Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous Research Articles

Current management of concomitant cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones.

The management policy of concomitant cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis is based on a one- or two-stage procedure. It basically includes either laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration (LCBDE) in the same operation or LC with preoperative, postoperative and even intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ERCP-ES) for stone clearance. The most frequently used worldwide option is preoperative ERCP-ES and stone removal followed by LC, preferably on the next day. In cases where preoperative ERCP-ES is not feasible, the proposed alternative of intraoperative rendezvous ERCP-ES simultaneously with LC has been advocated. The intraoperative extraction of CBD stones is superior to postoperative rendezvous ERCP-ES. However, there is no consensus on the superiority of laparoendoscopic rendezvous. This is equivalent to a traditional two-stage procedure. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation reduces recurrence. LCBDE and intraoperative ERCP have similar good outcomes. The risk of recurrence after ERCP-ES is greater than that after LCBDE. Laparoscopic ultrasonography may delineate the anatomy and detect CBD stones. The majority of surgeons prefer the transcductal instead of the transcystic approach for CBDE with or without T-tube drainage, but the transcystic approach must be used where possible. LCBDE is a safe and effective choice when performed by an experienced surgeon. However, the requirement of specific equipment and advanced training are drawbacks. The percutaneous approach is an alternative when ERCP fails. Surgical or endoscopic reintervention for retained stones may be needed. For asymptomatic CBD stones, ERCP clearance is the first-choice method. Both one-stage and two-stage management are acceptable and can ensure improved quality of life.

Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for themanagement of patients with common bile duct stones: Ameta-analysis.

Cholelithiasis is a frequently occurring disease in clinic. Due to changes in people's living environments, dietary habits and the aging population, cholelithiasis incidence is increasing. Currently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the preferredtreatment for gallbladder stones, but the surgical method for patients withcholedocholithiasis is controversial. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pERCP) is performed preoperatively, followed by LC as the general treatment method. However, pERCP still has some disadvantages, such as prolonged hospital stay, increased incidence of postoperative pancreatitis, and increased duration of anesthesia. Therefore, intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) is proposed. To compare the efficacy and safety of one-stage treatment and two-stage treatment for the management of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through October 2022. The search terms include cholangiolithiasis/bile duct stones/calculi, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/ERCP, endoscopic sphincterotomy/EST, laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy/LC. For the treatment of patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis in adults, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LC with iERCP vs. pERCP followed by LC were conducted. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers. We used Revman version 5.3 to analyze the collected data. The trials were grouped according to the evaluation results such as the overall mortality rate, overall morbidity rate, clearance rate of choledocholithiasis, incidence of pancreatitis, the length of hospitalization, and the length of operation. 9 RCTs (950 participants) were included in this meta-analyses. The overall morbidity rate in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.79, p = 0.0008). The clearance rate of choledocholithiasis in LC + iERCP group was almost the same as that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI = 0.98-1.08, p = 0.28). The incidence of pancreatitis in LC + iERCP group is lower than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.29, 95% CI = 0.13-0.67, p = 0.004). The length of operation of the LC + iERCP group seems to be similar to that of the LC + pERCP group (MD: 16.63 95% CI = -5.98-39.24, p = 0.15). LC + iERCP group has a shorter length of hospitalization than that in LC + pERCP group (MD:-2.68 95% CI = -3.39--1.96, p < 0.00001). LC + iERCP group has lowerpostoperative second ERCP rate than that in LC + pERCP group (RR: 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.57, p = 0.006). Our study suggest that LC + iERCP may be a better option than LC + pERCP in the management of patients with both cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. This procedure can reduce the overall incidence of postoperative complications, especially the occurrence of postoperative pancreatitis. It could shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce postoperative second ERCP rate.

Laparo-endoscopic Rendezvous in the Treatment of Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A Single Center Initial Experience

Cholecystocholedocholithiasis is a common disease worldwide; however, there is still no consensus regarding a gold standard therapy for its management. Nowadays, the preferred method is a “two-step” process, starting with an endoscopic common bile duct (CBD) stone extraction (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]) followed by a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Nevertheless, this “two-step” approach has shown some difficulties over time (i.e., need for two hospital admissions, need of at least two anesthesia inductions, higher rate of post-procedural pancreatitis, longer hospitalizations and thus, increased costs). On the other hand, the laparo-endoscopic rendezvous (LER), which is a simultaneous combined procedure for removing the gallbladder laparoscopically and clearing the CBD endoscopically, is another valid treatment modality that involves a “single-step” resolution of cholecystocholedocholithiasis applying a multidisciplinary approach of the patient. The aim of this study was to present our initial outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed eleven patients who consecutively underwent LER at our institution from May 2017 to March 2022. The patients’ mean age was 50.6 years old (range, 34 - 68) and most were male 54.5% (6/11). LER successfully achieved CBD stone clearance in 90.9% (10/11) of the cases. Post-LER pancreatitis was not recorded in any case. Post-operative complications included one reoperation (1/11; 9.1%) due to bleeding from one of the laparoscopic trocar sites. Our group concluded that LER can be effectively applied in Perú with good mid-term results and confirmed its effectiveness in accomplishing C sults, we recommend the use of LER as a safe and valid therapeutic option for our patients.

Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous Procedure for Cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: Relevance of Anterograde Duodenum Guidewire Placement in Outcomes: A Single Series of 389 Cases from a Teaching Hospital in Santiago, Chile

Introduction: The ideal management for colecysto-choledocholithiasis remains controversial. One-stage approach using a laparoendoscopic “Rendez Vous” (LERV) technique could offer some advantages over the two-stage approach, mainly by reducing complications and costs.

Decision analysis of minimally invasive management options for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis.

The management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is controversial with the risks and benefits of one versus two-stage approaches debated. This study aims to perform decision analysis of minimally invasive laparo-endoscopic approaches. An advanced decision tree was constructed to compare pre, intra and post-operative ERCP and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in terms of primary ductal clearance and significant complications for patients intended to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomised controlled trials following a comprehensive literature search. Model uncertainties were extensively tested through deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. Utility outcomes were 1 and 0.5 for successful primary clearance without and with complications, respectively, and 0 for failure of primary clearance of the duct. Twenty-one studies (n = 2697) were included in the analysis. At base case analysis, a laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach had the highest utility output (0.90; no complication probability: 0.87/complication probability 0.06). Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was ranked second with a utility output 0.87 (no complication probability: 0.82/complication probability 0.10). Pre-operative ERCP utility score was 0.84 (no complication probability: 0.78/ complication probability 0.11) and post-operative ERCP utility score was 0.78 (no complication probability: 0.71/complication probability 0.13). Monte Carlo analysis showed that laparo-endoscopic rendezvous and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration had an equal mean utility output of 0.57 (standard deviation 0.36; variance 0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.99 versus standard deviation 0.34; variance 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.98). Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous had a superior treatment selection frequency of 39.93% followed by laparoscopic bile duct exploration (36.11%), pre-operative ERCP (20.67%) and post-operative ERCP (2.99%). One-stage approach to the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is superior to two-stage, in terms of primary clearance of the duct and risk of operative morbidity. Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach could offer marginal additional benefit but more high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

The ideal management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), combined with laparoscopy and endoscopy, is a novel and attractive technique. The aim of this research was to compare LERV with traditional two-stage management, preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), for treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Four databases, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Medline, all updated to through September 2019, were searched to identify comparative studies on LERV versus ERCP + LC for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Total operative time, successful common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance, postoperative morbidity, conversion to other procedures, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Pooled data were measured by odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Eight studies with a total of 1061 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 542 patients who received LERV and 519 patients who received ERCP + LC. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding successful CBD stone clearance (OR 2.20, P = 0.10), postoperative bleeding (OR 0.67, P = 0.37), postoperative cholangitis (OR 0.66, P = 0.53), postoperative bile leak (OR 0.87, P = 0.81), or conversion to other procedures (OR 0.75, P = 0.62). The total operative time was longer in the LERV group (MD = 44.93, P < 0.00001), while LERV was associated with less postoperative pancreatitis than the two-stage management group (OR 0.26, P = 0.0003). The incidence of overall morbidity was lower in the LERV group than in the two-stage management group (OR 0.41, P < 0.0001), and the LERV group had a shorter hospital stay (MD = -3.52, P < 0.00001). LERV is equivalent to traditional two-stage procedures in terms of CBD stone clearance and conversion, with less pancreatitis, lower overall morbidity, and shorter hospital stay but longer operation time. More clinical trials are needed to determine the best treatment for patients in different conditions.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis: a single series of 200 patients.

