十二指肠镜联合微创手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管巨大结石的临床研究

目的:探讨十二指肠镜、腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管巨大结石的临床疗效。方法:回顾分析2012年5月至2017年5月为180例患者胆囊结石合并胆总管巨大结石患者分别行治疗性内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)联合二期腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)、腹腔镜胆总管切开取石一期缝合及腹腔镜胆总管切开取石T管引流治疗的临床资料。结果:180例患者均行ERCP,99例采用治疗性ERCP取出胆总管结石后二期行LC(A组); 81例患者于ERCP取石失败,放置鼻胆引流管后行腹腔镜手术,其中51例行LC+胆总管切开取石一期缝合术(B组),30例行LC+胆总管切开取石T管引流术(C组)。A组手术时间平均(55.1±10.3) min,术后排气时间平均(32.2±0.8) h,术后拔管时间平均(28.6±3.2) h,平均住院(4.6±1.4) d,术后无并发症发生;手术相关指标均优于B组、C组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:ERCP+LC是处理胆囊胆管结石的首选术式,经ERCP处理困难的胆管巨大结石可行内镜鼻胆管引流,根据具体情况行LC、胆总管切开取石一期缝合或T管引流术。     

腹腔镜联合内镜微创手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床观察

目的探讨腹腔镜联合内镜微创手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的疗效。方法回顾性分析95例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石病人行腹腔镜联合内镜微创手术治疗的临床资料。结果本组63例先行十二指肠镜下乳头括约肌切开术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)治疗,其中59例成功行EST+腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC),但术中并发十二指肠乳头少量出血2例,术后发生胆道感染1例,出现可疑十二指肠漏1例;4例EST取石失败后1周内改开腹手术,术后并发腹腔感染1例,胆漏1例。23例顺利行LC+腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术,其中腹腔镜胆囊管探查取石5例,腹腔镜胆总管切开取石18例。9例因疑诊胆总管结石而先行LC,术后2~4 d再行EST。术后随访6~12个月,均未出现反流性胆管炎、乳头狭窄等并发症,无胆管结石残留。结论腹腔镜联合内镜微创手术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石效果满意。     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术中联合ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石

目的:探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除(LC)术中联合ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石的临床应用价值。方法:通过分层匹配,回顾性分析LC术中及术前行ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石病例各41例,比较两组病例在手术操作时间、取石成功率、并发症发生率、住院时间、病人舒适度及住院相关费用等指标上的差异。结果:LC术中ERCP与术前ERCP具有相似的临床疗效和安全性,总体住院费用无统计学差异。虽然术中ERCP组的手术时间相对较长,但其住院时间较短,病人舒适度较好。结论:LC术中联合ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石具有较好的可行性,其应用前景值得期待。     

腹腔镜联合内镜逆行胰胆管造影术治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的临床体会

目的:探讨内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography,ERCP)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的最佳组合方式。方法:回顾分析2007年1月至2012年11月为203例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者行ERCP+内镜乳头括约肌切开术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)联合LC的临床资料。其中138例先行ERCP+EST取出胆总管结石,再行LC(ERCP+LC组);65例先行LC再行ERCP+EST(LC+ERCP组)。对比分析两组手术成功率、总住院时间及并发症情况。结果:两组均无穿孔、出血及重症胰腺炎等严重并发症发生。ERCP+LC组住院时间短[(7.2±2.1)d vs.(8.1±1.9)d],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。ERCP+LC组术后胆管残余结石4例,发生急性轻型胰腺炎1例、胆管炎1例,并发症发生率为4.3%;低于LC+ERCP组的12.3%(P<0.05)。结论:对于胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的患者,先行ERCP+EST取石,再行LC,手术并发症较少,住院时间短,是较理想的组合方式。     

胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石三种手术方式疗效分析

目的:根据胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石的不同特征,选择开腹胆囊切除+胆总管探查取石术(OC+OCBDE)、内镜下逆行胰胆管造影+腹腔镜胆囊切除(ERCP+LC组)、腹腔镜联合胆道镜(LC+LCBDE)三种术式,评价治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石的疗效、安全性及应用价值。方法:回顾性分析2015年5月—2018年5月皖北煤电集团总医院肝胆外科收治的125例胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石患者临床资料,根据结石的特征如数量、大小、位置等选择不同的手术方式:OC+OCBDE组43例,ERCP+LC组43例,LC+LCBDE组39例。比较三种术式手术时间、成功率、术后肛门排气时间、住院天数、住院费用、结石残留率及并发症发生率等指标的差异。结果:三组患者在性别、年龄、临床表现、结石残留率等指标上均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。在手术时间、手术成功率、术后肛门排气时间、住院天数、住院总费、术后胆漏等方面差异有统计学意义(P<0.05):在结石残留率方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:OC+OCBDE、ERCP+LC、LC+LCBDE三种术式均是治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石安全有效的方式,OC+OCBDE组是经典的传统术式,虽创伤大但可以作为后两种术式失败的有效补救方式;ERCP+LC组保持了胆管的完整性,LC+LCBDE组保护了Oiddis括约肌的功能;因此术者应根据患者个体情况及自身技术和医院设备条件作合理选择。     

