Contemporary management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a survey of Spanish surgeons

Results during the learning curve in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocolithiasis

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the results obtained in terms of efficacy and safety during the learning curve of a surgical team in the technique of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with cholecystectomy (LCBDE+LC) using choledochoscopy for the treatment of patients with cholelithiasis and choledocolithiasis or common bile duct stones (CBDS) (CDL).

METHODS

Single-center prospective analysis of patients treated with LCBDE+LC during the first 4 years of implementation of the technique. A descriptive and comparative analysis was carried out between groups according to the transcystic (TCi) or transcolecocal (TCo) approach, and also evolutionary by periods. The effectiveness of the technique was evaluated using the variable success rate and safety through the analysis of the overall complication rate and the bile leak rate as the most frequent adverse effect.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients were analyzed. The most frequent approach was TCo (62%). The overall success rate was 92%. The TCi group had a shorter operating time, a lower overall complications rate and a shorter hospital stay. The TCo approach was related to a higher rate of clinically relevant bile leak (8%). Complex cases increased significantly during the learning curve without effect on the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE+LC is an effective and safe technique during the learning curve. Its results are comparable to those published by more experienced groups and do not present significant differences related to the evolution during learning period.

Minimally invasive management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To update a 2018 meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy and safety of four surgical techniques in patients with concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), LC plus preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP), LC plus intraoperative ERCP (IntraERCP), and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP) were included. Primary and secondary outcomes were compared using odds ratio, weighted mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs involved 3145 patients were included. Of these, 1188 (37.8%) underwent LC + PreERCP, 1183 (37.6%) LC + LCBDE, 689 (21.9%) LC + IntraERCP, and 85 (2.7%) LC + PostERCP. This analysis demonstrated that LC plus IntraERCP was the most likely approach to achieve technical success and reduce morbidity. No significant differences were observed between the four treatments concerning major morbidity, mortality, and operative time. LC plus LCBDE was effective for increasing biliary leak and conversion as well as decreasing postoperative hemorrhage and total costs. Additionally, LC plus PreERCP was associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis, while LC plus IntraERCP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity in operative time, hospital stay, and total costs (τ² > 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides evidence that LC plus IntraERCP appears to be the optimal strategy for patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones owing to its advantage in technical success and morbidity. LC plus LCBDE is associated with higher biliary leak and lower postoperative hemorrhage, whereas LC plus PreERCP is associated with higher postoperative pancreatitis.

Learning curve for performing laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in biliary surgery 2.0 era

BACKGROUND

Recent trials and metanalysis have demonstrated the favorable results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the LC + LCBDE learning curve including transcystic and transductal approaches and its effect on the outcomes.

METHODS

We identified all unselected patients who underwent LC + LCBDE by a single surgeon between May 2017 and July 2021. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative data were analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis to evaluate the learning curve.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were included. Total postoperative complications rate was 12.7%, including bile leakage in six (5.5%) patients. Mean length of hospital stay was 2.7 (1-14) days. No patient had conversion to open surgery. The CUSUM graph divided the learning curve into three distinct phases: (1) Learning (1-38), (2) Competence (39-61) and (3) Proficiency (62-110). There was a significant increase in the transcystic approach rate with each phase (44.7% vs 73.9% vs 98%; P < .001). A significant decrease in the operative time (150.9 vs 117.6 vs 99.9 min; P < .001) and complication rate (21.1% vs 21.7% vs 2%; P = .01) were observed across the three phases.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the learning curve for complete competence in LC + LCBDE is approximately 60 cases, provided that proper training is available. The initial learning phase can be carried out safely and efficiently with acceptable results.

Current management of concomitant cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones

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

Comparison between Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) and Clavien-Dindo Classification for laparoscopic single-stage treatment of choledocholithiasis with concomitant cholelithiasis

PURPOSE

The Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) are both widely used methods for reporting postoperative complications. Several studies have compared the CCI® with the CDC in evaluating postoperative complications of major abdominal surgery. However, there are no published reports comparing both indexes in single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with cholecystectomy (LCBDE) for the treatment of common bile duct stones. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the CCI® and the CDC in evaluating the complications of LCBDE.

METHODS

In total, 249 patients were included. Spearman's rank test was used to calculate the correlation coefficient between CCI® and CDC with length of postoperative stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and mortality rates. Student t-test and Fisher's exact test were used to study, if higher ASA, age, larger surgical time, history of previous abdominal surgery, preoperative ERCP, and intraoperative cholangitis finding were associated with higher CDC grade or higher CCI® score.

RESULTS

Mean CCI® was 5.17 ± 12.8. CCI® ranges overlap among three CDC grades: II (20.90-36.20), IIIa (26.20-34.60), and IIIb (33.70-52.10). Age > 60 years, ASA ≥ III, and intraoperative cholangitis finding were associated with higher CCI® (p = 0.010, p = 0.044, and p = 0.031) but not with CDC ≥ IIIa (p = 0.158, p = 0.209, and p = 0.062). In patients with complications, LOS presented a significantly higher correlation with CCI® than with CDC (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

In LCBDE, the CCI® assesses better the magnitude of postoperative complications in patients older than 60 years, with a high ASA as well as in those who present intraoperative cholangitis. In addition, the CCI® correlates better with LOS in patients with complications.