Although the ideal management of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis is controversial, the two-stage approach, namely the common bile duct (CBD) clearance through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, remains the standard way of management. However, whenever feasible, the one-stage approach, using the so-called "laparoendoscopic rendezvous" (LERV) technique, offers some advantages, mainly reducing the hospital stay and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and the efficacy of the one-stage approach, and to compare our results with data from available large studies. We reviewed our series of consecutive patients with cholecysto-choledocholitiasis treated by LERV from January 2003, to October 2016. Both elective and emergency cases were included. The primary end-point was the efficacy to obtain the CBD stones clearance. Secondary end-points were morbidity and mortality, operative time, conversion rate, and in-hospital stay. A total of 200 patients underwent a LERV procedure for the intra-operative diagnosis by intra-operative cholangiogram of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis. In 187 patients (93.5%), it was possible to cannulate the cystic duct with the jag-wire. Success rate was 95%. Conversion rate was 3%. The mean operative time was 135min and the mean in-hospital stay was 4 days. 29 (14.5%) were the early complications, six mild pancreatitis. Four patients required re-operation during the hospital stay. 11 patients (5.5%) developed late complications during a median follow-up of 57.7months. Our results confirm that LERV technique is a safe procedure with high success rates for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholitiasis. The major advantages include the single-stage treatment, the shorter hospital stay, and the lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous may be an effective alternative to a failed preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

Background:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), remains the standard way of management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), a combined procedure for removing the gallbladder laparoscopically and clearing the common bile duct (CBD) endoscopically at the same time, could be an attractive alternative. The aim of this study was to compare LERV with classic ERCP in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.Methods:886 patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis were treated either with the LERV technique (90 patients), or with the 2-stage approach, which includes preoperative ERCP followed by LC (796 patients). The primary endpoint was any difference in the success of CBD cannulation and clearance; secondary endpoints were the detection of differences in morbidity (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis [PEP]), and the feasibility of the two approaches.Results:Successful cannulation of the CBD was more frequent with conventional ERCP compared with the LERV technique (89.8% vs. 75.5%, P=0.0001). LERV appears to be as effective as conventional ERCP for complete CBD clearance (85.5% vs. 82.8%, P<0.1). None of the patients in the LERV group had an episode of clinical PEP, whereas in the conventional ERCP group there were 23 episodes of PEP and one death. The median amylase level was higher in patients undergoing conventional ERCP group compared to patients in LERV group.Conclusion:Classic ERCP has a higher rate of successful CBD cannulation and a similar rate of CBD clearance compared to LERV.

Cost analysis of laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

Evidence from controlled trials and meta-analyses suggests that laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) is preferable to sequential treatment in the management of common bile duct stones. With this retrospective analysis of a prospective database that included consecutive patients treated for cholecystocholedocholithiasis at our institution between January 2007 and July 2015, we compared LERV with sequential treatment. The primary endpoint was global cost, defined as the cost/patient/hospital stay, and the secondary end points were efficacy and morbidity. Fisher's exact test or Mann-Whitney test was used. Of a total of 249 consecutive patients, 143 underwent LERV (group A) and 106 a two-stage procedure (group B). Based on an average cost of €613 for 1day of hospital stay in the General Surgery Department, the overall median cost of treatment was €6403 for group A and €8194 for group B (p<0.001). Operative time was significantly shorter (p<0.001), and length of hospital stay was significantly longer for group B (p<0.001). No mortality in either group was observed. The postoperative complications rate was significantly higher in group B than in group A (24.5 vs. 10.5%; p=0.003). No significant difference in the postoperative pancreatitis rate or the number of patients with increased serum amylase at 24h was observed in either group. Our study suggests that LERV is preferable to sequential treatment not only in terms of less morbidity, but also of lower costs accrued by a shorter hospital stay. However, the longer operative time raises multiple organizational issues in the coordination of surgery and endoscopy services.

Cholecystocholedocholithiasis treated by simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous

Cholecystocholedocholithiasis treated by simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous

"Ultra-rapid" sequential treatment in cholecystocholedocholithiasis: alternative same-day approach to laparoendoscopic rendezvous.

There is still no consensus about timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis. The aim of our retrospective study is to analyze the optimal timing of surgical treatment in patients presenting concurrent choledocholithiasis, choosing to perform a sequential endoscopic plus surgical approach, introducing a same-day two-stage alternative. All cases of cholecystocholedocholithiasis occurred between January 2007 and December 2014 in "Gradenigo" Hospital (Turin-Italy) were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups, based on the timing of cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and compared. Out of 2233 cholecystectomies performed in the mentioned time interval, have been identified 93 patients that fulfill the selection criteria. 36 patients were treated with a same-day approach, while 29 within first 72 h and 28 with delayed surgery. The overall length of stay was significantly lower in patients that were treated with a same-day approach (4.7 days), compared with other groups (p = 0.001), while no significant differences were found in terms of length of surgical intervention, intraoperative complications and conversions to open procedure, postoperative stay, morbidity and mortality. Patients treated with delayed surgery had a 18 % recurrency rate of biliary events, with an odds ratio of 14.13 (p = 0.018). Same-day two-stage approach should be performed in suitable patients at the index admission, reducing overall risks, improving the patients' quality-of-life, preventing recurrency, leading to a significant cost abatement; furthermore, this approach allows same outcomes of laparoendoscopic rendezvous, avoiding technical and organizational troubles.

