Moving the needle for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: defining obstacles for the path forward.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed very commonly but laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is performed infrequently. We aimed to determine the most significant barriers to performing LCBDE and to identify the highest yield interventions to facilitate adoption. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A national survey was designed by content experts, who regularly perform LCBDE. The survey was distributed by email to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma memberships. Non-U.S. surgeon responses were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty six practicing surgeons responded to the survey, 543 of which were US surgeons who perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Only 27% of respondents preferred to manage choledocholithiasis with LCBDE. Their technique of choice was choledochoscopy (70%). Despite this, 36% of surgeons did not have access to a choledochoscope or were unsure if they did. Seventy percent of surgeons who performed LCBDE did not have supplies readily available in a central stocking location. Only 8.5% of surgeons agreed that routine LCBDE would impact their referral relationship with gastroenterology. About half the respondents (47%) considered LCBDE worth the time, but only 25% knew about reimbursement for the procedure. Almost all (85%) of surgeons understood that LCBDE results in shorter length of stay compared to ERCP. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of the surgeons performing cholecystectomy perform LCBDE. Multiple barriers contribute to low LCBDE utilization. Increasing availability of appropriate equipment, a dedicated supply cart, and teaching fluoroscopic LCBDE interventions may address limitations and increase adoption. These efforts may also increase efficiency, minimizing perceived time and skill restraints. Although many surgeons understand LCBDE decreases length of stay, they are unaware of surgeon-specific LCBDE financial benefits. Systematically addressing these barriers may increase LCBDE adoption, improve patient care, and decrease healthcare costs.

Structured learning and mentoring: shortening the learning curve in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

BACKGROUND: Technological advances have made the laparoscopy procedure popular for simultaneous cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration. We aimed to assess the implementation of a structured mentorship program for training in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). We explored the effectiveness thereof in facilitating the learning of LCBDE as a single-stage treatment of common bile duct stones (CBD) with gallbladder in situ. METHODS: The surgical databases of a mentor (experienced in LCBDE) and a mentee (new to LCBDE) were analyzed. The analysis retrospectively compared the mentor's first 100 cases (MF) with the mentee's first 100 (MEF) cases, and the mentor's last 100 cases (ML) with the mentee's initial cases. Data included demographics, technical details, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients underwent LCBDE. For MF vs. MEF (both n = 100), MF had a lower transcystic approach rate (5% vs. 70%; p < 0.001) than MEF. Postoperative median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MEF group compared to the MF group (2 vs 5, p < 0.001). No mortality or significant complications were observed in either group. For ML (n = 100) vs. MEF, the ML group had a higher transcystic rate (87% vs. 70%; p = 0.005). No differences in mortality or conversion were observed between the groups. Bile leak was lower in the ML (3% vs. 6%, p = 0.498) group than the MEF group. Postoperative median hospital stay did not significantly differ between the ML and MEF group (1 vs 2 days, p = 0.952). CONCLUSIONS: Structured mentorship significantly influenced the successful adoption of LCBDE by the mentee, shortening the learning curve to provide outcomes in the first 100 cases, comparable to highly experienced centers. These results support the implementation of structured training and continuous mentoring to facilitate the learning curve of laparoscopic bile duct exploration.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is an effective, safe, and less-costly method of treating choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in laparoscopic techniques led to the adoption of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) as an alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for management of choledocholithiasis (CD). The goal of this study was to describe the initial experience at a safety net hospital with acute care surgeons performing LCBDE for suspected CD. We hypothesized LCBDE would reduce length of stay and hospital costs compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and ERCP performed in the same hospital admission. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study from 2019 to 2023 comparing LCBDE to LC/ERCP among patients diagnosed with CD. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables and Chi-square tests for categorical variables. Data reported as median [interquartile range] or research subjects with condition (percentage). RESULTS: A total of 110 LCBDE were performed, while 121 subjects underwent LC and ERCP. Patients in the LCBDE group were more likely to be female with a total of 87 female subjects (77.6%) compared to 76 male subjects (62.8%) (95% CI 1.14-3.74). Initial WBC was lower in the LCBDE group at 8.4 [6.9-11.8] compared to the LC/ERCP group at 10.9 [7.9-13.5] (p = 0.0013). Remaining demographics and lab values were similar between the two groups. Patients who underwent LCBDE had a significantly shorter length of stay at 2 days [1-3] compared to those in the LC/ERCP group at 4 days [3-6] (p < 0.001). Hospital charges for the LCBDE group were $46,685 [$38,687-$56,703] compared to $60,537 [$47,527-$71,739] for the LC/ERCP group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: LCBDE is associated with significantly lower hospital costs and shorter length of stay with similar post-operative complication and 30-day readmission rates. Our results show that LCBDE is safe and should be considered as a first-line approach in the management of CD.

