of early (≤3 days) or delayed LC (>3 days) following ERCP on the post-operative outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the 3 databases PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was performed. Articles related to LC at different time-points after ERCP were retrieved. Dichotomous and continuous outcomes were analyzed by risk ratio (RR) and mean difference, and RevMan was used to analyze each group.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies, including 5 randomized controlled studies and 2 retrospective studies, involved a total of 711 patients. There were 332 patients in early LC group and 379 in delayed LC group. The conversion rate was lower in the early LC group compared to the delayed LC group (RR 0.38, 95% confident interval 0.19 to 0.74, P = .005, I2 = 0%). Early LC resulted in a shorter operation time (RR -6.2, 95% CI -27.2 to -5.2, P = .004, I2 = 97%) and fewer complications (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79, P = .004, I2 = 17%). Subgroup analysis found that there were no significant differences in the conversion rate (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45, P = .26, I2 = 0%) or complications between the early LC group and the delayed group who underwent LC after 1 month.

CONCLUSION

Early LC after ERCP is the preferred treatment for patients with concurrent cholecysto- and choledocholithiasis due to improved clinical outcomes as compared to those who undergo delayed LC.

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.

How to choose the most appropriate technique for the single-stage treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis?

Background

We utilized transcystic clearance and intra-operative papillotomy through a rendezvous technique for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reliability of pre-operative parameters to address the most suitable surgical procedure.

Methods

A total of 180 patients affected by calculi of the gallbladder and bile duct underwent the single-stage treatment. According to several pre-operative parameters, 141 patients had to supposedly undergo transcystic clearance of the bile duct, while 39 patients had to be treated with the rendezvous technique. All patients were treated with the sequential procedure: first, we tried the transcystic procedure and, if there was a failure, we used a rendezvous technique. We prospectively analysed each group based on a series of variables such as sex, age, operative time, success rate of proposed treatment, conversion rate, post-operative complications and hospital stay.

Results

Transcystic clearance was successful in 134 out of 141 patients (95.0%), while 2 patients needed to undergo a laparo-endoscopy procedure (failure). Thirty-five out of 39 patients (89.7%) obtained common bile-duct (CBD) clearance through the rendezvous technique, while 1 patient obtained clean-up through the simple transcystic procedure (failure). Five out of 141 patients with transcystic clearance and 3 out of 39 patients with the rendezvous technique underwent laparotomy CBD clearance with conversion rates of 3.5% and 7.7%, respectively. Post-operative complications showed similar percentages for both procedures. However, the surgical time turned out to be longer for the rendezvous technique.

Conclusions

The one-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis was possible in 94% of the cases utilizing a surgical technique selected according to the patient’s case history. The pre-operative parameters, such as jaundice, CBD diameters and stone diameters, have certified their reliability as good predictors of the most suitable procedure to follow.

Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct

BACKGROUND

The management of gallbladder stones (lithiasis) concomitant with bile duct stones is controversial. The more frequent approach is a two-stage procedure, with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal from the bile duct followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous combines the two techniques in a single-stage operation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (the single-stage rendezvous technique) versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (two stages) in people with gallbladder and common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded Web of Science, and two trials registers (February 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that enrolled people with concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones, regardless of clinical status or diagnostic work-up, and compared laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy procedures in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We excluded other endoscopic or surgical methods of intraoperative clearance of the bile duct, e.g. non-aided intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or laparoscopic choledocholithotomy (surgical incision of the common bile duct for removal of bile duct stones).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised clinical trials with 517 participants (257 underwent a laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous technique versus 260 underwent a sequential approach), which fulfilled our inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. Trial participants were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy because of suspected cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Male/female ratio was 0.7; age of men and women ranged from 21 years to 87 years. The run-in and follow-up periods of the trials ranged from 32 months to 84 months. Overall, the five trials were judged at high risk of bias. Athough all trials measured mortality, there was just one death reported in one trial, in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group (low-quality evidence). The overall morbidity (surgical morbidity plus general morbidity) may be lower with laparoscopic rendezvous (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.20; participants = 434, trials = 4; I² = 28%; low-quality evidence); the effect was a little more certain when a fixed-effect model was used (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the two approaches on the failure of primary clearance of the bile duct (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.38; participants = 517; trials = 5; I² = 58%; very low-quality evidence). The effects of either approach on clinical post-operative pancreatitis were unclear (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; participants = 517, trials = 5; I² = 24%; low-quality evidence). Hospital stay appeared to be lower in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group by about three days (95% CI 3.51 to 2.50 days shorter; 515 participants in five trials; low-quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence that suggested longer operative time with laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (MD 34.07 minutes, 95% CI 11.41 to 56.74; participants = 313; trials = 3; I² = 93%). The Trial Sequential Analyses of operating time and the length of hospital stay indicated that all the trials crossed the conventional boundaries, suggesting that the sample sizes were adequate, with a low risk of random error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on mortality and morbidity. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous procedure may lead to longer operating times, but it may reduce the length of the hospital stay when compared with preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, no firm conclusions could be drawn because the quality of evidence was low or very low. If confirmed by future trials, these data might re-design the scenario of treatment of this condition, albeit requiring greater organisational effort. Future trials should also address issues such as quality of life and cost analysis.

