Delivery of a Laparoscopic Bile Duct Exploration Service as a Primary Treatment Modality for Choledocholithiasis within the NHS Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this paper was to report the experience of one-stage LC and LCBDE service within a medium sized acute NHS healthcare trust to demonstrate the feasibility of this treatment modality in terms of safety, quality and effectiveness inside the limitations of the UK's nationalised healthcare system. METHODS: All patients undergoing LCBDE at our institution from November 2013 - July 2021 were included in the study. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database and data points corroborated by electronic patient data on hospital systems. RESULTS: Three hundred and eleven patients underwent LCBDE. Median age was 68 (range 21-95). Most cases were performed as urgent/emergency (n = 206, 66% vs n = 105, 34% elective). Bile duct stones were diagnosed pre-operatively in 23% of cases (n = 73). Intra-operative diagnosis was made using laparoscopic ultrasound (n = 228, 73%), cholangiogram (n = 44, 14%) or combination of both (n = 31, 10%). Laparoscopic completion rate was 94%. 56% were via choledochotomy and 44% trans-cystic. Incidence of bile leak was 4.2% (n = 13) and the incidence of retained stone within 90 days was 3.9%. Median length of stay was 2 days post-operatively (range 0-62). The rate of mortality was 0.66%. CONCLUSION: The data from our study shows that LC and LCBDE is a safe, effective service that can be successfully delivered in the NHS. With the developing specialisation of benign biliary units, we believe that this approach to choledocholithiasis is reproducible and achievable nationally and should be considered first-line in the management of this condition.

The single-stage management of bile duct stones is underutilised: A prospective multicentre cohort study with a literature review.

Backgrounds/Aims: Bile duct stones (BDS) can be managed either prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or with laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) at the time of LC. The latter is underutilised. The aim of this study was to use the dataset of the previously performed CholeS study to investigate LBDE hospital volumes, LBDE-to-LC rates, and LBDE outcomes. Methods: Data from 166 United Kingdom/Republic of Ireland hospitals were used to study the utilisation of LBDE in LC patients. Results: Of 8,820 LCs performed, 932 patients (10.6%) underwent preoperative ERCP and 256 patients (2.9%) underwent LBDE. Of the 256 patients who underwent LBDE, 73 patients (28.5%) had undergone prior ERCP and 112 patients (43.8%) had undergone prior magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Fifteen (9.0%) of the 166 included hospitals performed less than five LBDEs in the two-month study period. LBDEs were mainly performed by upper gastrointestinal surgeons (84.4%) and colorectal surgeons (10.0%). Eighty-seven percent of the LBDEs were performed by consultants and 13.0% were performed by trainees. The laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 12.5%. The median operation time was 111 minutes (range: 75-155 minutes). Median hospital stay was 6 days (range: 4-11 days) for emergency LBDEs and 1 day (range: 1-4 days) for elective LBDEs. Overall morbidity was 21.5%. Bile leak rate was 5.3%. Thirty-day readmission and mortality rates were 12.1% and 0.4%, respectively. Conclusions: The single-stage approach to managing BDS was underutilised. An additional prospective study with a longer study period is needed to verify this finding.

Success of intraoperative imaging and management of suspected choledocholithiasis without pre-operative bile duct imaging - A case series.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is gaining popularity over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the management of common bile duct stones. However, its application has been almost exclusively following preoperative stone confirmation via magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or ERCP. We present our series of LCBDE following detection of common bile duct stones with intraoperative imaging (IOI) alone, in consecutive elective and emergency patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with suspected but unconfirmed choledocholithiasis undergoing LC with intention to proceed to LCBDE between January 2015 and June 2017 were included. LCBDE was performed following the discovery of choledocholithiasis on IOI. RESULTS: 371 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis underwent LC with IOI. CBD stones or obstructing sludge was identified in 107 patients (29%), with sensitivity of 96.2% and specificity of 98.5%. 100 patients, median age 59, went on to have LCBDE as indicated by intraoperative imaging. 76% were performed as emergency cases and conversion to open rate was 2%. There were no mortalities. Bile leak and retained stones occurred in 4% and 3% respectively. 7/100 patients required re-intervention, with re-look laparoscopy (n = 4) and ERCP (n = 3). Median length of stay was 1.5 and 3 days for elective and emergency cases respectively, and 30 readmission rate was 8%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Traditionally patients presenting with suspicion of choledocholithiasis undergo preoperative MRCP/EUS and/or ERCP prior to eventual LC. We propose an alternative, more streamlined, pathway of treatment without requiring preoperative cholangiography, applicable to both elective and emergency patients.

Outpatient follow-up for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in relation to New Zealand Rheumatology Association guidelines at Dunedin Hospital.

AIM: Current treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves the use of various disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic response agents which require ongoing medical supervision. An audit was undertaken to assess the adequacy of outpatient specialist follow-up for supervision of treatment in patients with RA in the Otago region. METHODS: The Rheumatology Service database was used to assess time between follow-up for the penultimate and last visit to rheumatology outpatient clinic for all patients who made at least two visits between 1 October 2001 and 30 September 2006. Other recorded data included demographic information and clinician expectations for the timing of the next outpatient visit. Comparisons were made between actual follow-up intervals, those indicated by specialists and the follow-up intervals recommended by the New Zealand Rheumatology Association Guidelines. Patients were characterised according to four groups specified in the guidelines: Group A: patients newly started on DMARDs; Group B: patients with some change in disease management: Group C: patient stable on potent medications: Group D: patients stable on less severe medication. RESULTS: According to the guidelines only 40% of patients were followed up within the recommended intervals. Groups A and B (76.9% and 70.6% respectively) had a significantly greater proportion of patients with follow-up at variance to guideline recommendations compared to groups C and D (50% and 45.3% respectively) (p<0.001). There were marked discrepancies between the guideline recommended follow-up intervals and those suggested by the clinicians. Compared with guideline recommendations clinicians advised less frequent follow-up for groups A and B but more frequent for patients in Groups C and D. However, an assessment of the quality of life scores amongst the patients suggested that follow-up was still appropriately targeted to those patients with lower quality of life. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies in follow-up were most marked in the patient groups potentially most at risk of medication-related problems in whom guidelines suggested more intensive monitoring. Additional strategies to promote guideline-based follow-up arrangements may be indicated. Further work should examine the relationships between guideline recommended, physician intended and actual follow-up among rheumatology patients in other regions in order to assess whether modifications should occur to clinician behaviour or guideline content.