Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct through a choledochotomy: Report of three cases

This article reports three cases of totally intraabdominal laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct via a choledochotomy with extraction of stones. The patients had failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) stone extraction because of the size of the stones in two instances, and in the third, because of the presence of a duodenal diverticulum. This procedure is a promising solution to the problem of large common bile duct (CBD) stones in centers which have established laparoscopic cholecystectomy expertise.     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones

We reviewed our experience with the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones in 100 consecutive patients treated laparoscopicaly during the past 9 years (1990—1998) and evaluated the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of the treatment, to elucidate reasonable therapeutic strategies for patients harboring CBD stones. We conclude that the most rational management of CBD stones is that which is decided according to the size of the CBD, which, in turn, depends on the size, number, and location of stones. The cystic duct in patients with a non‐dilated CBD is narrow, because the size of the CBD depends on the size and number of stones that have migrated through the narrow cystic duct, and the stones in the non‐dilated CBD are therefore usually small in size and number. Patients with a dilated CBD, however, are good candidates to undergo single‐stage laparoscopic treatment. In our Department, therefore, even if complete removal of stones has failed in patients with non‐dilated CBD, further choledochotomy is not carried out, and a C‐tube is placed through the cystic duct for a subsequent postoperative transduodenal approach, because laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration and choledochotomy may not be always feasible in those patients with non‐dilated CBD, and spontaneous migration of small stones into the duodenum is frequently noted. In fact, some stones demonstrated on intraoperative cholangiograms were not revealed by postoperative cholangiography. In contrast, retained stones detected postoperatively were successfully removed by postoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), the endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation technique (EPBDT), or postoperative cholangioscopy (POCS) without any injury to the sphinter of Oddi. With this approach, we believe that the causes of stone recurrence can be avoided in the majority of cases.     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: Study of 13 cases

In recent years, laparoscopic surgery for common bile duct (CBD) stones has been gaining wider acceptance. We report our experience with the laparoscopic management of CBD stones in 16 patients (9 males and 7 females; mean age, 62 years; range, 27–81 years). We considered two options for the laparoscopic procedures: (1) transcystic CBD exploration for those patients with fewer than 3 CBD stones, 5 mm or less in diameter, in whom the diameter of the cystic duct exceeded that of the CBD stones and (2) choledochotomy with T-tube drainage for other patients, unless a preoperative percutaneous transhepatic cholangio-drainage (PTCD) tube had been inserted. We successfully removed CBD stones by laparoscopic management in 13 of the 16 patients. The procedures employed were laparoscopic choledocholithotomy in 10 patients and laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration and stone extraction in 3 patients. We converted to open choledochotomy in 3 patients, because of severe inflammation and dense adhesions due to acute cholecystitis in 2 patients and because of wide adhesions due to previous surgery in 1. We conclude that laparoscopic procedure is a safe and effective method for the removal of CBD stones.     

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Abstract: With the widespread use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the role of pre- and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and / or endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) has become very important. Indications for ERCP with possible ES before LC include clinical suspicion of a common bile duct (CBD) stone alone, evidence of jaundice, recent cholangitis or pancreatitis that is probably due to a duct stone or dilated CBD. Local endoscopic and surgical expertise are important factors in deciding the approach to the pre-LC patients. The success rate of ductal clearance of stones by ES approaches 90 to 95% in expert hands. ERCP is very effective in the management of post-LC patients with symptoms, as well as in diagnosing and treating complications such as retained stones, ductal leaks and strictures.     

Efficacy of intraductal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of non-opaque choledocholith

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS) in the diagnosis of non-opaque, common bile duct stones.METHODS: A total of 183 patients (102 males, mean age 73 years; 81 females, mean age 70 years) with suspected common bile duct stones diagnosed through abdominal computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and abdominal Type-B ultrasound were included in the study. The diagnosis was confirmed through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by IDUS.RESULTS: A total of 183 patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones were included in the study as follows: 36 patients with high-density CBD stones, 68 patients with sand-like stones, 44 patients with low-density stones, 21 patients with ampullary cancer, and 14 patients with pancreatic cancer. Conventional imaging revealed 124 cases of choledochectasia, and only 36 cases of suspected CBD stones; ERCP revealed 145 cases of CBD stones with three missed diagnoses. IDUS revealed 148 cases of CBD stones, 21 cases of ampullary tumors, and 14 cases of pancreatic cancer.CONCLUSION: IDUS was more effective in the diagnosis of bile duct stones than ERCP, upper abdominal CT or upper abdominal MRI.     