Single-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: a surgical procedures review

While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for simple gallbladder stones, in cases in which common bile duct stones are also present, clinical and diagnostic elements, along with intraoperative findings, define the optimal means of treatment. All available options must be accessible to the surgical team which must necessarily be multidisciplinary and include a surgeon, an endoscopist, and a radiologist in order to identify the best option for a truly personalized surgery. This review describes the different techniques and approaches used based on distinctive recommendations and factors, according to the specific cases treated and the results achieved.

Dystopic retrohepatic gallbladder and cholecysto-choledocho lithiasis: the rendez-vous and indocyanine green fluorescence

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a well-known procedure for the treatment of most gallbladder diseases. Sometimes, it could be very difficult, in the presence of aberrations regarding the cystic duct, the cystic artery, or the gallbladder itself. Fluorescence laparoscopy using indocyanine green could be very useful for all the situations of anatomy aberrations.

Efficacy of the Laparoendoscopic "Rendezvous" to Treat Cholecystocholedocholithiasis in 210 Consecutive Patients: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

The simultaneous laparoendoscopic "rendezvous" (LERV) represents an alternative to sequential or totally laparoscopic approaches for patients affected by cholecystocholedocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to analyze the results in a large series of 210 consecutive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2002 to 2016 all patients affected by cholecystocholedocholithiasis were treated with a standardized "tailored" LERV. The relevant technical features of the procedure were recorded. An analysis of feasibility, effectiveness in stone clearance, and safety was performed.

RESULTS

Among 214 patients with common bile duct stones, 210 were treated with LERV and 4 with open rendezvous approach. Intraoperative cholangiography confirmed common bile duct stones in 179 patients (85.2%) or sludge in 18 (8.5%) and in 98.9% stone clearance was obtained endoscopically. Endoscopic papilla cannulation was feasible in 161 patients (76.7%), whereas in 49 (23.3%) a transcystic guidewire was needed. The overall LERV feasibility was 96.6%. The conversion rate to open surgery was 3.3%. Minor morbidity was observed in 1.9% of cases, mortality in 0.47%, and the mean hospital stay was 4.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the high effectiveness of LERV. This approach to treat cholecystocholedocholithiasis should be preferred and therefore implemented where a strong collaboration between surgeons and endoscopists is possible.

Endoscopic versus laparoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims: Overall, 5 % to 15 % of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis have concomitant bile duct stones, and the incidence of choledocholithiasis increases with age. There is no clear consensus on the best therapeutic approach (endoscopic versus surgical). Patients and methods: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was performed to compare three treatment options for patients with choledocholithiasis at the National Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Havana, Cuba from November 2007 to November 2011. The patients were randomized in three groups. Group I: patients who underwent intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) to confirm the choledocholithiasis followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) associated with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), group II: patients who underwent preoperative ERCP followed by LC during the same hospital admission and group III: patients who underwent IOC to confirm the choledocholithiasis followed by LC associated with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Results: A total of 300 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis were included in the trial and were randomized. As a result, a total of 134 patients were diagnosed with the presence of choledocholithiasis and treated during the study period. There were no significant differences in success rates of ductal stone clearance, but retained stone, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were better in group I. Conclusions: Intraoperative ERCP/ES shows a higher rate of common bile duct stones clearance, a shorter hospital stay, and lower morbidity, but further research with a larger study population is necessary to determine the additional benefits of this procedure. The results to date suggests that in appropriate patients, single-stage treatments are the best options.

