Postoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Research Articles

A comparison of outcomes including bile duct injury of subtotal cholecystectomy versus open total cholecystectomy as bailout procedures for severe cholecystitis: A multicenter real-world study

BackgroundDense inflammation obscuring the hepatocystic anatomy can hinder the ability to perform a safe standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in severe cholecystitis, requiring use of a bailout procedure. We compared clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open subtotal cholecystectomy against the traditional standard of open total cholecystectomy to identify the optimal bailout strategy for the difficult gallbladder. MethodsA multicenter, multinational retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent bailout procedures for severe cholecystitis. Procedures were compared using one-way analysis of variance/Kruskal-Wallis tests and χ2 tests with multiple pairwise comparisons, maintaining a family-wise error rate at 0.05. Multiple multivariate linear/logistical regression models were created. ResultsIn 11 centers, 727 bailout procedures were conducted: 317 laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomies, 172 open subtotal cholecystectomies, and 238 open cholecystectomies. Baseline characteristics were similar among subgroups. Bile leak was common in laparoscopic and open fenestrating subtotal cholecystectomies, with increased intraoperative drain placements and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(P < .05). In contrast, intraoperative bleeding (odds ratio = 3.71 [1.9, 7.22]), surgical site infection (odds ratio = 2.41 [1.09, 5.3]), intensive care unit admission (odds ratio = 2.65 [1.51, 4.63]), and length of stay (Δ = 2 days, P < .001) were higher in open procedures. Reoperation rates were higher for open reconstituting subtotal cholecystectomies (odds ratio = 3.43 [1.03, 11.44]) than other subtypes. The overall rate of bile duct injury was 1.1% and was not statistically different between groups. Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy had a bile duct injury rate of 0.63%. ConclusionLaparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy is a feasible surgical bailout procedure in cases of severe cholecystitis where standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy may carry undue risk of bile duct injury. Open cholecystectomy remains a reasonable option.

Comparison of 1-stage and 2-stage Managements for Common Bile Duct Stones and Gallstones (CBDS): A Retrospective Study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and surgical outcomes of 2-stage management, namely preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP+LC) or LC + postoperative ERCP (LC+ERCP), as well as 1-stage management, LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for treating patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones (CBDS). This retrospective study analyzed the data of 180 patients with common bile duct stones (CBDS) who were admitted to the Department of General Surgery at Tongji Hospital, Tongji University, between January 2019 and June 2021. The study included 3 groups: ERCP+LC (group 1), LC+ERCP (group 2), and LC+LCBDE (group 3), each consisting of 60 patients. Clinical metrics of the patients were collected and compared among the groups. Group 3 had the shortest operation duration and hospital stay compared with group 1 and group 2. In addition, group 3 had the lowest long-term postoperative complications, particularly the recurrence rate of CBDS. The total cost was also the lowest in group 3. Furthermore, patients in group 3 had the lowest postoperative amylase levels. All patients in the study achieved successful stone clearance. There were no significant differences in the conversion to other procedures rate, postoperative alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, and mortality among the three groups (P > 0.05). Both 1-stage management and 2-stage management are effective treatments for CBDS. The LC+LCBDE management is a safe treatment option, offering shorter hospital stays and operation duration, lower costs, and fewer complications.

Management of Choledocholithiasis in a Community Hospital: Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Versus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

Approximately 10% of intraoperative cholangiograms identify choledocholithiasis (CDL), stones in the common bile duct. Choledocholithiasis management options include endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) followed by ERCP (LC + ERCP), cholecystectomy with open common bile duct exploration, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE). The goal of these interventions is to clear the obstruction from CDL. Patients from a single-center community hospital undergoing LC with intraoperative cholangiogram (LC + IOC) progressing to LC + LCBDE from July 2020 to August 2022 were evaluated for hospital length of stay (LOS), operative times, and complications. These were compared to the prior standard practice of pre/post-operative ERCP. The results were evaluated using ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls, and chi square analysis. In comparison of LC + CBDE to ERCP + cholecystectomy, LOS was reduced (1.8 vs 4.6days P < .0001). No difference in LOS between LC + IOC and LC + CBDE (1.4 vs 1.8days, P > .05) was found. No difference in complication rates was found. Mean operative time differed between LC + IOC and LC + CBDE (63 vs 113minutes, P < .0001). Fifty-five attempts of LC + CBDE were performed with only 10 requiring post-operative ERCP. Since implementation of LC + CBDE, there has been reduced LOS without increasing complication rates. Operative times are increased with LC + CBDE but offset by reduced LOS, additional anesthesia events, and procedures. Our institution will continue to pursue LC + CBDE when indicated with efforts to improve resource allocation.