Common bile duct stones: management strategies in the laparoscopic era

We reviewed our experience with the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones in 70 patients by sequential endoscopic-laparoscopic management and single-stage laparoscopic treatment during the past 7 years. The advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of the two procedures are discussed to elucidate therapeutic strategies for patients harboring gallbladder stones and associated choledocholithiasis. In 44 patients, sequential endoscopic-laparoscopic management was indicatedd, and was successful in 37 of them but, in seven patients endoscopic stone extraction could not be accomplished. Single-stage laparoscopic treatment was attempted in 26 patients. In practice, laparoscopic transcystic common duct exploration or choledochotomy may not always be feasible if the cystic duct or CBD are not dilated; there is a high risk of intraoperative CBD injury in such circumstances. Laparoscopic management was considered to be especially useful for the treatment of numerous, large or difficult stones, because stone removal could be succesfully performed without any injury to the papilla of Vater. This last issue is of particular importance in patients with dilated CBD, because insufficient opening of the ampulla of Vater made by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may lead to stasis and reflux-related complications such as cholangitis and recurrent stones. We conclude that the most rational management of CBD stones should be decided according to the size of the CBD, which depends on the size, number, and location of stones. Patients with dilated CBD are indicated to under-go laparoscopic single-stage treatment and combined endoscopic-laparoscopic treatment may be best for patients with non-dilated CBD.     

一步法和分步法治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者疗效及并发症分析

目的 探讨一步法与分步法手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者的疗效。方法 2016年1月～2019年6月我院诊治的胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者152例,其中87例接受一步法手术,即行腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)和胆总管探查取石(LCBDE)术,65例接受分步法手术,即行内镜逆行胰胆管造影/乳头括约肌切开(ERCP/EST)和LC术,比较两组疗效。结果 一步法组总手术时间为(156.3±42.6)min,术后置管率为98.9%,显著长于或高于分步法组【(124.4±31.4)min和15.4%,P<0.05】,而住院日为(14.4±3.9)d,住院费用为(27.9±7.0)千元,均显著短于或低于分步法组【(18.7±4.2)d和(31.24±5.8)千元,P<0.05】;一步法组手术成功率为95.4%、结石清除率为93.1%,分步法组分别为100.0%和96.9%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);一步法组术后反流性胆管炎发生率0.0%,显著低于分步法组的7.7%(P<0.05),但两组并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(19.5%对 32.3%,P>0.05)。结论 一步法和分步法手术均可应用于治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者,但在合适的患者采取一步法手术可能更迅速地解除病痛,疗效好。     

Success rate and complications of endoscopic extraction of common bile duct stones over 2 cm in diameter

BACKGROUND:Clinically,common bile duct (CBD) stones >2 cm are difficult to remove by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).To evaluate this observation,the rates of successful clearance of CBD stones and complications were compared between ERCP extraction of CBD stones of >2 cm and <2 cm in diameter.METHODS:All patients who had undergone endoscopic extraction of CBD stones at the Endoscopy Center of Shanghai First People's Hospital from May 2004 to May 2008 were reviewed.Patients with CBD st...     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: transcystic approach and choledochotomy

The purpose of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration by the transcystic approach and choledochotomy. We selected the transcystic approach for patients whose CBD stones were less than five in number and smaller than 9mm in diameter, and whose CBD was less than 15mm in diameter on cholangiograms. Among 217 patients with CBD stones treated laparoscopically, the transcystic approach was performed successfully in 91 of 104 patients in whom it was attempted (87.5%). The other 126 patients underwent laparoscopic choledochotomy, followed by ductal closure with transcystic drainage in 59, T‐tube drainage in 46, primary ductal closure in 19, and choledochoduodenostomy in 1. Choledochotomy was converted to open surgery in only 1 patient. The transcystic approach was associated with shorter hospital stay and less morbidity than choledochotomy. However, choledochotomy also had an acceptably low rate of complications. Bile leaks occurred more frequently in those with primary ductal closure than in those with transcystic drainage or T‐tube drainage. Residual stones were found in 2 patients with the transcystic approach and in 10 with choledochotomy. The residual stones were removed through the T‐tube tract by choledochoscopy in 7 of these 10 patients. From these results we conclude that laparoscopic management of CBD stones is feasible for almost all patients with CBD stones. It is considered to be safe and effective and has the advantage of being a single‐stage procedure.     