LC联合ERCP一期治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石与分期ERCP+LC手术疗效比较

目的:探讨比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC)联合内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, ERCP)一期治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石与分期手术的临床疗效。方法:本院2018年4月至2020年4月期间收治的191例胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石的病人分为两组,98例行LC联合一期ERCP取石(研究组);93例行ERCP取石+择期LC(对照组)。比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、手术成功率、并发症发生以及住院费用。结果:与对照组相比,研究组手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用均明显降低(P0.05),术中出血量、手术成功率和术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:LC联合ERCP取石一期治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石安全可行,具有手术时间短、术后住院时间短、住院费用低的优点。     

应用腔镜、内镜联合技术同期与分期处理胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石的比较

目的 采用腹腔镜、内镜联合技术处理胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石,对同期及分期治疗的结果 进行比较.方法 患者60例,其中同期处理36例,分期处理24例.术前诊断依据B超、ERCP或MRCP检查,术中诊断依据术中胆道镜检查和胆道造影,全部病例均诊断为慢性胆囊炎合并胆总管结石.同期手术者直接行腹腔镜胆囊切除术,胆道镜和(或)造影检查后行腹腔镜经胆囊管或胆总管胆道镜取石,闭合胆管开口或放置T管.分期手术者先行或者后行ERCP+经内镜乳头切开术/经内镜乳头气囊扩张术取石,再行常规的腹腔镜胆囊切除术.结果 60例患者腹腔镜胆囊切除术均成功,同期手术者手术时间40～90 min,平均68 min,术后发生1例漏胆;分期手术者2次手术时间共60～120 min,平均80 min.同期手术者手术时间明显短于分期手术者(P＜0.01),而术后并发症发生情况二者间差异则无统计学意义(P>0.05).同期手术者住院费用较少(P＜0.01),同时在胆总管一期缝合或胆囊管一期结扎的情况下,住院时间相对较短(P＜0.01).结论 腹腔镜胆囊切除术+腹腔镜下胆道镜胆总管探查术或经胆囊管探查术同期治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石安全可靠,值得进一步研究、推广.     

内镜联合腹腔镜治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石

目的 :探讨运用内镜联合腹腔镜治疗肝外胆管结石的方法。方法 :对胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者 ,5 1例行开腹胆囊切除 +胆总管探查术 ,4 0例行内镜下十二指肠乳头切开取石术 (EST) +腹腔镜胆囊切除术 (LC) ,比较两者临床疗效、住院时间、并发症等。结果 :开腹组术中结石取净率为 88 2 % ,住院时间为2 1.9± 7.2d ,术后并发切口感染 1例。内镜组中有 2例取石失败 ,改行开腹 ,余均取石成功 ,取石成功率为95 % ,住院时间为 10 3± 4 5d ,无严重并发症。结论 :与传统的开腹胆囊切除加胆总管探查术相比 ,EST +LC治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石具有创伤小、住院时间短、患者康复快、并发症少等优点 ,此种方法可代替大部分开腹胆囊切除术加胆总管探查术     

老年人胆囊结石并胆总管结石的腹腔镜联合十二指肠镜治疗

目的:探讨老年人胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的腹腔镜联合十二指肠镜的微创治疗效果。方法:对20例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石,经逆行胰胆道造影(ERCP);行oddi's括约肌切开(EST)取石;鼻胆管引流术。于术后行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)。并观察其治疗效果。结果:十二指肠镜下胆总管结石取石成功率95％(19/20),LC成功率100％(19/19),住院日3-12d,无住院死亡,无胆瘘、腹腔脓肿、重症胰腺炎及结石残留等并发症出现。结论:腹腔镜联合十二指肠镜治疗老年人胆囊结石并胆总管结石是一种安全有效、微创的治疗方法。     