Current status of laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholelithiasis with concomitant choledocholithiasis.

The current evidence in favor of the laparoendoscopic rendezvous is promising and demonstrates the main advantages of this technique in regard to shorter hospital stay and selective cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD), avoiding thus the inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct. In addition, in the rendezvous technique the contrast medium is not injected retrogradely as during the traditional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), when the medium accidentally could be injected under pressure into the pancreatic duct. The RV technique minimizes that risk. Both these main advantages of the RV technique over the classic ERCP, are related with a significant lower incidence of hyperamylasemia and post-ERCP pancreatitis, compared with the traditional two stage procedure. Choledocholithiasis is present in 10% to 15% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. To date, the ideal management of CBD stones remains controversial. Prospective randomized trials have shown that laparoscopic management of the CBD stones, as a single stage procedure, is the most efficient and cost effective method of treatment. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous has been proposed as an alternative single stage approach. Several studies have shown the effective use of this technique in the treatment of CBD stones by improving patient compliance and clinical results including shorter hospital stay, higher success rate and less cost. The current evidence about the use of this technique presented in this review article is promising and demonstrates the main advantages of the procedure.

A modified technique reduced operative time of laparoendoscopic rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for concomitant gallstone and common bile ductal stone.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC+ERCP/LERV) are considered an optimal approach for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. The rendezvous technique is essential for the success of procedure. We applied two different LERV techniques, traditional technique and modified technique, in 60 consecutive cases from January 2011 to November 2012. 32 cases who underwent modified technique (group 1) from February 2012 to November 2012 were retrospectively compared to 28 cases (group 2) who underwent traditional technique from January 2011 to January 2012. There was no significant difference between two groups with respect to preoperative demographic features. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the procedure was successfully performed in 31 cases (96.9%) in group 1 and 24 cases (86.2%) in group 2. The mean operative time and time of endoscopic part were 82.6 ± 19.6 min and 26.5 ± 5.99 min in group 1 which were significantly shorter than those in group 2 (118.0 ± 23.1 min and 58.7 ± 13.3 min, resp.). There was no postoperative pancreatitis and mortality in both groups. The mean hospital stay, blood loss, incidence of complications, and residual stone were of no difference in both groups. This study proved that this modified technique can effectively reduce the operative time and time of endoscopic part of LC+ERCP/LERV compared with traditional technique.

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous reduces perioperative morbidity and risk of pancreatitis

The ideal management of cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones still is controversial. Although the two-stage sequential approach remains the prevalent management, several trials have concluded that the so-called laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) technique offers some advantages, such as a reduced risk of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis. This study aimed to compare the single-stage LERV technique with the two-stage endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LERV and the two-stage sequential approach was conducted. The outcomes considered were overall complications and pancreatitis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1998 to July 2012. Odds ratios (ORs) were extracted and pooled using a fixed or random-effect model depending on I (2) used as a heterogeneity measure. Four RCTs, including a total of 430 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of overall complications was lower in the LERV group (11.2 %) than in the two-stage intervention group (18.1 %) (OR, 0.56; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.99; P = 0.04; I (2) = 45 %). The findings showed that LERV was associated with less clinical pancreatitis (2.4 %) than the two-stage technique (8.4 %) (OR, 0.33; 95 % CI, 0.12-0.91; P = 0.03; I (2) = 33 %). Despite the limitation of a small number of studies completed, the evidence of RCTs shows that LERV is superior to two-stage treatment due to a reduction in overall complications, particularly pancreatitis.

Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous Versus Preoperative ERCP and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for the Management of Cholecysto-Choledocholithiasis

Although the ideal management of cholecysto-choledocholi-thiasis is controversial, the 2-stage approach [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sphincterotomy, and common bile duct (CBD) clearance followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy] remains the standard way of management worldwide. One-stage approach using the so-called laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) technique offers some advantages, mainly by reducing the hospital stay and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. To compare the LERV 1-stage approach with the standard 2-stage approach consisting of preoperative ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Controlled randomized trial, University/Teaching Hospital. : Patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis were randomized either to LERV or to the 2-stage approach. Both elective and emergency cases were included in the study. Primary endpoint was to detect difference in overall hospital stay, whereas secondary endpoints were (i) to detect differences in morbidity (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis) and (ii) success of CBD clearance. This is an interim analysis of the first 100 randomized patients. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LERV group; median 4 (2-19) days versus 5.5 (3-22) days, P = 0.0004. There was no difference in morbidity and success of CBD clearance between the 2 groups. Post-ERCP amylase value was found significantly lower in the LERV group: median 65 (16-1159) versus 91 (30-1846), P = 0.02. Interim analysis of the results suggests the superiority of the LERV technique in terms of hospital stay and post-ERCP hyperamylasemia.

Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous Versus Preoperative ERCP and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for the Management of Cholecysto-Choledocholithiasis: Interim Analysis of a Controlled Randomized Trial

Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous Versus Preoperative ERCP and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for the Management of Cholecysto-Choledocholithiasis: Interim Analysis of a Controlled Randomized Trial

Simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous for the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Different approaches are available for the treatment of combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis including totally laparoscopic (TL) treatment, simultaneous laparoendoscopic treatment, and sequential treatments (ST) combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with cholecystectomy. This review aimed to clarify the issue of the simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous (RV). A careful analysis of papers was performed to determine the results, technical differences, limits, disadvantages, and advantages of RV compared with other options. Data were collected from 27 papers concerning 795 patients. The overall effectiveness of RV was 92.3%. The morbidity rate was 5.1%, and the mortality rate was 0.37%. Almost all the authors were satisfied with the procedure. The authors' comparison to ST and TL showed that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages mostly related to logistical problems. There is confusion concerning the definitions and techniques of RV due to differences in combining surgical and endoscopic steps of the procedure. The results are at least comparable with those of the other available approaches. The effectiveness of RV is greater with reciprocal implementation of surgical and endoscopic procedures. The morbidity and the risk of iatrogenic damage seem lower than with ERCP-ES and the risk of residual stones lower than with TL treatment. The RV procedure is safe and can sometimes be the preferable option, but collaboration between surgeon and endoscopist is mandatory.

Laparo-Endoscopic Rendezvous Technique in Patients with Gallbladder and Bile Duct Stones. Chilean Experience

Introduction: A multitasking surgical platform optimizes technological and human resources and guarantees the best available procedure for each patient. In patients with gallbladder and bile duct stones (PGBDS), the effectiveness, safety, patient's satisfaction and lower costs of simultaneous laparo-endoscopic treatment have been recently demonstrated. In Chile cholelithiasis and its complications, are highly prevalent diseases that make this strategy suitable. Objective: To describe our experience in the simultaneous laparo-endoscopic management of PGBDS in three public Chilean hospitals.

Letter to the Editor

Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical TechniquesVol. 18, No. 1 Letter to the EditorMichel GagnerMichel GagnerSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:11 Feb 2008https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2007.0082AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail "Letter to the Editor." , 18(1), p. 113FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byA Modified Technique Reduced Operative Time of Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Combined with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Concomitant Gallstone and Common Bile Ductal StoneGastroenterology Research and Practice, Vol. 2014A 10-year study of rendezvous intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during cholecystectomy and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis26 January 2013 | Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 27, No. 7Simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous for the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis3 September 2009 | Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 24, No. 4Beam characteristics versus cavity models in CLIC Volume 18Issue 1Feb 2008 Information© 2008 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Michel Gagner.Letter to the Editor.Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.Feb 2008.113-113.http://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2007.0082Published in Volume: 18 Issue 1: February 11, 2008PDF download

Laparo-endoscopic “Rendezvous” to treat cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: Effective, safe and simplifies the endoscopist’s work

To investigate our clinical experience with combined laparo-endoscopic Rendezvous (RV) for the treatment of patients affected by gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones and especially to study the never evaluated opinion of the endoscopist concerning the difficulty of the intraoperative endoscopic procedure during the RV in comparison with standard endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). Eighty consecutive patients affected by cholecystolithiasis and diagnosed or suspected CBD stones were treated with a standardized "tailored" RV. The relevant technical features, the feasibility, the effectiveness in stone clearance, the safety but also the simple evaluation of difficulty and agreement of the endoscopist were analyzed with a questionnaire. The feasibility was 97.5% and the effectiveness 100% concerning CBD clearance and solution of coexisting problems at the papilla. Minor morbidity was 3.3%, the operating time was prolonged by a mean of 14 min, the mean hospital stay was 3.8 d and only one stone's recurrence occurred. The endoscopist evaluated the procedure to be simpler than standard ERCP-ES in 81.2% of the cases. Simultaneous RV carries high effectiveness and safety at least comparable to those reported for other options. The endoscopist is very often satisfied with this approach because of the minimization of some steps of the endoscopic procedure and avoidance of relevant iatrogenic risk factors. If the mandatory collaboration between surgeons and endoscopists is guaranteed, this approach can often be preferable for the patient, the surgeon, the endoscopist and the hospital.