三种外科疗法治疗老年胆囊结石并发肝外胆管结石病人的疗效比较

目的 探讨3种外科疗法治疗老年胆囊结石并发肝外胆管结石病人的疗效与并发症.方法 选取我院2016年7月至2019年6月收治的178例胆囊结石并发肝外胆管结石的老年病人作为研究对象,其中63例采用腹腔镜胆囊切除术联合腹腔镜胆总管探查术(LC+LCBDE),61例采用内镜逆行胰胆管造影联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(ERCP+LC)...     

Spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones in jaundiced patients

BACKGROUND:Common bile duct(CBD)stones are known to pass spontaneously in a significant number of patients. This study investigated the rate of spontaneous CBD stones passage in a series of patients presenting with jaundice due to gallstones.The patients were managed surgically,allowing CBD intervention to be avoided in the event of spontaneous passage of CBD stones. METHOD:Retrospective analysis of patients presenting with jaundice due to CBD stones,and managed surgically with laparoscopic cholecystectomy ...     

Single-session minimally invasive management of common bile duct stones

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

Management of common bile duct stones: controversies and future perspectives

BACKGROUND: The advent of endoscopic and minimally invasive techniques for diagnosis and treatment has revolutionised the management of bile duct stones. Yet several controversies still surround the optimal means of investigation and treatment. DISCUSSION: Scoring systems that classify patients according to their risk of harbouring bile duct stones are likely to decrease the number of unnecessary preoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatograms (ERCPs) at the expense of a higher rate of positive intra-operative diagnosis, unless magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is used to supplement the clinical information. The current treatment that is generally preferred for patients with a high probability of bile duct stones is ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but the routine use of ERCP in this context has certain limitations. An alternative approach is offered by carrying out the necessary cholangiogram during LC. Laparoscopic choledochotomy requires technical skill and costly equipment and should usually be followed by T-tube drainage of the duct. A recent survey in Spain has shown that most surgeons prefer ERCP plus LC, but one recent randomised controlled trial showed advantages for the single-stage laparoscopic treatment of bile duct stones in terms of a shorter hospital stay; success rates and complication rates were similar for the two procedures. The authors support the consensus statement that the choice of diagnostic and therapeutic strategy should depend on local circumstances and available expertise.     

Meta-analysis of one- vs. two-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Background

The present study is a meta-analysis of English articles comparing one-stage [laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or intra-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)] vs. two-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy preceded or followed by ERCP) management of common bile duct stones.

Methods

MEDLINE/PubMed and Science Citation Index databases (1990–2011) were searched for randomized, controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.1.

Results

Nine trials with 933 patients were studied. No significant differences was observed between the two groups with regard to bile duct clearance (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65–1.21), mortality (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.32–4.52), total morbidity (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53–1.06), major morbidity (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60–1.52) and the need for additional procedures (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.76–3.30).

Conclusions

Outcomes after one-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of bile duct stones are no different to the outcomes after two-stage management.     

Laparoscopic choledochotomy for bile duct stones

In the era of laparoscopic surgery, treatment strategies for common bile duct stones remain controversial. Laparoscopic choledochotomy is usually indicated only when transcystic duct exploration is not feasible. However, laparoscopic choledochotomy provides complete access to the ductal system and has a higher clearance rate than the transcystic approach. In addition, primary closure of the choledochotomy with a running suture and absorbable clips facilitates the procedure. Therefore, to avoid postoperative biliary stenosis, all patients with bile duct stones can be indicated for choledochotomy, except for those with nondilated common bile duct. Placement of a C‐tube also provides access for the clearance of possible retained stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy as a backup procedure. C‐tube placement, in contrast to T‐tube insertion, is advantageous in terms of a relatively short hospital stay. In conclusion, laparoscopic choledochotomy with C‐tube drainage is recommended as the treatment of choice for patients with common bile duct stones.     

Current status of laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholelithiasis with concomitant choledocholithiasis

The current evidence in favor of the laparoendoscopic rendezvous is promising and demonstrates the main advantages of this technique in regard to shorter hospital stay and selective cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD), avoiding thus the inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct. In addition, in the rendezvous technique the contrast medium is not injected retrogradely as during the traditional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), when the medium accidentally could be injected under pressure into the pancreatic duct. The RV technique minimizes that risk. Both these main advantages of the RV technique over the classic ERCP, are related with a significant lower incidence of hyperamylasemia and post-ERCP pancreatitis, compared with the traditional two stage procedure. Choledocholithiasis is present in 10% to 15% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. To date, the ideal management of CBD stones remains controversial. Prospective randomized trials have shown that laparoscopic management of the CBD stones, as a single stage procedure, is the most efficient and cost effective method of treatment. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous has been proposed as an alternative single stage approach. Several studies have shown the effective use of this technique in the treatment of CBD stones by improving patient compliance and clinical results including shorter hospital stay, higher success rate and less cost. The current evidence about the use of this technique presented in this review article is promising and demonstrates the main advantages of the procedure.     