Routine single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with concomitant cholecystectomy for elderly patients: a 6-year retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: While single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has gained more popularity in recent years, its application to elderly patients needs further evaluation. Few SILC studies regarded this rapidly growing vulnerable population, and single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (SILCBDE) was never mentioned. We conducted an observational study of 146 routine SILCBDE to address this issue. METHODS: One hundred forty-six consecutive patients underwent SILCBDE with concomitant cholecystectomies during a period of 6 years (July 2012-June 2016 and July 2018-July 2020). Forty patients with an age of 65 years or older were the study target. Characteristics and operative outcomes were compared with the remaining 106 younger patients by retrospective chart review. The primary outcomes include complications and mortality, while the secondary outcomes contain intraoperative blood loss, operative time, procedural conversions, postoperative length of hospital stay, and bile duct stone recurrence. RESULTS: There was no mortality. The bile duct stone clearance rate was 98.6%. The elderly group had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, higher comorbidity rate, higher acute cholangitis rate, lower completion intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) rate, longer operative time, more blood loss, longer postoperative hospital stay (p < .001), longer total hospital stay (p < .001), higher procedural conversion rate (p < .05), higher complication rate (p < .001), and the exclusive open conversion (2.5%). The difference in complications derived from Clavien-Dindo grade I. CONCLUSION: Routine SILCBDE with concomitant cholecystectomy by experienced surgeons is safe and efficacious for elderly patients as for younger patients. Randomized controlled trials are anticipated.

The safety of not implementing endoscopic nasobiliary drainage after elective clearance of choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) is used as a drainage technique in patients with choledocholithiasis after stone removal. However, ENBD can cause discomfort, displacement, and other complications. This study aims to evaluate the safety of not using ENBD following elective clearance of choledocholithiasis. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library from their inception until August 2023. The main outcomes assessed were postoperative complications and postoperative outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on study design types and treatment procedures. RESULTS: Six studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies, were analyzed. Among these, four studies utilized endoscopic techniques, and two employed surgical methods for choledocholithiasis clearance. The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative complications between the no-ENBD and ENBD groups, including pancreatitis (RR: 1.55, p = 0.36), cholangitis (RR: 1.81, p = 0.09), and overall complications (RR: 1.25, p = 0.38). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the subgroup analysis indicated that the bilirubin normalization time was longer in the no-ENBD group compared to the ENBD group in RCTs (WMD: 0.24, p = 0.07) and endoscopy studies (WMD: 0.23, p = 0.005), although the former did not reach statistical difference. There was also no significant difference in the length of postoperative hospital stay between the groups (WMD: -0.30, p = 0.60). CONCLUSION: It appears safe to no- ENBD after elective clearance of choledocholithiasis.

Leveraging access to technology and enhanced surgical technique (LATEST) in laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE).

Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones consists of performing either laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) or intra-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at the same time as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Transductal LBDE is associated with significantly higher post-operative morbidity, longer operative times and longer hospital stay when compared to transcystic LBDE. The aim of this study was to report the transcystic exploration rate and post-operative outcomes from LBDE before and after implementation of the LATEST (Leveraging Access to Technology and Enhanced Surgical Technique) principles. METHODS: A retrospective review of 481 consecutive patients between February 1998 and July 2021 was performed. Patients were assigned into two groups determined by whether they were operated before or after the implementation of LATEST. Data collected included pre-operative demographic information, medical co-morbidity, pre-operative investigations, and intra-operative findings (including transcystic exploration rate, negative choledochoscopy rate, use of holmium laser lithotripsy and operative time). Outcomes of this study were the transcystic exploration rate, stone clearance rate, conversion to open surgery, post-operative morbidity and mortality, and length of post-operative hospital stay. RESULTS: The pre-LATEST group contained 237 patients and the LATEST group comprised of 244 patients. Ultra-thin choledochoscopes and holmium laser lithotripsy were used more frequently in the LATEST group (41.4% and 18.4%, respectively). Enhanced surgical techniques (correction of the cystic duct-CBD junction and the trans-infundibular approach) were also performed more frequently in the LATEST group. More patients in the LATEST group received transcystic LBDE (86.1% vs 11.0%, p < 0.0001). The LATEST group had significantly higher stone clearance rates (98.8% vs 93.7%, p = 0.0034), reduced post-operative morbidity and shorter post-operative hospital stay (4 days vs 1 day, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: LATEST describes four key factors that can be used when performing LBDE. The adoption of LATEST in LBDE is associated with an increased stone clearance, a higher transcystic exploration rate and reduced post-operative morbidity.

The efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy for the treatment of difficult common bile duct stones combined with gallstones: a multicenter retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To analyze the benefits of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and/or endoscopic sphincterotomy following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/EST + LC) for difficult common bile duct stones combined with gallstones. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with difficult common bile duct stones combined with gallstones in three hospitals from January 2016 to January 2021 was performed. RESULTS: ERCP/EST + LC contributed to reducing postoperative drainage time. However, LCBDE + LC showed a higher rate of complete clearance, along with lower postoperative hospital stays, expenses and incidence of postoperative hyperamylasemia, pancreatitis, re-operation and recurrence. In addition, LCBDE + LC showed safe and feasible performance in the elderly and patients with previous upper abdominal surgery. CONCLUSION: It is an effective and safe method for LCBDE + LC for difficult common bile duct stones combined with gallstones.

Comparison between Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) and Clavien-Dindo Classification for laparoscopic single-stage treatment of choledocholithiasis with concomitant cholelithiasis.

PURPOSE: The Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) are both widely used methods for reporting postoperative complications. Several studies have compared the CCI® with the CDC in evaluating postoperative complications of major abdominal surgery. However, there are no published reports comparing both indexes in single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with cholecystectomy (LCBDE) for the treatment of common bile duct stones. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the CCI® and the CDC in evaluating the complications of LCBDE. METHODS: In total, 249 patients were included. Spearman's rank test was used to calculate the correlation coefficient between CCI® and CDC with length of postoperative stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and mortality rates. Student t-test and Fisher's exact test were used to study, if higher ASA, age, larger surgical time, history of previous abdominal surgery, preoperative ERCP, and intraoperative cholangitis finding were associated with higher CDC grade or higher CCI® score. RESULTS: Mean CCI® was 5.17 ± 12.8. CCI® ranges overlap among three CDC grades: II (20.90-36.20), IIIa (26.20-34.60), and IIIb (33.70-52.10). Age > 60 years, ASA ≥ III, and intraoperative cholangitis finding were associated with higher CCI® (p = 0.010, p = 0.044, and p = 0.031) but not with CDC ≥ IIIa (p = 0.158, p = 0.209, and p = 0.062). In patients with complications, LOS presented a significantly higher correlation with CCI® than with CDC (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: In LCBDE, the CCI® assesses better the magnitude of postoperative complications in patients older than 60 years, with a high ASA as well as in those who present intraoperative cholangitis. In addition, the CCI® correlates better with LOS in patients with complications.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure could be safely performed among elderly patients with choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is preferred over open surgery. Whether primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) should be performed upon completion of choledochotomy remains unclear, and the corresponding indications for primary closure of the common bile duct have yet to be fully identified. This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of primary closure of CBD among elderly patients (≥ 70 years) after LCBDE. METHODS: Patients with choledocholithiasis who had undergone LCBDE with primary closure of the CBD between July 2014 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Included patients were assigned into two groups (Group A: ≥70 years and Group B: <70 years) according to age. Group A was compared with Group B in terms of preoperative characteristics, intraoperative results and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: The mean operative time for Group A was 176.59 min (± 68.950), while the mean operative time for Group B was 167.64 min (± 69.635) (P = 0.324). The mean hospital stay after surgery for Group A was 8.43 days (± 4.440), while that for Group B was 8.30 days (± 5.203) (P = 0.849). Three patients in Group A experienced bile leakage, while bile leakage occurred in 10 patients in Group B (3.8% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.781). Group A was not significantly different from Group B in terms of postoperative complications and 30-day mortality except pneumonia (P = 0.016), acute cardiovascular event (P = 0.005) and ICU observation (P = 0.037). After a median follow-up time of 60 months, 2 patients in Group A and 2 patients in Group B experienced stone recurrence (2.5% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.612). One patient in Group A experienced stenosis of the CBD, while stenosis of the CBD occurred in 5 patients in Group B (1.3% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.937). CONCLUSIONS: Primary closure of CBD upon completion of LCBDE could be safely performed among patients ≥ 70 years.