Single-session laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP: a valid option for the management of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The option for performing ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for the management of choledocholithiasis in the same operative session is often overlooked. We compared the success, safety, and cost of ERCP and LC when performed in either a single session or in separate sessions.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a U.S. tertiary care hospital. We identified patients undergoing ERCP and LC between April 2011 and August 2014 in either a single operative session (n = 33) or in 2 separate sessions within a 30-day period (n = 80). Technical success, total anesthesia duration, operative time, length of hospitalization, cost of care, and morbidity and mortality were evaluated.

RESULTS

Bile duct clearance was achieved in all patients at ERCP in the same-session cohort. The separate versus single-session groups, respectively, did not differ in terms of total procedure times (mean ± SD = 142 ± 64 vs 142 ± 58 min; t test, P =.98), anesthesia duration (251 ± 64 vs 225 ± 69 min; P =.06), or overall cost (49.3 ± 24.5 vs 42.3 ± 23.2 ×1000 USD; P =.167), but hospitalization was longer in the separate-sessions group (6.2 ± 3.3 vs 4.8 ± 2.6 days; P =.03). The rates of adverse events were similarly low (7% vs 2%, P =.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Performing single-session ERCP and LC is safe, effective, economically viable, and reduces hospital stay compared with performing ERCP and LC during separate sessions.

Laparoscopic implementation of the Altemeier procedure for recurrent rectal prolapse. Technical note

INTRODUCTION

Many surgical options exist to treat rectal prolapse with different indications, feasibility and results in urgent and complicated cases. These include perineal or abdominal approaches including rectopexy with or without resection. Perineal approaches have reduced surgical invasivity and hospital stay if compared to transabdominal approaches by open surgery or laparoscopy. Up to now there was still a clear dividing line for surgical treatment between the perineal approach, used more for complicated emergency case while the transabdominal open, or laparoscopic approach more common in elective surgery, but more complex to perform.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 37 year old female patient affected by psychiatric disease presented with an unreducible second recurrence of a complicated rectal prolapse. The patient was treated with a third Altemeier procedure but now performed under laparoscopic control. The patient recovered promptly without any complication or recurrence up to the 24 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report describing the combined laparoscopic-perineal approach for the treatment of a complicated recurrence of rectal prolapse. The technical feasibility, the rapidity, the optimal outcome and the rationale behind this option all suggest that this laparoscopic assistance certainly allows an implementation of the effectiveness, safety and results of an established effective perineal approach.

CONCLUSION

This combined approach has the advantage of maintaining the simplicity and rapidity of conventional perineal surgery, adding the advantages of abdominal control and avoiding the risks, the invasivity, and the longer duration of more complex laparoscopic procedures.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with rendezvous cannulation reduces pancreatic injury

AIM: To examine whether rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with less pancreatic damage, measured as leakage of proenzymes, than conventional ERCP.

METHODS: Patients (n = 122) with symptomatic gallstone disease, intact papilla and no ongoing inflammation, were prospectively enrolled in this case-control designed study. Eighty-one patients were subjected to laparoscopic cholecystectomy and if intraoperative cholangiography suggested common bile duct stones (CBDS), rendezvous ERCP was performed intraoperatively (n = 40). Patients with a negative cholangiogram constituted the control group (n = 41). Another 41 patients with CBDS, not subjected to surgery, underwent conventional ERCP. Pancreatic proenzymes, procarboxypeptidase B and trypsinogen-2 levels in plasma, were analysed at 0, 4, 8 and 24 h. The proenzymes were determined in-house with a double-antibody enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Pancreatic amylase was measured by an enzymatic colourimetric modular analyser with the manufacturer’s reagents. All samples were blinded at analysis.