Multimodal treatments of “gallstone cholangiopancreatitis”

Gallstone cholangiopancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening pathology which requires quick intervention involving endoscopists, interventional radiologists, anesthesiologists and surgeons in relation to clinical conditions. Treatment possibilities are varied, especially with current progress in advanced endoscopy, interventional radiology, and minimally invasive surgery. The following treatments are available: endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy; simultaneous endoscopic stone extraction with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (rendezvous technique); combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct (CBD) exploration; open CBD exploration; ES post-cholecystectomy; percutaneous placement of biliary drains for unstable patients, followed by percutaneous cholangioscopy; and lithotripsy with different approaches, including a laser and balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi. Each technique has its strengths and weaknesses, and there is great discussion in the literature on choosing the ideal approach based on the patient’s clinical conditions.     

塑料支架内引流在老年难取性胆管结石中的应用

目的:回顾性分析在老年性难取性胆总管结石患者中胆道塑料支架置入治疗的安全性和有效性.方法:先行常规逆行性胆胰管造影(ERCP)明确诊断,根据胆管扩张及结石大小情况,行十二指肠乳头括约肌切开后经导丝引导放置胆道塑料支架通畅引流.结果:103例取石困难患者在常规ERCP后置入塑料支架.3-6mo后复查ERCP显示有60例(58.2%)结石成为小结石,经内镜应用网篮取出;13例(12.6%)结石未变化,重新更换支架引流;11例(10.6%)最后行腹腔镜胆囊切除胆管探查取石治疗;16例(15.5%)患者因无特殊不适未复查ERCP,长期行内支架引流.结论:对于老年性难取性胆管结石患者,塑料支架内引流是一种十分有效和相对安全的手术方式.     

Experience with MTBE as a solvent for common bile duct stones in patients with T-tube in situ

The postcholecystectomy patients who have a T-tube in situ offer a convenient route through the T-tube to perfuse solvents into the common bile duct (CBD) for dissolving any retained common duct stones. If successful, this approach is much simpler and cheaper than the usual therapeutic modality used for CBD stones, namely, endoscopic papillotomy. Thus a most potent cholesterol solvent, methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE) was perfused through the T-tube into the CBD of five patients with retained common duct stones. The dose of the solvent varied, 1.5-5 mL 0.5-1 h, given 7-13 times amounting to a total of 20-66 mL. Instillation of MTBE in the T-tube was alternated with aspiration of the bile through T-tube. Only one patient showed complete disappearance of the bile duct stone following MTBE perfusion. Others did not show any appreciable response and had to be treated by endoscopic papillotomy (three patients) or mono-octanoin perfusion (one patient). Side-effects of MTBE perfusion included pain in the abdomen in all patients, somnolence and nausea/vertigo in two patients and the smell of ether on the breath in two patients. It is concluded that MTBE is not an effective agent for dissolution of retained CBD stones in patients with T-tube in situ.     

内镜扩约肌切开术治疗胆总管继发性结石

目的评价逆行胰胆管造影术（ＥＲＣＰ）和内镜括约肌切开术（ＥＳＴ）在腹腔镜胆囊切除前后诊断和治疗胆总管继发结石中的作用．方法采用ＥＲＣＰ和ＥＳＴ在ＬＣ术前或术后诊断和治疗胆总管继发结石２２８例,其中包括ＬＣ术前发现的１８５例和术后确诊的４３例．常规ＥＲＣＰ检查,证实胆总管内有结石后行ＥＳＴ．然后根据结石形态、大小和数目不同采取不同方法处理结石．①自然排石,适合于直径在０３ｃｍ～０８ｃｍ的结石;②取石网篮取石,适合于直径在０９ｃｍ～１５ｃｍ的结石;③碎石篮碎石,适宜直径大于１５ｃｍ以上的结石．结果全部２２８例患者中,ＥＳＴ成功２１７例（９５２％）,胆总管结石完全排出２０９例（９１７％）,发生各种并发症１９例（８８％）,主要并发症为急性胰腺炎、急性胆管炎和Ｏｄｄｉ扩约肌切口渗血,全部经非手术治疗愈合,无死亡病例．结论ＥＲＣＰ和ＥＳＴ是ＬＣ术前和术后诊治胆总管结石安全有效的方法之一．