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

Changes in the Management of Common Bile Duct Stones: 1980 to Date

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of treating patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), surgical exploration, or a combination of ES and surgical CBD exploration (the rendezvous technique).

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature.

SUMMARY OF DATA

Before 1990, 17 cohort studies indicated that ES cleared CBD stones in 92.0% of patients, with a mortality rate of 1.5%. Surgery removed CBD stones in 90.2% of patients, with a 2.1% mortality rate. A single randomized controlled trial in 1987 showed that ES removed CBD stones in 91% of 55 patients, with a 3.6% mortality rate and a 27% complication rate, whereas surgical CBD exploration removed CBD stones in 92%, with a 1.8% mortality rate and a 22% complication rate. Since 1991, 26 randomized controlled trials have shown that laparoscopic-ES rendezvous is as effective as ES alone and laparoscopic surgery alone but is associated with fewer complications, a reduced need for additional procedures, and a shorter hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic-ES rendezvous appears to be the optimal approach to the treatment of CBD stones in younger and fit patients. The choice between ES alone and laparoscopic-ES rendezvous in older or high-risk patients remains uncertain.

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.

Comparison of one-step laparoscopy and two-step endolaparoscopy in the treatment of secondary choledocholithiasis: A multicenter retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

There are two minimally invasive ways of treating cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis, but there remains some controversy regarding which technique is better, since they both have advantages and disadvantages. The one-step method involves laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, and primary close (LC + LCBDE + PC), while the two-step procedure consists of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic sphincterotomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + EST + LC).

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter retrospective study aimed to analyze and compare the effects of the two techniques.

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent either one-step LCBDE + LC + PC or two-step ERCP + EST + LC treatment for gallstones in the gallbladder and bile duct at the Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Shanghai Tongren Hospital, and Taizhou Fourth People's Hospital between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 were collected, and the preoperative indicators of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The surgical success rate of the one-step laparoscopic group was 96.23% (664/690), the transit abdominal opening rate was 2.03% (14/690), and there were 21 cases of postoperative bile leakage. The success rate of the two-step endolaparoscopic surgery was 78.95% (225/285), the transit opening rate was 2.46% (7/285), and there were 43 postoperative cases of pancreatitis and five of cholangitis. Postoperative cholangitis, pancreatitis, postoperative stone recurrence, postoperative hospitalization, and treatment costs were significantly lower (P< 0.05) in the one-step laparoscopic group than in the two-step endolaparoscopic group. However, the amount of intraoperative bleeding, the postoperative extraction time of the abdominal drainage tube, and the incidence of bile leakage were higher (P< 0.05) in the one-step laparoscopic group than in the two-step endolaparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

The two methods of treating choledocholithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis that were analyzed in this study were safe and effective, and each method had its own advantages.

Clinical observation of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or common bile duct lithotripsy

BACKGROUND

The incidence of common bile duct (CBD) stones accounts for approximately 10%–15% of all CBD diseases. Approximately 8%–20% of these patients also have gallstones with heterogenous signs and symptoms.

AIM

To investigate the clinical effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and LC with CBD excision and stone extraction in one-stage suture (LBEPS) for the treatment of gallbladder and CBD stones.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients with gallbladder and CBD stones were selected from our hospital from January 2018 to June 2021. They were randomly divided into study and control groups with 47 patients each. The study group underwent LC with ERCP, and the control group underwent LC with LBEPS. Surgery, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, complication rates, liver function indexes, and stress response indexes were measured pre- and postoperatively in both the groups.

