Management of common bile duct stones

Conclusions Choledocholithiasis remains a complicated and challenging disease process for today’s clinicians. Transabdominal ultrasound and ERC are the most common preoperative imaging modalities with endoscopic ultrasound, MRCP, and HCT emerging as potentially more accurate and less invasive tools. Intraoperatively, LUS and IOC are complimentary in detecting CBD stones, while laparoscopic CBDE is commonly and safely performed by surgeons comfortable with advanced laparoscopic techniques. Postoperative ERC is effective with failure of laparoscopic CBDE, surgeon inexperience, and unfavorable anatomy and patient selection. Open CBDE should never be looked upon as a failure, while sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty, and choledochoenterostomy remain necessary operations for certain patients. The proposed algorithm is only a guideline, and ultimate treatment depends on physician experience and available resources.     

Primary common bile duct stones

Primary or stasis stones in the common duct are a distinct clinical, anatomical, and pathological entity. In the older patient with chills, fever, and jaundice, it is axiomatic that a primary or stasis stone will be found in a common duct that measures 20 mm or more in diameter. Furthermore, about 20% of such patients will not have stones in the gallbladder. The symptom of chills, having not been observed in patients with cancer of the head of the pancreas, is considered a diagnostic aid in the differentiation of jaundice secondary to common duct stones from jaundice due to malignant obstruction. The primary or stasis stone is the most common type of common duct stone. When present, a definitive operation, preferably choledochoduodenostomy, is advised. A simplified classification of biliary tract stones, preferably that of Aschoff, should be established as the universal standard. Also, based on this standard, worldwide prospective clinical studies should be initiated to obtain data for comparative evaluations to determine the true incidence of primary common duct stones.

---

Résumé Les calculs cholédociens primaires ou de stase constituent une entité clinique, anatomique et pathologique. Chez le patient âgé avec frissons, fièvre et ictère, il faut s'attendre à trouver dans le cholédoque un calcul primaire ou de stase de 20 mm de diamètre ou plus, et 20% de ces malades n'ont pas de calculs vésiculaires. L'absence de frissons dans les ictères par cancer de la tête du pancréas est un élément de diagnostic différentiel des ictères obstructifs par lithiase ou cancer. Le calcul primaire ou de stase est le type le plus fréquent de calcul cholédocien. Lorsqu'il existe, il faut conseiller une opération curative, de préférence une cholédocoduodénostomie. Il serait souhaitable d'adopter partout une classification simple, mais non équivoque, des calculs biliaires, de préférence celle d'Aschoff. Une telle classification permettrait des études cliniques prospectives à l'échelle internationale, qui préciseraient la fréquence réelle des calculs cholédociens primaires.

     

Impacted common bile duct stones

The impacted common bile duct stone can be managed either surgically or radiologically using methods such as percutaneous basket extraction or endoscopic papillotomy. At operation, if an impacted common bile duct stone cannot be removed by the usual methods, duodenotomy and sphincteroplasty are indicated. If the patient's condition is good, sphincteroplasty should not be avoided in the belief that other means of stone removal are superior. However, if the patient's condition is not ideal, sphincteroplasty should be deferred in favor of delayed removal by percutaneous or endoscopic techniques. In patients without percutaneous access to the biliary tree, endoscopic papillotomy can be effective in removing impacted stones, or at least in relieving the obstruction and allowing improvement in the patient's condition before surgical intervention is attempted.     

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. Received for publication on Aug. 21, 1999; accepted on Sept. 2, 1999     

Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Endoscopic sphincterotomy has become the undisputed method of choice for removing common bile duct calculi following previous cholecystectomy. This approach has also been applied to selected patients with intact gallbladders deemed unfit for surgery. More recently, endoscopic clearance of the bile duct has been used in concert with laparoscopic cholecystectomy to avoid laparotomy. Modalities available for stone therapy via the endoscope include baskets and balloons, mechanical lithotripters, electrohydraulic lithotripsy probes, and laser energy. In difficult cases stents may be placed to provide drainage in lieu of stone extraction.

