Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus endoscopic stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis. A prospective randomized study. Postoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of selected bile duct calculi: a randomized trial. Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct with primary closure versus T-tube drainage: a randomized clinical trial. Choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy or common bile duct exploration. Precholecystectomy endoscopic cholangiography and stone removal is not superior to cholecystectomy, cholangiography, and common duct exploration. Is the use of T-tube necessary after laparoscopic choledochotomy? A randomized comparison of primary closure and T-tube drainage of the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy. Duodenoscopy in treatment of acute gallstone pancreatitis.
Our objective is to compare the results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and common bile duct (CBD) exploration to those of endoscopic stone extraction and LC in patients with CBD lithiasis based on a prospective randomized study.
                From April 1997 until August 2000, 78 patients were assigned in two groups. Group A (n'36) patients underwent laparoscopic either direct or trancystic duct, CBD exploration and LC. Group B (n'42) patients were referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for duct clearance and at a later stage LC was performed. Selection of patients of both groups was done, considering prognostic factors of a preliminary study.
                Laparoscopic duct clearance was achieved in 85.7% of patients while the respective percentage for the combined approach was 84.3%.
                Laparoscopic CBD exploration is not yet established as the gold standard procedure for choledocholithiasis and there is the need for further randomized trials and possibly future meta-analyses. Prospectively evaluate whether for patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy with failed trans-cystic duct clearance of bile duct (BD) stones they should have laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP).
                Clinical management of BD stones found at laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the last decade has focused on pre-cholecystectomy detection with ERCP clearance in those with suspected stones. This clinical algorithm successfully clears the stones in most patients, but no stones are found in 20% to 60% of patients and rare unpredictably severe ERCP morbidity can result in this group. Our initial experience of 300 consecutive patients with fluoroscopic cholangiography and intraoperative clearance demonstrated that, for the pattern of stone disease we see, 66% of patients' BD stones can be cleared via the cystic duct with dramatic reduction in morbidity compared to the 33% requiring choledochotomy or ERCP. Given the limitations of the preoperative approach to BD stone clearance, this trial was designed to explore the limitations, for patients failing laparoscopic trans-cystic clearance, of laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP.
                Across 7 metropolitan hospitals after failed trans-cystic duct clearance, patients were intraoperatively randomized to have either laparoscopic choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP. Exclusion criteria were: ERCP prior to referral for cholecystectomy, severe cholangitis or pancreatitis requiring immediate ERCP drainage, common BD diameter of less than 7 mm diameter, or if bilio-enteric drainage was required in addition to stone clearance. Drain decompression of the cleared BD was used in the presence of cholangitis, an edematous ampulla due to instrumentation or stone impaction and technical difficulties from local inflammation and fibrosis. The ERCP occurred prior to discharge from hospital. Mechanical and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was available. Sphincter balloon dilation as an alternative to sphincterotomy to allow stone extraction was not used. Major endpoints for the trial were operative time, morbidity, retained stone rate, reoperation rate, and hospital stay.
                From June 1998 to February 2003, 372 patients with BD stones had successful trans-cystic duct clearance of stones in 286, leaving 86 patients randomized into the trial. Total operative time was 10.9 minutes longer in the choledochotomy group (158.8 minutes), with slightly shorter hospital stay 6.4 days versus 7.7 days. Bile leak occurred in 14.6% of those having choledochotomy with similar rates of pancreatitis (7.3% versus 8.8%), retained stones (2.4% versus 4.4%), reoperation (7.3% versus 6.6%), and overall morbidity (17% versus 13%).