RESULTS

The durations of treatment and hospital stay were shorter in the study group than in the control group. There was no significant difference between the one-time stone removal rate between the study and control groups. The time to anal evacuation, resumption of oral feeding, time to bowel sound recovery, and time to defecation were shorter in the study group than in the control group. The preoperative serum direct bilirubin (DBIL), total bilirubin (TBIL), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were insignificantly higher in the study group than that in the control group. A day after surgery, the postoperative serum DBIL, TBIL, and ALT levels were lower than their preoperative levels in both groups, and of the two groups, the levels were lower in the study group. Although the preoperative serum adrenocorticotrophic (ACTH), cortisol (COR), epinephrine (A), and norepinephrine (NE) levels were higher in the study group than that in the control group, these differences were not significant (P > 0.05). The serum ACTH, COR, A, and NE levels in both groups decreased one day after surgery compared to the preoperative levels, but the inter-group difference was statistically insignificant. Similarly, (91.79 ± 10.44) ng/mL, A, and NE levels were lower in the study group than in the control group. The incidence of complications was lower in the study group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

LC combined with ERCP induces only a mild stress response; this procedure can decrease the risk of complications, improve liver function, and achieve and promote a faster recovery of gastrointestinal functions.

Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients with Gallbladder Stones with Chronic Cholecystitis

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with gallbladder stones and chronic cholecystitis.

Methods

From July 2018 to January 2020, 90 patients with gallbladder stones and chronic cholecystitis assessed for eligibility were recruited and concurrently assigned (1 : 1) to receive either small-incision cholecystectomy (observation group) or laparoscopic cholecystectomy (experimental group). Outcome measures included operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative hospital stay, c-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), gastrin (GAS), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), motilin (MOT), and adverse events.

Results

Patients given laparoscopic cholecystectomy showed lower levels of operation-related indices versus those receiving small-incision cholecystectomy (P < 0.05). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in lower postoperative levels of CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α in the patients versus small-incision cholecystectomy (P < 0.05). Patients receiving laparoscopic cholecystectomy showed better GAS, VIP, and MOT levels than those receiving small-incision cholecystectomy (P < 0.05). The eligible patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events versus those after small-incision cholecystectomy (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy effectively shortens the operative time and length of hospital stay in patients with gallbladder stones and chronic cholecystitis, reduces intraoperative bleeding, attenuates the inflammatory response, and enhances the gastrointestinal function, with less surgical trauma and high safety. Clinical trials are, however, required prior to promotion.

[Evidence-based medicine of gallstone disease regarding development of national clinical guidelines]

OBJECTIVE

To study the Cochrane evidence base of systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding development of national guidelines for surgical treatment of gallstone disease and its complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed the original database involving 35 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Cochrane Library devoted to gallstone disease and its complications. Methodology of electronic and manual searching of trials was used for identification and screening of information for the period until October 2021.

RESULTS

There were 430 randomized controlled trials from different countries estimated in 35 systematic reviews of Cochrane Library. At the same time, Russian-language researches are not included in the world's evidence database of biliary tract surgery. Expert groups couldn't perform meta-analysis and limited to systematic-review in 6 (17%) publications because of insufficient statistical power or primary researches. Need for further research of this issue was determined after assessment of 26 (74%) meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

We have to convey foreign experience as subbase of national clinical guidelines taking into account deficiency of scientific trials with high level of evidence in our country. Need for further evidence trials, considering the peculiarities of surgical care in the Russian Federation, is determined by unsolved issues of treatment of gallstone disease and its complications.

Effect of comfort nursing on postoperative quality of life, negative emotions and nursing satisfaction in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the impacts of comfort nursing on postoperative quality of life, negative emotions and nursing satisfaction of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University from September 2018 to November 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, 37 patients with routine nursing were assigned to the control group, while 47 patients receiving comfort nursing were assigned to the research group. The postoperative rehabilitation indexes, complication rate, pain degree at 12 h after surgery, postoperative quality of life, negative emotions and nursing satisfaction were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After nursing, compared with the control group, the research group experienced notably earlier first time of food intake, first defecation time, first time for ambulation, first anal exhaust time, and recovery time of gurgling sound, shorter length of stay, considerably lower incidence of postoperative complications and Visual Analogue Scale score at 12 h after surgery, and evidently higher scores of quality of life and nursing satisfaction. Moreover, Self-rating Depression Scale and Self-rating Anxiety Scale scores of the research group were significantly lower than those of the control group.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, comfort nursing can relieve their negative emotions, improve their quality of life and nursing satisfaction, reduce postoperative pain, and thus promote postoperative rehabilitation. Hence, it is worthy of clinical promotion.

Endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drainage in hilar cholangiocarcinoma: When and how?

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (hCCA) is a primary liver tumor associated with a dim prognosis. The role of preoperative and palliative biliary drainage has long been debated. The most common techniques are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD); however, recently developed endoscopic ultrasound-assisted methods are gaining more atention. Selecting the best available method in any specific scenario is crucial, yet sometimes challenging. Thus, this review aimed to discuss the available techniques, indications, perks, pitfalls, and timing-related issues in the management of hCCA. In a preoperative setting, PTBD appears to have some advantages: low risk of postprocedural complications (namely cholangitis) and better priming for surgery. For palliative purposes, we propose ERCP/PTBD depending on the experience of the operators, but also on other factors: the level of bilirubin (if very high, rather PTBD), length of the stenosis and the presence of cholangitis (PTBD), ERCP failure, or altered biliary anatomy.

Endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drainage in hilar cholangiocarcinoma: When and how?

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (hCCA) is a primary liver tumor associated with a dim prognosis. The role of preoperative and palliative biliary drainage has long been debated. The most common techniques are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD); however, recently developed endoscopic ultrasound-assisted methods are gaining more atention. Selecting the best available method in any specific scenario is crucial, yet sometimes challenging. Thus, this review aimed to discuss the available techniques, indications, perks, pitfalls, and timing-related issues in the management of hCCA. In a preoperative setting, PTBD appears to have some advantages: low risk of postprocedural complications (namely cholangitis) and better priming for surgery. For palliative purposes, we propose ERCP/PTBD depending on the experience of the operators, but also on other factors: the level of bilirubin (if very high, rather PTBD), length of the stenosis and the presence of cholangitis (PTBD), ERCP failure, or altered biliary anatomy.

Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years' experience of a single institution

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment of choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis remains controversial. Common surgical methods vary among endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), laparoscopic transductal common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with or without T-tube drainage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical methods and to determine the appropriate procedure for patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

From January 2013 to January 2019, a total of 1555 consecutive patients diagnosed with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis who underwent surgical treatment in Tongji Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Total 521 patients with intrahepatic bile duct stones underwent LC + LCBDE + T-Tube were excluded from the analysis. At last, 1034 patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into three groups according to their surgical methods: preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC (ERCP + LC group, n = 275), LC + LCBDE + intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) + primary duct closure (Tri-scope group, n = 479) and LC + laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration (LTCBDE group, n = 280). Clinical records, operative findings and postoperative follow-up were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in three groups. Common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate was 97.5% in ERCP + LC group, 98.7% in Tri-scope group, and 99.3% in LTCBDE group. There were no difference in terms of demographic characteristics, biochemistry findings and presentations, but the Tri-scope group had the biggest diameter and amount of stones and diameter of CBD, the LTCBDE group had the least CBD stones and the biggest diameter of cystic gall duct (CGD). ERCP + LC group have the longest hospital stay (14.16 ± 3.88 days vs 6.92 ± 1.71 days vs 10.74 ± 5.30 days, P < 0.05), also has the longest operative time than others (126.08 ± 42.79 min vs 92.31 ± 10.26 min, 99.09 ± 8.46 min, P < 0.05). Compared to ERCP + LC group, LTCBDE group and Tri-scope group had lower postoperation-leukocyte, shorter surgery duration and hospital stay (P < 0.05). Compared to the Tri-scope group, the LTCBDE group had the shorter hospital stay, extubation time and operation time and less intraoperative bleeding. There were less postoperative complications in LTCBDE group (1.1%) compared to the ERCP + LC group (3.6%) and Tri-scope group (2.2%). Follow-up time was 6 to 72 months. Four patients in ERCP + LC group and 5 in Tri-scope group reported recurrent stones.