Safety and Feasibility of Primary Closure Following Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Treatment of Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

T-tube drainage following laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration may lead to T-tube displacement and water-electrolyte disorders, affecting patients' quality of life. In particular, biliary peritonitis may develop in a small number of patients after T-tube removal, requiring reoperation. This prospective cohort study was performed to investigate the safety and feasibility of primary closure following laparoscopic CBD exploration for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Patients who were treated for choledocholithiasis by laparoscopic CBD exploration with primary closure from January 2019 to March 2022 comprised the PC group (n = 145). Patients who were treated for choledocholithiasis by laparoscopic CBD exploration with T-tube drainage during this period comprised the TD group (n = 153). Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The TD and PC groups showed significant differences in the operation time (124.6 ± 40.8 vs. 106 ± 36.4 min, P = 0.000) and postoperative hospital stay (7.1 ± 2.6 vs. 5.9 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.000). No significant difference was observed in terms of blood loss, the ratio of conversion to laparotomy, and postoperative parameters. Preoperative albumin and total bilirubin levels were the risk factors of bile leakage after surgery. No patients developed CBD stricture or carcinogenesis, The rates of residual and recurrent stones in the TD and PC groups were 1.97% vs. 1.40% and 1.31% vs. 1.40%, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 1.000 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure following laparoscopic CBD exploration is safe and feasible for selected patients with choledocholithiasis.

Multi-institutional expert update on the use of laparoscopic bile duct exploration in the management of choledocholithiasis: Lesson learned from 3950 procedures

BACKGROUND

Recently there has been a growing interest in the laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones with gallbladder in situ (LBDE), which is favoring the expansion of this technique. Our study identified the standardization factors of LBDE and its implementation in the single-stage management of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A retrospective multi-institutional study among 17 centers with proven experience in LBDE was performed. A cross-sectional survey consisting of a semi-structured pretested questionnaire was distributed covering the main aspects on the use of LBDE in the management of choledocholithiasis.

RESULTS

A total of 3950 LBDEs were analyzed. The most frequent indication was jaundice (58.8%). LBDEs were performed after failed ERCP in 15.2%. The most common approach used was the transcystic (63.11%). The overall series failure rate of LBDE was 4% and the median rate for each center was 6% (IQR, 4.5-12.5). Median operative time ranged between 60-120 min (70.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 14.6%, with a postoperative bile leak and complications ≥3a rate of 4.5% and 2.5%, respectively. The operative time decreased with experience (P = .03) and length of hospital stay was longer in the presence of a biliary leak (P = .04). Current training of LBDE was defined as poor or very poor by 82.4%.

CONCLUSION

Based on this multicenter survey, LBDE is a safe and effective approach when performed by experienced teams. The generalization of LBDE will be based on developing training programs.

Effect of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Lithotomy Combined with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy on Pain and Prognosis of Patients with Gallstones and Extrahepatic Bile Duct Stones

Objective

The researchers aim to assess how endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography lithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy affected pain and prognosis in individuals with gallstones and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Methods

Researchers studied 100 persons with gallstones and extrahepatic bile duct stones from January 2016 to August 2021. They were split into two groups: control and observation. The control group underwent open cholecystectomy + choledocholithotomy + T-tube drainage. There were ERCP + lithotomy + Laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures conducted on the observation group of patients (LC). The operation time, incision size, and bleeding volume; stone clearance rate and stone recurrence rate; visual analogue scale (VAS); Eating time, exhaust time, out of bed activity time, and postoperative hospital stay; the two groups' difficulties were contrasted and studied.

Results

The observation group's operation duration was much longer than the control group's, and the incision size and bleeding volume were significantly reduced in the observation group. When it came to recurrence, there was a significant difference between the observation group (2.0%) and the control group (4.0%), even though stone clearance did not differ substantially (20.00%). The VAS scores 3 and 7 days after surgery were significantly different between the observation and control groups. The observation group's eating time, exhaustion, activity time, and postoperative hospital stay were much shorter than the control group's; complications occurred at a lower rate (20%) in the observation group than in the control group (34%).

Conclusion

When gallstones and extrahepatic bile-duct stones are removed using laparoscopic lithotomy and laparoscopic cystoscopy (LC), the operation indices are improved and the risk of recurrence of stones is reduced and reducing the occurrence of complications, all of which improve patient outcomes and deserve to be considered a clinical reference.

A UK survey on variation in the practice of management of choledocholithiasis and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (ALiCE Survey)

BACKGROUND

The practice of managing suspected/confirmed common bile duct stones (CBDS) can vary significantly in the UK. We aimed to assess this variability in practice and challenges to form a basis for future consensus.

METHODS

An electronic survey containing 40 questions on various aspects of management of CBDS was sent to surgeons who perform cholecystectomies via five surgical associations.

RESULTS

 A total of 132 surgeons responded to the survey. The speciality of surgeons includes upper gastro-intestinal (68%), general (18%), colorectal (12%), and others (2%). For patients with suspected CBD stones, 80% would choose magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography, and 14.4% would proceed to intra-operative imaging. Most surgeons preferred intra-operative cholangiogram over intra-operative ultrasound (83% vs 17%). For the treatment, 62.1% preferred a two-stage approach [endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)] and 33.4% chose a single-stage approach [LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)]. Eighty (60.6%) responders performed LCBDE, and 19 (23.8%) of them performed > 10 LCBDEs in a year. Two third of surgeons (62.5%) preferred a trans-choledochal approach to CBDS. Half of the surgeons that perform LCBDE use a T-tube selectively and 1.6% routinely. The "availability of very good ERCP service" and "lack of formal training" were the two main reasons for surgeons not performing LCBDE. Both surgeons' speciality and whether they perform other complex laparoscopic surgery were significantly associated with choosing a two-stage approach over a one-stage approach (χ² test, speciality p = 0.033, complex surgery p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

 Our survey confirms the significant variability in the diagnosis and management of CBDS. The two-stage approach is still the most common way of managing CBDS in the UK. The main reasons for the low uptake of the single-stage approach are the availability of good ERCP service, lack of equipment and lack of formal training in the technique of LCBDE.