                These data suggest that the majority of secondary BD stones can be diagnosed at the time of cholecystectomy and cleared trans-cystically, with those failing having either choledochotomy or postoperative ERCP. However, because of the small trial size, a significant chance exists that small differences in outcome may exist. We would avoid choledochotomy in ducts less than 7 mm measured at the time of operative cholangiogram and severely inflamed friable tissues leading to a difficult dissection. We would advocate choledochotomy as a good choice for patients after Billroth 11 gastrectomy, failed ERCP access, or where long delays would occur for patient transfer to other locations for the ERCP. The management of stones in the common bile duct in the laparoscopic era is controversial. The three major options are preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct (LECBD), or postoperative ERCP.
                Between August, 1995, and August, 1997, 471 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were done in our department. In 427 (91%), satisfactory peroperative cholangiography was obtained. In 80 (17%) of these cases there were stones in the common bile duct, 40 patients were randomised to LECBD and 40 to postoperative ERCP. If LECBD failed, patients had either open exploration of the common bile duct or postoperative ERCP. If one postoperative ERCP failed, the procedure was repeated until the common bile duct was cleared of stones or an endoprosthesis was placed to prevent stone impaction. The primary endpoints were duct-clearance rates, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay. Analyses were by intention to treat.
                Age and sex distribution of patients was similar in the randomised groups. Duct clearance after the first intervention was 75% in both groups. By the end of treatment, duct clearance was 100% in the laparoscopic group compared with 93% in the ERCP group. Duration of treatment was a median of 90 min (range 25-310) in the laparoscopic group (including ERCPs for failed LECBD) compared with 105 min (range 60-255) in the postoperative ERCP group (p = 0.1, 95% CI for difference -5 to 40). Hospital stay was a median of 1 day (range 1-26) in the laparoscopic group compared with 3.5 days (range 1-11) in the ERCP group (p = 0.0001, 95% CI 1-2).
                LECBD is as effective as ERCP in clearing the common bile duct of stones. There is a non-significant trend to shorter time in the operating theatre and a significantly shorter hospital stay in patients treated by LECBD. Traditionally, the common bile duct (CBD) is closed with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy and removal of CBD stones. However, the insertion of a T-tube is not without complication and the patients have to carry it for several weeks before removal. In the laparoscopic era, surgery is performed with minimally invasive techniques in order to reduce the trauma, hasten recovery, and reduce the hospital stay of patients. T-tube insertion seems to negate these benefits. This randomized study was designed to compare the two methods applied after LCBDE and to determine whether primary closure can be as safe as closure with T-tube drainage.
                From May 2000 to January 2008, 93 consecutive patients with common bile duct stones (CBDS) and gallbladder in situ were enrolled in this randomized study to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, postoperative stay, and hospital expenses were recorded and analyzed.
                There was no mortality in both groups. A T-tube was inserted in 46 patients and the CBD was closed primarily in 47. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics or clinical presentations between the two groups. Compared with the T-tube group, the operative time and postoperative stay were significantly shorter, the hospital expenses were significantly lower, and the incidences of overall postoperative complications and biliary complications were statistically and insignificantly lower in the primary closure group.
                LCBDE with primary closure without external drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy is feasible and as safe as T-tube insertion. A prospective randomized trial was conducted of preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and surgery (ES&S) or surgery alone (SA) in 52 patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis that were candidates for elective surgery. After ES&S 65% of patients were stone free. Eighty-eight per cent of patients with SA were stone free after surgery (p less than 0.05). Three patients in each group had residual stones at the completion of the operation. Five of these six had more than 20 common bile duct (CBD) stones. There was one episode of major hemorrhage in a patient in each group and no deaths. Costs were essentially equal for the individual patient with a successful ES as compared to SA. Societal costs of a program of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and ES would be higher because of the cost of screening for patients with CBD stones. These results do not support preoperative ES as a technique for clearance of the CBD of stones on the basis of efficacy, morbidity rate, or cost. Thirty-four patients with suspected common bile duct stones were randomized to undergo endoscopic cholangiography and stone removal prior to open cholecystectomy or to have open cholecystectomy, operative cholangiography, and common bile duct exploration. Sixteen underwent the first protocol, and 18 the second. Analysis of the ability to clear stones from the common bile duct, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, length of operation, and hospital cost showed no difference in outcome between patients treated by either method. These data suggest there is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to treating patients with suspected duct stones by precholecystectomy endoscopic cholangiography and stone removal. Traditionally, the common bile duct (CBD) is closed with T-tube drainage after choledochotomy and removal of CBD stones. However, the insertion of a T-tube is not without complication.