Novel advances in surgery for Gallstone Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Examine recent advances in the treatment of patients with complex gallstone disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been shown to be an effective and safe treatment for choledocholithiasis, resulting in decreased hospital length of stay and costs when compared with ERCP plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Novel simulator-based curricula have recently been developed to address the educational gap that has resulted in an underutilization of LCBDE. Patients with cholecystitis who are too ill to safely undergo LC have traditionally been treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided gallbladder drainage is a novel definitive treatment for such patients and has been shown to result in decreased complications and hospital readmissions compared to PC. The management of symptomatic gallstone disease during pregnancy has evolved over the last several decades. While it is now well established that laparoscopic procedures under general anesthesia are safe throughout a pregnancy, recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the third trimester specifically may result in higher rates of preterm labor when compared with non-operative management. Finally, indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence cholangiography is a novel imaging modality that has been used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and may offer better visualization of biliary anatomy during dissection when compared with traditional intraoperative cholangiography. A number of recent technological, procedural, educational, and research innovations have enhanced and expanded treatment options for patients with complex gallstone disease.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration via choledochotomy with primary closure for the management of acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for patients with acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDSs). The outcomes after LCBDE with primary closure in patients with CBDS-related acute cholangitis are unknown. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LCBDE with primary closure for the management of acute cholangitis caused by CBDSs. METHODS: Between June 2015 and June 2020, 368 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis, who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + LCBDE in our department, were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 193 patients with CBDS-related acute cholangitis underwent LC + LCBDE with primary closure of the CBD (PC group) and 62 patients underwent LC + LCBDE followed by T-tube placement (T-tube group). A total of 113 patients who did not have cholangitis were excluded. The clinical data were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: There was no mortality in either group. No significant differences were noted in morbidity, bile leakage rate, retained CBD stones, or readmission rate within 30 days between the two groups. Compared with the T-tube group, the PC group avoided T-tube-related complications and had a shorter operative time (121.12 min vs. 143.37 min) and length of postoperative hospital stay (6.59 days vs. 8.81 days). Moreover, the hospital expenses in the PC group were significantly lower than those in the T-tube group ($4844.47 vs. $5717.22). No biliary stricture occurred during a median follow-up of 18 months in any patient. No significant difference between the two groups was observed in the rate of stone recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: LCBDE with primary closure is a safe and effective treatment for cholangitis caused by CBDSs. LCBDE with primary closure is not inferior to T-tube drainage for the management of CBDS-related acute cholangitis in suitable patients.

EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones. METHODS: We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions. RESULTS: The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL ). CONCLUSION: We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: IPGRP-2022CN170.

Optimal treatment for concomitant gallbladder stones with common bile duct stones and predictors for recurrence of common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for concomitant gallbladder (GB) stones with common bile duct (CBD) stones and predictors for recurrence of CBD stones are not established. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study reviewed 466 patients diagnosed with a first event of concomitant GB stones with CBD stones from January 2010 to December 2018. RESULTS: 92 patients underwent single-stage laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) (group1), 108 underwent LCBDE + LC after endoscopic stone extraction (ESE) failure (group2), and 266 underwent ESE + LC (group3). Clearance (95.7 vs. 99.1 vs. 97.0%, p = 0.324) and recurrence rates (5.4 vs. 13.0 vs. 7.9%, p = 0.138) did not differ between groups. Group1 had fewer procedures (p < 0.001), lower post-treatment complication rates (7.6 vs. 18.5 vs. 13.9%, p = 0.082), and shorter hospital stay after the first procedure (5.7 vs 13.0 vs 9.8 days, p < 0.001). 40 patients (8.6%) had recurrence of CBD stones at mean follow-up of 17.1 months, of which 29 (72.5%) occurred within 24 months. In multivariate analysis, a CBD diameter > 8 mm, combined type-1 periampullary diverticulum, and age > 70 years were significant predictors of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Single-stage LCBDE + LC is a safe and effective treatment for concomitant GB stones with CBD stones compared to ESE + LC. LCBDE should be considered in patients with a high risk of ESE failure. Careful follow-up is recommended for patients at high risk of recurrence of CBD stones, especially within 24 months after surgical or endoscopic treatment.