RESULTS: Post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) occurred in 3/41 (7%) of the patients cannulated with conventional ERCP and none in the rendezvous group. Increased serum levels indicating pancreatic leakage were significantly higher in the conventional ERCP group compared with the rendezvous ERCP group regarding pancreatic amylase levels in the 4- and 8-h samples (P = 0.0015; P = 0.03), procarboxypeptidase B in the 4- and 8-h samples (P < 0.0001; P < 0.0001) and trypsinogen-2 in the 24-hour samples (P = 0.03). No differences in these markers were observed in patients treated with rendezvous cannulation technique compared with patients that underwent cholecystectomy alone (control group). Post procedural concentrations of pancreatic amylase and procarboxypeptidase B were significantly correlated with pancreatic duct cannulation and opacification.

CONCLUSION: Rendezvous ERCP reduces pancreatic enzyme leakage compared with conventional ERCP cannulation technique. Thus, laparo-endoscopic technique can be recommended with the ambition to minimise the risk for post ERCP pancreatitis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the same session: Feasibility and safety

AIM: To explore the feasibility and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) performed during the same session.

METHODS: Between July 2010 and May 2013, 156 patients with gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones were enrolled in this retrospective study. According to the sequence of endoscopic procedures and LC, patients were classified into two groups: in group 1, patients underwent endoscopic stone extraction and LC during the same session, and in group 2, patients underwent LC at least 3 d after endoscopic stone extraction. Outcomes of the endoscopic procedures and LC were compared between the two groups, respectively.

RESULTS: There were 91 patients in group 1 and 65 patients in group 2. The characteristics of the two groups were similar. The mean duration of the endoscopic procedures was 34.9 min in group 1 and 35.3 min in group 2. There were no significant differences in the success rate of the endoscopic procedures (97.8% for group 1 vs 98.5% for group 2), the total rate of endoscopic complications (4.40% for group 1 vs 4.62% for group 2) and CBD stone clearance rate (96.7% for group 1 vs 96.9% for group 2). Duration of LC was 53.6 min in group 1 and 52.8 min in group 2. There were no significant differences in the overall LC-related morbidity and postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic stone extraction and LC performed during the same session was feasible and safe in patients with gallstones and concomitant CBD stones.

A 10-year study of rendezvous intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Rendezvous intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (RV-IOERC), also called guidewire-facilitated IOERC, is one of the single-stage options available for managing common bile duct stones (CBDS) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The objective of this study is to investigate procedure-related complications in IOERC patients and stone clearance.

METHODS

All patients who underwent IOERC between January 2000 and December 2009 were identified from the local registry of Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge. Medical charts and ERC reports were studied, and descriptive statistics were obtained. Outcomes were procedure-related complications, especially post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), stone clearance, and mortality.

RESULTS

307 patients were identified. In 264 of the patients, the rendezvous cannulation technique was successful (86 %); in the remaining 43 patients, conventional cannulation technique was necessary. In total, PEP occurred in seven patients (2.28 %). One of the PEP patients was in the rendezvous cannulated group (0.37 %), whereas six patients developed PEP in the nonrendezvous group (13.95 %, p < 0.001). The primary stone clearance rate was 88.27 % (271/307). There was no mortality within 90 days in the series.

CONCLUSIONS

IOERC with RV cannulation technique for management of CBDS during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has a low PEP rate and a high stone clearance rate, making it a safe and feasible method for removing CBDS. However, the technique requires logistics to perform IOERC in the operating theater. The present data suggest that IOERC with RV cannulation is superior to conventional cannulation with respect to risk of PEP.

ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a combined (one-step) procedure: a random comparison to the standard (two-step) procedure

BACKGROUND

Current treatment of complicated calculous biliary disease typically involves a two-step procedure consisting of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Alternatively, laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) and intraoperative common bile duct exploration or ERCP at a later date may be performed. This study compared the benefits of the traditional two-step procedure to the novel one-step procedure for the management of calculous biliary disease.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 20 patients was conducted comparing one-step to two-step procedures for the management of choledocholithiasis. We define the one-step procedure to be a laparoscopic cholecystectomy with IOC to confirm the presence or absence of stones. Intraoperative ERCP with stone extraction was conducted if necessary as part of the one-step procedure.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference existed between hospital charges for one-step ($58,145.30, SD $17,963.09) and two-step ($78,895.53, SD $21,954.78) procedures (p = 0.033). Other parameters (length of stay, preoperative days) trended toward significance; however, statistical significance was not achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be a significant cost reduction with implementation of the one-step treatment of calculous biliary disease. Further research with a larger study population is necessary to determine the additional benefits of this procedure and to help augment the surgical endoscopists' armamentarium.