                This randomized study was designed to compare the use of T-tube and primary closure of choledochotomy after laparoscopic choledochotomy to determine whether primary closure can be as safe as closure with T-tube drainage.
                Between February 2006 and June 2009, 122 consecutive patients with proven choledocholithiasis had laparoscopic choledochotomy. They were randomized into two equal groups: T-tube (n = 61) and primary closure (n = 61). Demographic data, intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, and postoperative stay were recorded.
                There was no mortality in both groups. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics or clinical presentations between the two groups. Compared with the T-tube group, the operative time and postoperative stay were significantly shorter and the incidences of overall postoperative complications and biliary complications were statistically and significantly lower in the primary closure group.
                Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure without external drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy is feasible, safe, and cost-effective. After verification of ductal clearance, the CBD could be closed primarily without T-tube insertion. Traditionally, the common bile duct (CBD) has been closed with T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy and removal of CBD stones. However, insertion of the T-tube is related to some potential postoperative complications, and patients must carry the T-tube for several weeks before its removal. Primary closure of the CBD without drainage has been proposed as a safe alternative to T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy. This randomized study aimed to compare the postoperative course and final outcome between the two methods applied after LCBDE.
                Between January 2000 and January 2004, 80 patients treated with laparoscopic choledochotomy for CBD stones were randomly assigned to primary duct closure (n = 40) or T-tube drainage (n = 40). The primary end points were morbidity, operative time, postoperative stay, hospital expenses, and time until return to work.
                There were no differences in the demographic characteristics or clinical presentations between the two groups. In the primary closure group, the postoperative stay (5.2 +/- 2.2 vs 8.3 +/- 3.6 days) and the time until return to work (12.6 +/- 5.1 vs 20.4 +/- 13.2 days) were significantly shorter, the hospital expenses (8,638 +/- 2,946 vs 12,531 +/- 4,352 yuan) were significantly lower, and the incidences of postoperative complications (15% vs 27.5%) and biliary complications (10% vs 20%) were statistically and insignificantly lower than in the T-tube drainage group. In the primary closure group, six patients experienced postoperative complications, four of whom had biliary complications, compared, respectively, with 11 and 8 patients in the T-tube drainage group.
                This study showed that primary CBC closure after laparoscopic choledochotomy was a viable alternative to mandatory T-tube drainage. To probe the potential use of duodenoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of acute gallstone pancreatitis (GP).
                Fourty-five patients with acute GP were randomly divided into endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) group (n=20) and non-ERCP group (n=25). Each group was subdivided into mild and severe groups according to APACHE II scores. They were given supportive treatment combined with traditional Chinese medicine. The patients in the ERCP group received ERCP within 24 hours after admission. If there were stones in the common bile duct with stenosis of the inferior extremity or ampulla, endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) was performed to extract the stones by basket. If no calculi were identified or multiple stones were large, endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD) was carried out.
                The incidence of complication, length of hospitalization and cost were markedly lower in patients with severe acute GP in the ERCP group than those in the non-ERCP group (P<0.05), in contrast to the 2 mild subgroups of the ERCP and non-ERCP groups (P>0.05).
                It is feasible, effective and safe to apply duodenoscopy in the treatment of severe acute GP.
In the era of open cholecystectomy, open bile duct surgery was superior to ERCP in achieving CBD stone clearance. In the laparoscopic era, data are close to excluding a significant difference between laparoscopic and ERCP clearance of CBD stones. The use of ERCP necessitates increased number of procedures per patient.