One-stage versus two-stage management for acute cholecystitis associated with common bile duct stones: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Both one-stage [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)] and two-stage [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by sequential LC] approaches are effective treatment for concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstone. Although many studies compared one-stage with two-stage surgical approach for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, there are very few studies compared the two management strategies for acute cholecystitis (AC) associated with CBD stones. METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2019, patients with concomitant AC and CBD stones proposed to early surgery were retrospectively studied. The patients were scheduled to undergo either the one-stage [LCBDE and LC (LCBDE+LC) were undertaken at the same operation] or two-stage [preoperative ERCP for CBD stone clearance was followed by LC 1-3 days later (pre-ERCP+LC)] procedure. The success rate of complete stone clearance, procedure-related complication, hospital stay, hospitalization charges and later biliary complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in the study, 28 in the one-stage group and 32 in the two-stage group. There was no significant difference in the success rate of complete stone clearance (96.4% vs. 93.8%, P = 1.000), complication rate (10.7% vs. 9.4%, P = 1.000), incidence of pancreatitis (0 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.494) or length of hospital stay (12 ± 5 vs. 11 ± 4 days, P = 0.393) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For patients with concomitant AC and choledocholithiasis proposed to early surgery, both the one-stage (LCBDE+LC) and two-stage (pre-ERCP+LC) approaches were acceptable and broadly comparable in achieving clearance of CBD stones.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is beneficial for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) is considered a contraindication to laparoscopic surgery. Whether LCBDE-PC is feasible and beneficial for patients with PUAS remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of LCBDE-PC for patients with PUAS. METHODS: From June 2011 to September 2019, 1167 patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures for choledocholithiasis were reviewed retrospectively. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients with and without PUAS in un-matched and matched cohorts. RESULTS: LCBDE-PC was performed successfully in 88.3% of patients with PUAS, and 92.5% of patients without PUAS (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that PUAS was not a risk factor that affected successful performance of LCBDE-PC. Although a higher rate of conversion to open surgery and longer operative time were observed in patients with PUAS, no significant differences were found between patients with and without PUAS in multivariate and propensity score analysis (P > 0.05). A predictive nomogram for LCBDE-PC failure was developed based on potential predictors from the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model. Successful performance of LCBDE-PC was associated with operative time. A linear regression model for operative time showed impacted stone in the CBD and intraoperative laser use was the most important factor in determining the operative time. CONCLUSION: LCBDE-PC is feasible and beneficial for patients with PUAS. However, patients with PUAS with a high possibility of LCBDE-PC failure from the nomogram and a longer operative time from the linear regression model should be cautious when undergoing LCBDE-PC.

Primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is safe and feasible for patients with non-severe acute cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: The safety and feasibility of primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) have been confirmed in elective settings. However, the suitability of primary closure after LCBDE in the treatment of patients with non-severe acute cholangitis in emergency settings remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to explore the safety and feasibility of LCBDE with primary closure in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis. METHODS: Consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis combined with gallbladder stones treated by LCBDE with primary closure at our institution from January 2015 to April 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. These patients were divided into two groups: emergency group (patients with non-severe acute cholangitis) and elective group (patients without acute cholangitis). The demographic and perioperative data of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients received LCBDE combined with primary closure during this period, including 70 in the emergency group and 52 in the elective group. Baseline characteristics were balanced in both groups, except for higher levels of white blood cells (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and albumin in the emergency group. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. Compared to the elective group, the emergency group had a longer operation time (P = 0.011), and more estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of conversion (2.9% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.507), use of baskets (84.2% vs. 78.8%, P = 0.481), use of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) (2.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 1.000), or postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.214). The incidence of postoperative complications was comparable between the two groups. During the follow-up period, none of the patients experienced biliary stricture, and 1 case of stone recurrence occurred in the elective group. CONCLUSIONS: LCBDE with primary closure for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe acute cholangitis has the equivalent efficacy and morbidity to elective surgery. Primary closure after LCBDE is a safe and feasible option for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe acute cholangitis.