腹腔镜联合十二指肠镜治疗胆囊结石并胆总管结石

目的:探讨应用十二指肠镜逆行胰胆管造影(endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography,ERCP)、内镜下十二指肠乳头切开术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的适应证、手术时机和临床效果。方法:回顾分析为63例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者采用ERCP、EST联合LC序贯治疗的临床资料。先行EST取出胆总管结石,再于2～5 d内行LC。结果:61例(97%)成功施行EST,2例失败,59例成功完成LC,无出血、胆漏等并发症发生。结论:联合应用EST和LC治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石安全可行,具有患者创伤小、康复快、并发症少及无需T管引流等优点,充分体现了当今外科领域微创化的治疗原则,可作为治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的最佳选择。     

Combined intraoperative laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background: The role and timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with suspected choledocholethiasis remains a controversial subject. There have been few studies exploring the role of intraoperative ERCP. Therefore, we set out to perform a retrospective review of 29 patients who underwent combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and intreoperative ERCP (LC/ERCP). Our objective was to assess the feasibility of a one-stage approach using intraoperative ERCP. Methods: We identified 29 patients in whom LC/ERCP was attempted between January 1996 and November 1998 at a university-affiliated hospital with a large private faculty. Parameters reviewed included preoperative diagnosis, liver function tests (LFT), finding on transcystic cholangiogram (TCC), ERCP, stone retrieval, failure of ERCP, length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Results: Twenty-eight of 29 patients (97%) underwent successful combined LC/ERCP. Successful TCC followed by ERCP was performed in 21 of 26 patients (81%). Five TCC were technically unsuccessful; in these patients, ERCP was performed on the basis of preoperative criteria. In three patients, TCC was not attempted. Stones were successfully retrieved from 20 of 21 patients (95%) with abnormal finding on TCC, one of five patients (20%) with failed TCC, and two of three patients (67%) with ERCP but without TCC. Overall morbidity was 14%, comprising two patients with postoperative hyperamylasemia and two with cystic duct leaks. There were no deaths in the group. The mean time for the combined procedure was 173 min (range, 50–290). Mean length of hospitalization was 3.4 days, and mean postoperative stay was 2.2 days. Conclusions: LC/ERCP can be performed safely. The advantages of the combined procedures include one-stage treatment of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis, avoidance of unnecessary preoperative ERCP and their concomitant complications, and elimination of potential return to the operating room when postoperative ERCP is technically impossible. Received: 3 February 1999/Accepted: 10 September 1999     

Timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of choledocholithiasis

Although experience with laparoscopic approaches to common duct stones is increasing, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed either before or after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains the most common approach. Debate remains as to the best timing for ERCP in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Because clinical, laboratory, and radiological data are poor predictors of choledocholithiasis, many ERCPs done before LC give negative results. ERCP performed after LC with a positive intraoperative cholangiogram (i.o.p.) would eliminate many unnecessary preoperative endoscopic studies. This is a retrospective analysis of the treatment of choledocholithiasis with the combination of LC and ERCP. All patients included could have had ERCP preoperatively or postoperatively; therefore, those with cholangitis requiring emergent preoperative ERCP were excluded. Two groups of patients were compared: those who underwent ERCP followed by LC and those who underwent LC and IOC followed by ERCP. No significant differences were found with respect to age, gender, health status, clinical presentation, laboratory values (most liver functions, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, and serum amylase), surgery time, blood loss, ERCP time, time between treatment modalities, and days to regular diet. However, the preoperative ERCP group was found to have a longer hospital stay (6.7 days vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.003) and higher hospital cost ($9,406.39 vs. $12,816.23, p = 0.05). The preoperative ERCP group had two patients requiring two ERCPs to clear the common duct, one patient requiring conversion to open procedure because of failed LC, and four minor complications. The postoperative ERCP group had no failed LC, IOC, or postoperative ERCPs and one minor complication. The rate of false positive IOC was 6.7% and of negative preoperative ERCP, 43%. We conclude that in the absence of cholangitis requiring emergent endoscopic decompression, suspected choledocholithiasis can be successfully managed first with LC, ERCP being reserved for patients with a positive IOC. This eliminates many negative preoperative ERCPs.     

Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment of patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) are the most common methods for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. We evaluated the selection criteria for preoperative ERCP examination and the results of endoscopic-laparoscopic treatment of patients with choledocholithiasis. Between January 1993 and December 1998, 1630 patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were admitted for surgical intervention. Preoperative ERCP was performed in 247 patients according to the selection criteria. The criteria to perform ERCP were dilated common bile duct (CBD; more than 8 mm), abnormal serum liver test results, and a recent history of pancreatitis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) was performed if CBD stones were found during the procedure. LC was then carried out within 3 days after ES. Of the 247 patients selected for preoperative ERCP, CBD stones were confirmed in 146 patients (59.1%). ES was successful in 141 patients, and stone clearance was achieved in 133 patients, resulting in a 94.3% success rate. Eight patients (5.5%) had complications after endoscopic intervention, all of which resolved uneventfully. Open operative procedures were carried out in a total of 31 patients. Overall, 115 patients were successfully treated by this endoscopic laparoscopic sequence. The length of hospital stay in these groups was significantly lower than that for patients in whom an open method was employed. Preoperative ES combined with LC is a safe and effective therapy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis, and the criteria that we used for the selection of patients seem to be appropriate. Received: July 4, 2000 / Accepted: October 12, 2000     

Combined endoscopic treatment for cholelithiasis associated with choledocholithiasis

Background

The advent of endoscopic techniques changed surgery in many ways. For the management of cholelithiasis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the treatment of choice. This has created a dilemma in the management of choledocholithiasis. Today a number of option exist, including endoscopic sphinterotomy (ES) before LC in patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones, laparoscopic bile duct exploration, open CBD exploration, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Also, the alternative technique of peroperative ES is emerging.

Methods

We report our experience of routine intraoperative cholangiography followed either by peroperative ERCP in one step or by transcystic drain and postoperative ERCP. In our technique, to facilitate Vater papilla cannulation we inserted a 450-cm transcystic guidewire that was caught by a duodenoscope. Papillotome was then inserted over the guidewire to ensure cannulation of the CBD.

Results

Twenty-eight patients were treated successfully in one step and 24 in two steps. The mean operative time was 181 ? 41 min for patients treated in one step and 131 ? 30 min for patients treated in two steps. The mean hospital stay was 4.8 ? 3.3 days for patients treated in one step and 9.6 ? 4.0 days for patients treated in two steps. Five patients (18%) with positive intraoperative cholangiography for stones for whom peroperative ERCP was not available showed a normal postoperative transcystic cholangiogram and therefore ERCP was canceled. Fourteen of 25 patients treated in one step and none of 17 treated in two steps had raised serum amylase, which resolved spontaneously with no symptoms. No patient developed postoperative pancreatitis. Three (10%) ERCP complications were observed, consisting of mild bleeding of the papilla. All cases were managed by endoscopic adrenaline injection. There was no mortality.

Conclusion

We believe peroperative ERCP with the technique described should be considered as the treatment of choice for choledocholithiasis associated with cholelithiasis. When single-stage treatment is not possible, a two-step rendezvous technique should be preferred.     

腹腔镜胆总管探查取石与EST联合LC治疗胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石的临床对比分析

目的:评价腹腔镜下胆囊切除、胆总管探查术(LC- CBDE)与内镜下Oddi括约肌切开术(EST)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石的临床效果及术式选择。方法:回顾总结LC胆囊疾病合并胆总管结石152例,采用LC CBDE术68例、EST联合LC术84例治疗的临床资料,对胆总管内径、结石大小、总手术时间、手术费用、并发症发生率、术后住院日等进行对比并作统计学分析。结果:两种术式的术后住院日差异无显著性(P>0. 05),手术总时间、手术费用、并发症发生率等比较差异有显著性(P<0 .01),两者的胆总管内径、结石大小亦有差别。结论:两种术式各有其适应证和优缺点。胆总管直径0 .5~1 .0cm,胆总管下端结石时宜用EST取石,术后2~5d再行LC;胆总管直径1 .0cm时,尤其是并存二级支肝管结石者(无胆管狭窄)则宜行LC -CBDE术。     

ERCP术后LC的手术时机探讨

目的 探讨经内镜逆行性胰胆管造影术（ERCP）联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的最佳手术时间间隔.方法 回顾性分析我院自2010年1月至2014年4月56例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者,均顺利完成ERCP＋LC的序贯治疗.ERCP术后,其中28例2～4d后行LC（A组）,28例5～14 d后行LC（B组）.对两组患者的LC术前血淀粉酶水平、LC手术时间、术后肛门排气时间、术后并发症、总住院时间及总住院费用进行比较分析.结果 A组总住院时间和总住院费用均低于B组（t=--5.970,P＜0.05; t=-4.304,P＜ 0.05）.LC术前血淀粉酶水平、手术时间、术后肛门排气时间、术后并发症和住院时间在两组之间比较均无明显差异（P＞ 0.05）.结论 ERCP与LC的最佳时间间隔可能是2～4d.     