---

Resumen La esfinterotomía endoscópica se ha convertido en el método de escogencia indiscutible para la remoción de cálculos del colédoco luego de una colecistectomía. El procedimiento también ha sido aplicado en pacientes seleccionados con vesículas biliares intactas considerados de riesgo demasiado alto para cirugía. Más recientemente se ha realizado la limpieza endoscópica del colédoco en concierto con la colecistectomía laparoscópica con el fin de evitar la laparotomía. Las modalidades endoscópicas de manejo de los cálculos incluyen el uso de balones, litrotitores mecánicos, litrotricia electrohidráulica y laser. En los casos difíciles, donde por razón del gran tamaño de los cálculos o por consideraciones anatómicas éstos resulten refractorios a la extracción endoscópica, se pueden colocar drenes nasobiliares o férulas (stents) proximales al cálculo para drenaje y descompresión biliar, en vez de la extracción.

---

Résumé La sphinctérotomie endoscopique est devenue la méthode de choix pour enlever les calculs de la voie biliare principale après cholécystectomie. Cette approche thérapeutique est également applicable à certains patients qui n'auront pas de cholécystectomie car inopérables. Plus récemment, l'extraction des calculs de la voie biliaire principale par voie endoscopique est employée de concert avec la cholécystectomie célioscopique pour éviter la laparotomie. Les modalités de recupération des calculs par voie endoscopique comprennent les paniers, les ballonnets, les lithotriteurs mécaniques, électrohydrauliques et la déstruction par laser. Dans des cas difficiles, on peut envisager la pose d'endoprothèses pour dériver la bile, au lieu d'extriare les calculs.

     

Cost-effective management of common bile duct stones

Background: There are a variety of approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods: Decision modeling was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four strategies for managing CBD stones around the time of LC: (a) routine preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (preoperative ERCP), (b) LC with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), followed by laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCDE), (c) LC with IOC, followed by ERCP (postoperative ERCP), and (d) expectant management (LC without any tests for CBD stones). Local hospital data were used to estimate costs. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of the cost per case of residual CBD stones prevented (in excess of the cost of LC alone). Diagnostic test characteristics, procedure success rates, and adverse event probabilities were derived from a systematic review of the literature. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore the effect of uncertainty on the results of the model. Results: LC alone was the least costly strategy, but it was also the least effective. Of the more aggressive strategies, LCDE and preoperative ERCP were associated with marginal costs of $5993.60 and $299,259.35, respectively, per case of residual CBD stones prevented. Postoperative ERCP was more costly and less effective than LCDE, but it had a lower cost-effectiveness ratio than preoperative ERCP when the prevalence of CBD stones was < 80%. CONCLUSIONS: COMPARED TO OTHER COMMON APPROACHES, LAPAROSCOPIC CBD EXPLORATION IS A COST-EFFECTIVE METHOD OF MANAGING CBD STONES IN PATIENTS WHO UNDERGO LC. IF EXPERTISE IN LCDE IS UNAVAILABLE, SELECTIVE POSTOPERATIVE ERCP IS PREFERRED OVER ROUTINE PREOPERATIVE ERCP, UNLESS THE PROBABILITY OF CBD STONES IS VERY HIGH (>80%).     

Laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones

Whether for a diagnostic evaluation or for the treatment of common bile duct lithiasis, the laparoscopic approach is the most efficient method compared with the other alternatives. The authors describe in the present article the method to treat laparoscopically common bile duct lithiasis.     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Background While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is widely accepted for therapy of cholecystolithiasis, controversy still exists concerning the management of common bile duct stones. Besides preoperative endoscopic papillotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open common bile duct surgery, management of common bile duct stones can be conducted by laparoscopy, if respective experience is available.Method During laparoscopic cholecystectomy a cholangiography via the cystic duct is routinely performed. If bile duct stones are detected they are retrieved via the cystic duct or via incision of the common bile duct by insertion of a Fogarty catheter or Dormia basket. Exclusion criteria against simultaneous laparoscopic management include suspicion of malignancy, severe pancreatitis, or cholangitis.Results From November 1991 to March 2002, 200 patients primarily underwent laparoscopic therapy of bile duct stones. Retrieval was performed via cystic duct and common bile duct incision in 115 and 85 cases, respectively. Complete removal was achieved in 91%; complication rate and mortality was 7% and 0.5%, respectively. During the same period primary endoscopic papillotomy was necessary in 40 patients because of the above contraindications.Conclusions When correct indications and surgical expertise are observed, simultaneous laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones represents a safe and minimally invasive alternative to a two-procedure approach.     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (CBDE) was the subject of a multi-institutional study on 226 patients from 19 major hospital centers. Female patients predominated (2.3:1); the average age was 54; 75% of cases were chronic, and the remainder were acute. Although 97% had preoperative ultrasonograms, only 12% showed a stone in the dilated common bile duct. The alkaline phosphatase was elevated in 41% and the serum bilirubin in 28% of cases. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with sphincterotomy (ERC-ES) was performed in 8.5%; there was a successful stone extraction in less than half the cases. Cholangiography was performed in 99.5%, and in 94% of those cases, stones were found.In 83% of cases, stones were removed through the transcystic approach, and in 17% removal was throughout the CBD. In the majority of cases, the choledochoscope and wire basket (34%), irrigation (33%), or a combination of both was employed. In the transcystic group, 5% were converted to open procedures due to technical difficulty, as contrasted with the trans-CBD route, where the conversion rate was 19%. There were two ductal injuries. Minor complications occurred in 5.7% within 24 h; there was one death (0.4%). Within 30 days, the morbidity rate was 7% and there were no deaths. Retained stones were discovered in 2.6% of cases.Laparoscopic CBDE is a feasible approach for CBD stones which permits a definitive procedure in one stage, without pre- or postoperative ES. It is a skill which should be mastered by the biliary surgeon. Further improvement in instrumentation and technique should make the laparoscopic approach not only comparable but preferable to the standard open choledocholithotomy.Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Nashville, Tennessee, USA 18–19, April 1994     