Transductal versus transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: an institutional review of over four hundred cases.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have failed to demonstrate significant differences between single- and two-staged approaches for the management of choledocholithiasis with concomitant gallstones in terms of post-operative morbidity. However, none of these studies paid specific attention to the differences between the methods of accessing the bile duct during laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to report outcomes of transcystic versus transductal laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) from our experience of over four hundred cases. METHODS: Retrospective review of 416 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at a single-centre between 1998 and 2018 was performed. Data collected included pre-operative demographic information, medical co-morbidity, pre-operative investigations, intra-operative findings (including negative choledochoscopy rates, use of holmium laser lithotripsy and operative time) and post-operative outcomes. RESULTS: Transductal LCBDE via choledochotomy was achieved in 242 patients (58.2%), whereas 174 patients (41.8%) underwent transcystic LCBDE. Stone clearance rates, conversion to open surgery and mortality were similar between the two groups. Overall morbidity as well as minor and major post-operative complications were significantly higher in the transductal group. The main surgery-related complications were bile leak (5.8% vs 1.1%, p = 0.0181) and pancreatitis (7.4% vs 0.6%, p = 0.0005). Median length of post-operative stay was also significantly greater in the transductal group. CONCLUSION: This study represents the largest single study to date comparing outcomes from transcystic and transductal LCBDE. Where possibly, the transcystic route should be used for LCBDE and this approach can be augmented with various techniques to increase successful stone clearance and reduce the need for choledochotomy.

Comparison of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treating gallstones and common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones. METHODS: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. RESULTS: Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased. CONCLUSIONS: LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (IO-ERCP + LC) for the treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library from their inception dates to April 2020, for studies that compared the efficacy and safety of LCBDE + LC with those of IO-ERCP + LC in patients with gallbladder and CBD stones. The technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, biliary leak, postoperative pancreatitis, conversion, retained stones, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between these two approaches. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials involving 860 patients were evaluated. Overall, no significant difference was found between LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC regarding technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and the conversion rate. Biliary leak and retained stones were significantly more prevalent in the LCBDE + LC group, while postoperative pancreatitis was significantly more prevalent in the IO-ERCP + LC group. CONCLUSIONS: LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC have similar efficacy and safety in terms of technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and conversion rate. However, LCBDE + LC is associated with a higher biliary leak rate, lower postoperative pancreatitis rate, and higher rate of retained stones.

Contemporary management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a survey of Spanish surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones (CBDS) is a relatively frequent presentation. The optimal treatment remains controversial and the debate persists between two strategies. The one-stage approach: laparoscopic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been shown to be equally safe and more cost-effective than the more traditional two-stage approach: endoscopic retrograde cholangiography followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC). However, many surgeons worldwide still prefer the two-stage procedure. This survey evaluated contemporary management of CBDS in Spain and assessed the impact of surgeon and hospital factors on provision of LCBDE. METHODS: A 25-item, web-based anonymous survey was sent to general surgeons members of the Spanish Surgeons Association. Descriptive statistics were applied to summarize results. RESULTS: Responses from 305 surgeons across 173 Spanish hospitals were analyzed. ERCP is the initial approach for preoperatively suspected CBDS for 86% of surgeons. LCBDE is the preferred method for only 11% of surgeons and only 11% treat more than 10 cases per year. For CBDS discovered intraoperatively, 59% of respondents attempt extraction while 32% defer to a postoperative ERCP. The main reasons cited for not performing LCBDE were lack of equipment, training and timely availability of an ERCP proceduralist. Despite these barriers, most surgeons (84%) responded that LCBDE should be implemented in their departments. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP was the preferred approach for CBDS for the majority of respondents. There remains limited use of LCBDE despite many surgeons indicating it should be implemented. Focused planning and resourcing of both training and operational demands are required to facilitate adoption of LCBDE as option for patients.