[The "rendez-vous" maneuver as a technical option to access the bile ducts: case series report]

The "rendez-vous" maneuver is a technical option, to have in mind, for the bile ducts access. This technique assures a "guided" canulation of the bile duct during the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We analyzed three clinical cases of patients with cholecysto-choledocolithiasis, in whose were planned Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP) and LC during the same surgical intervention. The "rendez-vous" maneuver was employed as a technical option to access the bile duct, after an initial (failed) endoscopic attempt of cannulation. An intraoperative cholangiography was performed and a guide wire was inserted through the cystic duct, allowing the endoscopic capture and the guided cannulation of the bile duct. The therapeutic objective was achieved in all patients. There was not associated morbid-mortality and all patients were satisfied with the surgical outcome. In these series of cases, the "rendez-vous" maneuver was a viable, safe and useful technical option to access the bile ducts. Futhermore, the cholecysto-choledocolithiasis was treated during the same surgical intervention. A postoperative bile duct exploration becomes unnecessary.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous reduces perioperative morbidity and risk of pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The ideal management of cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones still is controversial. Although the two-stage sequential approach remains the prevalent management, several trials have concluded that the so-called laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) technique offers some advantages, such as a reduced risk of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis. This study aimed to compare the single-stage LERV technique with the two-stage endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LERV and the two-stage sequential approach was conducted. The outcomes considered were overall complications and pancreatitis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1998 to July 2012. Odds ratios (ORs) were extracted and pooled using a fixed or random-effect model depending on I (2) used as a heterogeneity measure.

RESULTS

Four RCTs, including a total of 430 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of overall complications was lower in the LERV group (11.2 %) than in the two-stage intervention group (18.1 %) (OR, 0.56; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.99; P = 0.04; I (2) = 45 %). The findings showed that LERV was associated with less clinical pancreatitis (2.4 %) than the two-stage technique (8.4 %) (OR, 0.33; 95 % CI, 0.12-0.91; P = 0.03; I (2) = 33 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitation of a small number of studies completed, the evidence of RCTs shows that LERV is superior to two-stage treatment due to a reduction in overall complications, particularly pancreatitis.

Intraoperative ERCP: What role does it have in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

In the treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis (CBDS) detected during intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), or when the preoperative study of a patient at intermediate risk for CBDS cannot be completed due to the lack of imaging techniques required for confirmation, or if they are available and yield contradictory radiological and clinical results, patients can be treated using intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during the laparoscopic treatment or postoperative ERCP if the IOC finds CBDS. The choice of treatment depends on the level of experience and availability of each option at each hospital. Intraoperative ERCP has the advantage of being a single-stage treatment and has a significant success rate, an easy learning curve, low morbidity involving a shorter hospital stay and lower costs than the two-stage treatments (postoperative and preoperative ERCP). Intraoperative ERCP is also a good salvage treatment when preoperative ERCP fails or when total laparoscopic management also fails.

Single-stage treatment with intraoperative ERCP: management of patients with possible choledocholithiasis and gallbladder in situ in a non-tertiary Spanish hospital

BACKGROUND

The best way to reduce endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications is not to perform it if it is unnecessary. Both intraoperative and postoperative ERCP rely on use of intraoperative cholangiography as a final diagnostic test for choledocholithiasis (CLD) whenever clinical data are unable to rule out CLD. Intraoperative ERCP could become a therapeutic option when a previous preoperative ERCP fails. We present our experience with intraoperative ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a descriptive and prospective study of a cohort of 82 patients with moderate risk of CLD. They were operated on by laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC). We performed intraoperative ERCP using the rendezvous technique.