CONCLUSION

All the three surgical methods are safe and effective. Tri-scope approach and LTCBDE approach have superiority to preoperative ERCP + LC. LC + LTCBDE shows priority over Tri-scope approach, but should be performed in selected patients. LC + LCBDE + T-Tube can be an alternative management if the other three procedures were failed. The surgeons should choose the most appropriate surgical procedure according to the preoperative examination results and intraoperative situation.

Comparison of Endoscopy First and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy First Strategies for Patients With Gallstone Disease and Intermediate Risk of Choledocholithiasis: Protocol for a Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

The optimal approach for patients with gallbladder stones and intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis remains undetermined. The use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for diagnosis should be minimized as it carries considerable risk of postprocedural complications, and nowadays, less invasive and safer techniques are available.

Objective

This study compares the two management strategies of endoscopic ultrasound before laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiography for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis and intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis.

Methods

This is a randomized, active-controlled, single-center clinical trial enrolling adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallbladder stones with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis. The risk of choledocholithiasis is calculated using an original prognostic score (the Vilnius University Hospital Index). This index in a retrospective evaluation showed better prognostic performance than the score proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in 2010. A total of 106 participants will be included and randomized into two groups. Evaluation of bile ducts using endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography on demand will be performed before laparoscopic cholecystectomy for one arm (“endoscopy first”). Intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography on demand will be performed in another arm (“cholecystectomy first”). Postoperative follow-up is 6 months. The primary endpoint is the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints are accuracy of the different management strategies, adverse events of the interventions, duct clearance and technical success of the interventions (intraoperative cholangiography, endoscopic ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography), and cost of treatment.

Results

The trial protocol was approved by the Vilnius Regional Biomedical Research Ethics Committee in December 2017. Enrollment of patients was started in January 2018. As of June 2020, 66 patients have been enrolled.

Conclusions

This trial is planned to determine the superior strategy for patients with intermediate risk of common bile duct stones and to define a simple and safe algorithm for managing choledocholithiasis.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658863; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03658863.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/18837

Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, the optimal technique for extracting common bile duct stones remains unclear. Recent studies have noted improved outcomes with single-stage techniques, such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); however only few studies have directly compared those two single-stage techniques.

OBJECTIVES

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we retrospectively analyzed the postoperative outcomes of all patients who underwent single-stage LC for choledocholithiasis from 2005 to 2017. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, we stratified patients into two cohorts: those who underwent iERCP and LCBDE. Applying univariate techniques, we evaluated baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes for both cohorts. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality; our secondary outcomes included rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 1814 single-stage LC patients during our 13-year study period, 1185 (65.3%) underwent LCBDE; 629 (34.6%) underwent iERCP. Our univariate analysis showed that the two cohorts were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics, including demographics, preoperative comorbidities, laboratory values, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. 30-day postoperative morbidity (including infectious and noninfectious complications) and overall mortality between groups were low and comparable. The mean operative time was slightly longer with LCBDE (125.1 ± 62.0 min) than iERCP (113.5 ± 65.2 min; P < 0.001), however the mean hospital length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate were similar.

CONCLUSION

We found that both iERCP and LCBDE resulted in low, comparable rates of morbidity and mortality. Centers with readily available endoscopic expertise might favor iERCP for its ease of access and shorter operative time. However, LCBDE remains an appropriate technique for patients with choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention is unavailable.

Holmium laser lithotripsy improves the rate of successful transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Purpose

Transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) seems safer than transductal LCBDE and is associated with fewer biliary complications. It has traditionally been limited to smaller bile duct stones however. This study aimed to assess the ability of laser-assisted bile duct exploration by laparoendoscopy (LABEL) to increase the rate of successful transcystic LCBDE in patients with bile duct stones at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Patients undergoing LCBDE between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Baseline demographic and medical characteristics were recorded, as well as intra-operative findings and post-procedure outcomes. Standard LCBDE via the transcystic route was initially attempted in all patients, and LABEL was only utilised if there was failure to achieve transcystic duct clearance. The transductal route was utilised for failed transcystic extraction.