基于一体化手术平台的LC联合术中ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的效果研究

目的 探讨一体化手术平台中行腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）联合术中内镜逆行性胆胰管造影（ERCP）治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石的效果,并与序贯二步法ERCP+LC进行比较。方法 回顾性分析2019年12月至2020年12月由台州医院和恩泽医院肝胆胰外科完成治疗的82例胆囊结石合并胆总管结石患者临床资料,其中在一体化手术平台完成LC联合术中ERCP治疗的37例患者分为A组,完成序贯二步法ERCP+LC治疗的45例患者分为B组,比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、结石清除率、疼痛评分、排气时间、下床活动时间、术后并发症发生率、住院时间、住院费用等指标的差异。结果 两组术前基本资料比较无统计学差异,具有可比性（P>0.05）。两组在手术时间、术中出血量、结石清除率、术后疼痛评分、住院费用等方面无明显统计学差异（P>0.05）。A组术后排气时间[（16.0±4.5）h vs （19.9±6.0）h]、下床活动时间[（8.4±2.0）h vs （13.4±3.8）h]以及住院时间[（4.7±0.7）d vs （7.4±1.0）d]均明显短于B组（P<0.05）。两组患者在术后疼痛评分、住院费用方面无明显差异（P>0.05）。A组患者手术并发症总发生率[2.7%（1/37） vs 20.0%（9/45）]明显少于B组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 在一体化手术平台行LC联合术中ERCP治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石较序贯二步法ERCP+LC效果更好,能缩短住院时间,减少手术并发症,且不增加住院费用,是一种较好的治疗手段。     

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND: Chronic hemolysis predisposes adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) to the formation of bilirubinate cholelithiasis. METHODS: To study the impact of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) on this groups, we reviewed our records of all patients with SCD and cholelithiasis treated electively from 1991 to 1999. During that period, 13 consecutive patients with SCD underwent elective LC for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Nine patients (69.2%) were managed with a preoperative transfusion regimen to achieve a hemoglobin value of >/=10 g/dl, independent of hemoglobin S percentage. Five patients who presented with jaundice were referred for preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which identified choledocholithiasis in two of them. Three other patients underwent intraoperative cholangiography, which revealed common bile duct stones in one patient. RESULTS: One patient developed pyrexia for 2 days. There were no vaso-occlusive crises or deaths. The mean hospital stay was 3.3 days. CONCLUSIONS: LC has proven to be a safe and efficacious method for the treatment of symptomatic cholelithiasis in this high-risk population. Hematologists are now more willing to refer early, well-prepared patients with SCD and uncomplicated gallbladder disease for elective LC.     

Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOEST) was compared with laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct (LCBDE) for cholecystocholedocholithiasis in an attempt tried to find the best mini-invasive treatment for the cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis. METHODS: For this study, 234 patients with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis diagnosed by preoperative B-ultrasonography and intraoperative cholangiogram were divided at random into an LC-LCBDE group (141 cases) and an LC-IOEST group (93 cases). The surgical times, surgical success rates, number of stone extractions, postoperative complications, retained common bile duct stones, postoperative lengths of stay, and hospital charges were compared prospectively. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in terms of surgical time, surgical success rate, number of stone extractions, postoperative complications, retained common bile duct stones, postoperative length of stay, and hospital charge. CONCLUSION: Both LC-IOEST and LC-LCBDE were shown to be safe, effective, minimally invasive treatments for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.     

Current management of common bile duct stones in a teaching community hospital

The advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has complicated management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. While LC is routine, laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is not, and an algorithm to manage suspected choledocholithiasis has not been uniformly accepted. We evaluated current management of choledocholithiasis. Patients suspected of having CBD stones over a 2-year period were evaluated, and 42 studies in the literature were reviewed. Thirty-two patients were identified. Fourteen patients (44%) had LC with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) with no preoperative studies. IOC revealed CBD stones in nine (64%). Seven had CBD exploration (CBDE) at cholecystectomy, and two had postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). CBDE was successful in five cases, and ERCP was successful in one. Eighteen patients (56%) underwent preoperative ERCP. Five (28%) had no CBD stones. ERCP removed stones in nine patients, and four had open CBDE after failed ERCP. Current literature supports LC with IOC without any preoperative studies. Laparoscopic CBDE is highly successful but depends on surgeon experience. Removing CBD stones with ERCP is also very successful but is associated with increased cost, hospital stay, and complications. We conclude that LC with IOC should be performed without preoperative ERCP when choledocholithiasis is suspected. If found, stones should be removed laparoscopically if possible.