RESULTS

Thirty-six out of 82 patients had an abnormal IOC study. Mean age was 58.7 years (standard deviation, SD 16.6, 25-83 years), and 60.6% were females. Ultrasound study showed that 51.4% of patients had a dilated bile duct. Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) was performed on three patients (8.3%). The success rate of intraoperative ERCP was 88.2%. Three out of the 36 patients (8.8%) had ERCP complications [2 mild papillary bleeding (5.8%), 1 acute pancreatitis (2.9%)]. The rate of conversion to open surgery was 5% with a surgical complications rate of 4% [one injured duct and two surgical bleeding which required re-operation (2.5%)]. There were no mortalities. Four patients (11.1%) needed post-surgical ERCP, with a residual CLD rate of 5.6% (two patients) in the postoperative period. Mean surgical time was 181 min (SD 60, 75-345 min). Mean hospital stay was 6.2 days (SD 4.7, 2-24 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative ERCP is an option to prevent performing ERCP unnecessarily on patients with moderate risk of CLD not confirmed using appropriate radiological studies. It can resolve the biliary disease in a single step with a similar success rate to standard ERCP, but with low morbidity, especially of acute pancreatitis. The residual CLD rate is also very low.

The society for gastrointestinal intervention. Are we, as an organization of disparate disciplines, cooperative or competitive?

This is the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society for Gastrointestinal Intervention, a multi-disciplinary group of practitioners committed to a minimally invasive approach to both the diagnosis and treatment of digestive disorders. The key concepts are minimally invasive and multi-disciplinary which can be construed as practicing in parallel with occasional lines of procedural and clinical interaction or inter-disciplinary in which patients are acutely cared for by a team, with treatments tailored to the patient and not the discipline that touches the patient first. In reality, many of us exist in both worlds. Most universities and large clinics are structured in departments along traditional training lines. As such, Interventional Radiology is housed in the Radiology Department, Laparoscopic Surgery (and potentially NOTES), as a component of the General Surgery Division, and Therapeutic Endoscopy usually resides within a gastroenterology structural framework. These divisions have historically been kept separate by multiple forces: salaries and budgets usually reside in a larger division. As a group, the amount of practice devoted to GI disorders is variable (for instance, minimally invasive surgeons may approach the adrenal glands or lung lesions in some institutions and interventional radiologists often sample tissue in multiple areas outside the GI tract, and by virtue of access to the vascular tree, can stent, embolize, or TPA almost any area of the body), as well as inherent differences in our individual abilities to access organs. I have already mentioned that angiographic capabilities allow the interventional radiologist access to virtually every GI organ and those capabilities allow therapeutic options for bleeding, tumor embolization, stenting of stenotic lesions, and formation of intravascular shunts. As such, there is very limited interdisciplinary competition here although capsule endoscopy as well as double and single balloon enteroscopy have improved the endoscopist's diagnostic and potential therapeutic reach. However, many of these diagnostic triumphs for obscure or massive GI bleed are simply to tattoo lesions that require surgical removal by laparoscopic or traditional surgery. Cooperation. However, there are potential competitive areas in the treatment of GI vascular lesions also. Whereas endoscopic band ligation has supplanted EVS, splenic devascularization, and most shunting procedures for patients with esophageal varices, endoscopic techniques have had less long-term success with glue injection for gastric varices. Multiple randomized, prospective trials have suggested therapeutic primacy of TIPS with embolization of recalcitrant vessels as an option or back-up. Despite this, therapeutic endoscopists have learned valuable lesions from our IR colleagues and studies are underway using endoscopically injected coils in addition to cyanoacrylate in an attempt to improve acute and long-term bleeding control. Nor is there any major competition in the treatment of primary or metastatic liver tumors by chemoembolization, RF current, or other thermal modalities, although selected patients with single lesions or multiple lesions isolated to a single lobe may be better handled surgically if there is curative intent. Finally, there is little IR, and progressively less, surgical competition for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia or superficial malignancies in the setting of Barrett's esophagus which are adequately treated in most patients by mucosectomy, RF ablation, or cryotherapy but require direct mucosal visualization to direct this therapy. The same has proven true for many years for colorectal polyps, superficial gastric cancers, and ampullary adenomas that had historically all been treated with major surgical resections. Still, there are many patients with advanced lesions who are good operative candidates who should be approached with conventional or minimally invasive surgery with the intent of operative cure. Cooperative, not competitive. The potential for competition between disciplines comes in