Results

One hundred and seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent LCBDE; 119 (66.5%) underwent unaided transcystic extraction, 29 (16.2%) required LABEL to achieve transcystic extraction and 31 (17.3%) failed transcystic extraction (despite the use of LABEL in 7 of these cases) and hence required conversion to transductal LCBDE. As such, LABEL could be considered to increase the rate of successful transcystic extraction from 66.5% (119/179) to 82.7% (148/179). Patients requiring LABEL were however more likely to experience major complications (CD III–IV 5.6% vs 0.7%, p = 0.042) although none were specifically attributable to the laser intra-operatively.

Conclusions

LABEL is an effective adjunct to LCBDE that improves the rate of successful transcystic extraction.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: a retrospectively cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:2483-2489. [PMID: 31428853 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07051-y]

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of strategies for the treatment of patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis (CCL). Although the surgical approach of choice is preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), controversy remains regarding which procedure is optimal for CCL.

METHODS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) versus ERCP + LC for CCL, a total of 528 patients with CCL were retrospectively studied from January 2013 to December 2018. The patients were scheduled to undergo either the LERV or ERCP + LC procedure. The LERV group included 123 cases, whereas the ERCP + LC group contained 137 cases. The incidence of postoperative complications, success of stone clearance, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization charges were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The incidence of pancreatitis was lower in the LERV group than in the ERCP + LC group (3/123 vs. 12/137, P = 0.0291). The median level of post-ERCP amylase was much lower in the LERV group (202.5 U/dL vs. 328.1 U/dL, P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in the stone clearance rate or other early complications between the two groups. Further study showed that the length of hospital stay and cost in the LERV group were less than those in the ERCP + LC group (12 days vs. 18 days, P < 0.01; 53591.4¥ vs. 60089.2¥, P < 0.01). In addition, more patients in the two-stage procedure group experienced later biliary complications compared with those in the one-stage approach group (34/137 vs. 4/123, P < 0.05). However, the median operation time was 107.7 min in the two-stage group and 139.8 min in the one-stage group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The LERV technique is a safe and effective approach for CCL with lower pancreatitis; it was associated with few later biliary complications, shortened hospital stays, and fewer charges but significantly longer operative time.

Clinical analysis of treatment strategies to cholecystocholedocholithiasis patients with previous subtotal or total gastrectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Previous gastrectomy can lead to an increased incidence of cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL) and increased morbidity rate. However, the appropriate treatment strategy for patients with CCL and a history of gastrectomy remains unclear.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with CCL and a history of gastrectomy who underwent either one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration with stone clearance and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) or two-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography followed by LC (ERCP+LC) from May 2010 to March 2018.

Results

The success rate of ERCP for CBD stone clearance was 81.2% in patients with a history of Billroth I gastrectomy and 23.7% in patients with a history of Billroth II or Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy [χ² = 97.67, P < 0.001, risk ratio (RR) = 3.43]. The success rate of second-step LC after successful ERCP for removal of CBD stones and the success rate of LCBDE+LC after ERCP treatment failure were 96.8 and 87.7%, respectively, in patients with preoperative intra-abdominal adhesion evaluation scores of ≤3 points. These success rates were 28.6 and 27.6%, respectively, in patients with scores of > 3 points (χ² = 59.70, P < 0.001, RR = 3.38 and χ² = 53.41, P < 0.001, RR = 3.27, respectively).

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, ERCP+LC seems to be an attractive strategy for treatment of CCL in patients with a history of Billroth I gastrectomy, and LCBDE+LC appears to be suitable for patients with a history of Billroth II or Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy. Preoperative evaluation of intra-abdominal adhesions helps to reduce the conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery.

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.