Chemical composition of common bile duct stones

The common bile duct stones obtained from 148 patients were analysed chemically for cholesterol, calcium and bilirubin. When stones were present in both the common bile duct and gallbladder at the time of surgery, the common duct stones were similar in chemical composition to gallbladder stones in the majority of cases and were predominantly cholesterol-type stones. However, common bile duct stones from patients whose gallbladders had been removed at least one year before the detection of common duct stones contained less cholesterol and more bilirubin than common bile duct stones which were associated with gallbladder stones. Thirty per cent of these stones contained suture material in the centre of the stone. Overall, the results indicate that common bile duct stones are more likely to be pigment type than gallbladder stones, especially if the common duct stones are large, have formed in the duct and become symptomatic less than 12 years after cholecystectomy. Non-absorbable suture material should be avoided in surgery involving the common bile duct.     

Laparoendoscopic approaches to common bile duct stones

Since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there has been a debate regarding the most effective approach to intraoperative management of choledocholithiasis. Although transcystic duct extraction has been effective, the integration of flexible endoscopic methodology into the laparoscopic procedure has facilitated management of difficult cases. Variations of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography may be used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy or facilitated after the surgery by maneuvers at the time of operation. These techniques have been extremely effective in facilitating the laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones.     

Primary closure of the common bile duct in open laparotomy for common bile duct stones

It is common these days to treat common bile duct (CBD) stones using endoscopic techniques. However, severe complications sometimes lead to death despite the great benefit of these techniques. If the patient has many and/or large stones, it can take considerable time for duct clearance, and this is associated with high costs. Therefore, we do not hesitate to choose surgical procedures when necessary. In this study, our aim was to evaluate the usefulness of primary closure of the CBD in open laparotomy for CBD stones. Thirty-four patients with CBD stones were operated on by open laparotomy; primary closure was done in 17 patients (group PC), and T-tube insertion was done in 17 (group TT). We compared the patients' medical records, clinical features, laboratory data, complications, and postoperative hospital admission days. There were no significant intergroup differences in patients' medical records, clinical features, or laboratory data, except for the number of CBD stones. There were no differences in complications. All complications were minor and needed no extra care. The number of postoperative hospital admission days showed a significant difference: 18.3 days in group PC and 31.5 in group TT. There are so many methods to treat CBD stones now that the selection of the procedure can be important for the patient's benefit. We prefer primary closure, to get better quality of life postoperatively and to avoid further operations and any severe complications.     

腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆总管探查术与胆总管探查并一期缝合术治疗胆总管结石的对比研究

目的:比较腹腔镜下经胆囊管胆总管探查术(LTCBDE)与经胆总管探查(LCBDE)+胆道一期缝合术治疗胆总管结石的效果。方法:回顾性分析2013年1月—2015年12月期间应用微创手术治疗的104例胆总管结石的患者临床资料,其中50例行LTCBDE(LTCBDE组)与54例行LCBDE+胆道一期缝合术(LCBDE+一期缝合组),比较两组的相关临床指标。结果:与LCBDE+一期缝合组比较,LTCBDE组手术时间(91.7 min vs.110.9 min)、术中出血量(15.5 mL vs.17.4 mL)、术后引流量(28.4 mL vs.44.6 mL)、带管时间(7.8 d vs.9.7 d)、住院时间(8.8d vs.10.6d)均明显减少(均P0.05);LTCBDE组术后胆汁漏的发生率明显低于LCBDE+一期缝合组(2.0%vs.13.0%,P=0.036),其他并发症的发生率两组无统计学差异(均P0.05)。结论:LTCBDE治疗胆总管结石安全可靠的,且较LCBDE+胆道一期缝合术更符合微创的目的,在两种术式的适应证均满足的情况下,可优先考虑。     

Laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones.

Common bile duct stones were present in sixteen of our first two hundred cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Treatment included flushing into the duodenum, catheter drainage of the duct for cholangiographic and percutaneous access, open choledochotomy with stone removal and E.R.C.P., or combinations thereof. A technique for open choledocholithotomy with suture closure of the duct is presented.     

Recurrent common bile duct stones containing metallic clips following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

A case of recurrent common bile duct stones 2 years following laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in a 52-year-old man is reported. Surgical material as a nidus for recurrent stone formation has been reported and occurred in the present case. Factors influencing metallic clip migration after biliary surgery are discussed, with recommendations for decreasing recurrent stones caused by foreign material.     

Pathogenesis and presentation of common bile duct stones

Common bile duct stones are generally classified as primary or secondary stones based on the locations of origin. The vast majority of the stones found in the biliary tree are secondary stones. The current review discusses the pathogenesis and presentations of primary and secondary biliary stones. Based on discussion of disease pathogenesis and presentation, recommendations for the evaluation and management of common and uncommon disease processes associated with choledocholithiasis are proposed.     

Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct stenting in the management of common bile duct stones

Background : The management of patients with common bile duct stones associated with stones in the gall bladder remains controversial. Methods : Over the three‐year period from 1996 to 1999, patients with cholelithiasis and known choledocholithiasis, or choledocholithiasis found at laparoscopic cholecystectomy, were initially treated by placing a stent across the sphincter of Oddi. The stent was pushed along a guide wire through the cystic duct and then down the common bile duct, before the cystic duct was closed. Subsequently, the stent was used to facilitate performance of a needle knife endoscopic sphincterotomy. The stent was then removed, a cholangiography was performed and the common bile duct was cleared. Patients with persistent jaundice usually had a preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangio‐pancreatography. Results : Transcystic stenting was the ‘intention‐to‐treat’ basis of therapy for 56 of the patients. The placement of the stent only failed once when the stent became trapped in the cystic duct. Complications of the operation included: pain and jaundice (n = 2), cholangitis (n = 1), and pulmonary embolus (n = 1). The median postoperative hospitalization was 2 days (range: 1–15). Five further patients had common bile duct stones removed via a choledochotomy; a stent was placed through the choledochotomy before its closure. The selective common bile duct cannulation rate at the first endoscopic retrograde cholangio‐pancreatography, was 98%. A second endoscopic retrograde cholangio‐pancreatography was required in 15% of patients. The only complication of all the endoscopic procedures was a single case of mild cholangitis; there were no cases of pancreatitis. Conclusion : A treatment option open to all surgeons for non‐jaundiced patients with known choledocholithiasis or choledocholithiasis found at operative cholangiogram, is the transcystic stenting of the sphincter of Oddi at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. At a subsequent sitting, the common bile duct can be safely cleared endoscopically using a sphincterotomy facilitated by the stent.     

ERCP与腹腔镜胆总管探查治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的比较

目的比较ERCP与腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的优、缺点。 方法回顾分析2010年4月至2015年4月5年间诊治的197例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者。 结果ERCP组(99例)中有6例患者手术失败,32例合并胰腺炎,1例出现十二指肠壁穿孔。3例患者术后出现胆总管结石复发。LCBDE组(98例)中无手术失败,8例放置T管,无胆总管结石复发,无严重并发症。LCBDE组术后平均住院时间和平均住院费用均低于ERCP组[(5±2) d vs (3±1)d, (2.23±0.85)万元 vs (1.73±0.43)万元]。 结论ERCP＋EST和LCBDE对于胆囊结石合并胆总管结石都是行之有效的处理方法,对于大多数患者应首选LCBDE,对于特殊患者可选择ERCP＋EST＋LC方案。