mundane situations and clinical settings that have historically been "owned" by a single discipline. On the one hand, placement of PEGS and PEJs, initially done endoscopically, can be done with equal facility and occasional failure, by endoscopists and interventional radiologists, reserving failed attempts for minimally invasive surgery. What resources are utilized with these three methods? Are there advantages to defining the mucosa of the gut lumen in all, or even a subset of patients? By way of contrast, acute cholecystectomy tubes in high surgical risk patients have usually been the domain of the radiologist, although I described transcystic duct gallbladder decompression endoscopically 2½ decades ago. With the advent of new devices delivered under EUS control, the gallbladder will now be readily accessible endoscopically. What does this mean both for the acutely ill patient without a window to approach their gallbladder radiologically? Will this play a bit part and a cooperative technique to expand our therapeutic armamentarium or will it become competitive therapeutically not only for IR but for minimally invasive surgeons? The same may be said for EUS's ability to inject genes, caustics, or chemo-therapeutic agents into organs adjacent to the lumen. What is the role of TNFerade injection into unresectable pancreatic cancers and the role of absolute alcohol or Taxitol to treat cystic neoplasms of the pancreas? The real issue of competition or cooperation between the disciplines comes when treating patients with unresectable and obstructing GI neoplasms, from my perspective. The latter may occur almost anywhere in the GI tract but, of course, are more commonly noted proximally (esophagus, stomach, duodenum) and distally (left colon) as well as proximal and distal biliary obstructions. Recognizing that the occasional mid-small bowel and many proximal colon lesions are better handled with an endoscopic approach because of loss of vector force and difficulty pushing a catheter through large diameter, acutely angulated lumens, all others are fair game from my perspective. To my knowledge, although there are studies demonstrating the superiority of SEMS over open or laparoscopic bypass for malignant gastric outlet obstruction insofar as return of gut function, hospitalization time, and resource utilization, there are no studies demonstrating the superiority of one discipline or another in the placement of SEMS. Nor have cost data emerged suggesting the superiority of one technique over another from a cost standpoint. Unless or until we have such studies, this suggests to me that institutional interest and expertise should play a major role in how these unfortunate patients have continuity of their GI tract re-established. The situation is a bit more complex in pancreaticobiliary malignancy. There are 2 prospective randomized trials (level 1 evidence) that suggest that patients with proximal strictures (Bismuth II-IV) in conjunction with bile duct and gallbladder cancer, respectively, may be more successfully stented percutaneously and certainly it is easier to deliver brachytherapy or PDT under protocol to these patients who have indwelling external drains. In contrast, there are no data, positive or negative, to suggest that PTBD is a preferable treatment for distal biliary malignant obstruction, and in most parts of the world, the endoscopic approach has supplanted the percutaneous one just as metal stents have replaced plastic prostheses to preclude recurrent bouts of stent dysfunction and need for additional ERCP. The question posed at the beginning of this syllabus contribution: Are we competitive or cooperative? The answer is obviously both but, hopefully, our choice of treatment should depend less on who touches the patient first and more on skill sets within an institution and what is the best treatment for this particular individual. The importance of the SGI is technical and informational cross-fertilization. If your university or clinic will not allow blurring of training barriers to put therapeutic endoscopists, minimally invasive surgeons, and interventional radiologists together as a department or institute, you can nevertheless work together as a team in the best interest of your patients.

Comparison between endoscopy and surgical treatment for common bile duct stone

AIM: To evaluate and compare therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in combination with LC, and routine surgery in the treatment of common bile duct stone.

METHODS: Clinical data about 500 patients with common bile duct stone from Jan. 2005 to Dec. 2007 were retrospectively analyzed, among which 302 cases underwent endoscopy and 198 surgery. The data regarding complication incidence and hospital stay, etc. between EST group and operative group were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS: Rate of success in EST group reached 86.09%, and the total early complication rate after EST was 9.27%. There were no late complications after EST. The average hospital stay in EST group was 4 d. In operative group, there were more organ injuries, including biliary tract stricture, cholangitis, and liver function damage. Early complication rate in operative group was 10.1% and late complication rate was 6.1%. There were significant differences among variable complications(P < 0.05). The average hospital stay in operative group was 14 d.

CONCLUSION: EST for common bile duct stone patients is of more benefit than routine surgery in aspects of hospital stay, admission fee and complications.