Management of intraoperatively identified small bile duct stones in patients undergoing cholecystectomy

IntroductionThe management of CBDS (common bile duct stones) in patients with co-existing gallbladder stones has been debated. Guidelines recommend patients with CBDS identified on imaging should be offered duct clearance; however, this is based on low-quality evidence. This study aimed to investigate the natural history of small CBDS identified using IOUS (intraoperative ultrasound) in patients undergoing cholecystectomy. This may provide evidence to support a short-term expectant management approach in such patients.MethodsPatients with CBDS diagnosed on IOUS during cholecystectomy were identified from a database of consecutive patients undergoing surgery. Patients with CBDS identified were divided into small stone (SS, ≤5 mm) and large stone (LS, >5 mm) groups. Intraoperative CBDS management, postoperative investigations, postoperative bile duct clearance, re-admissions, complications, length of stay (LOS) and follow-up are described.ResultsFifty-nine of 427 patients had CBDS identified on IOUS. In the SS group (n=51), 46 patients underwent short-term expectant management rather than immediate/planned bile duct clearance. Following short-term expectant management, 41/46 patients (89.1%) did not require postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and at >3 year follow-up, none has since presented with residual CBDS. Median LOS was 0 days in the short-term expectant management group and 2 days in the immediate/planned bile duct clearance group, P=0.039.ConclusionsThis study reports the natural history of small CBDS identified on IOUS in patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Such patients were safely treated with short-term expectant management associated with a reduced hospital LOS. This provides rationale for undertaking further research to establish this as a preferred management strategy.

Outcomes of laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy: a comparative analysis of fenestrating and reconstituting approaches in 170 cases.

Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) is a recognised alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) when it is unsafe to achieve the "critical view of safety". Although LSC reduces the risk of bile duct injury, it is associated with increased morbidity, primarily due to bile leak. LSC can be classified as fenestrating (F-LSC) or reconstituting (R-LSC), with the latter being more complex. The objective of this study was to evaluate the two LSC techniques, their complications, and overall outcomes. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients who underwent LSC between January 2015 and December 2021 using our electronic database. Data collected included patient demographics, prior acute biliary presentations, operative details/techniques, length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, 30-day mortality, readmissions, and follow-up investigations/procedures. Descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, and relative risk were employed for data analysis. In the study period, LSC was performed on 170 patients, showing an increasing trend over time. Most procedures (76%) were performed in the acute setting, and 37.1% of patients had a history of previous acute biliary presentations. Fenestrating LSC was the most performed technique (115 [67.6%] vs. 55 [32.4%]). Complications occurred in 80 (47.1%) patients; 60 patients (35.3%) had a bile leak. 16 patients (9.4%) required reoperation, and readmission was observed in 14 patients (8.2%). F-LSC was associated with more complications [p = 0.03 RR 2.46 (95% CI 1.5-4)], more bile leaks [p < 0.01, RR 2.1 (95% CI 1.2-3.7)], greater need for rescue postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) [p < 0.01, RR 3.8 (95% CI 1.4-10.2)], and longer LOS (6 vs. 4days p < 0.01). Although LSC is seen as a safe alternative to open conversion, our findings demonstrate a high morbidity, including reoperation/reintervention, readmissions, and complications, associated with LSC especially with F-LSC. We suggest that if LSC is performed, the reconstituted technique should be chosen, if feasible.

Transcystic Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Pediatric Patients with Choledocholithiasis: A Multi-Center Study

BackgroundPatients with choledocholithiasis are often treated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Upfront LC, intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), and possible transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) could potentially avoid the need for ERCP. We hypothesized that upfront LC+IOC +/- LCBDE will decrease length of stay (LOS) and the total number of interventions for children with suspected choledocholithiasis. MethodsA multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed on pediatric patients (<18 years) between 2018 to 2022 with suspected choledocholithiasis. Demographic and clinical data were compared for upfront LC+IOC +/- LCBDE and possible postoperative ERCP (OR1st) versus preoperative ERCP prior to LC (OR2nd). Complications were defined as postoperative pancreatitis, recurrent choledocholithiasis, bleeding, or abscess. ResultsAcross four centers, 252 children with suspected choledocholithiasis were treated with OR1st (n=156) or OR2nd (n=96). There were no differences in age, gender, or body mass index. Of the LCBDE patients (72/156), 86% had definitive intraoperative management with the remaining 14% requiring postoperative ERCP. Complications were fewer and LOS was shorter with OR1st (3/156 vs. 15/96; 2.39 vs 3.84 days, p<0.05). ConclusionUpfront LC+IOC +/- LCBDE for children with choledocholithiasis is associated with fewer ERCPs, lower LOS, and decreased complications. Postoperative ERCP remains an essential adjunct for patients who fail LCBDE. Further educational efforts are needed to increase the skill level for IOC and LCBDE in pediatric patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Level of EvidenceLevel III.

An elusive case of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a case report

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a diagnostic technique which combines endoscopy and fluoroscopy to treat many complications associated with biliary ductal systems. We present an elusive case of ERCP for choledocholithiasis where ERCP was unsuccessful due to the patient’s anatomic orientation. The patient is a 61-year-old Caucasian male who was admitted due to epigastric, right upper quadrant pain, and nausea. Abdominal imaging revealed at least 2 stones in the distal common bile duct. Upon evaluation his management plan included ERCP which was unsuccessful as the patient had a periampullary diverticulum making it difficult to visualize the ampulla. Ultimately, the next step in management was to follow up with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to alleviate the patient’s pain and symptoms. Postoperatively the patient is stable and doing well on follow up. The patient was referred to a tertiary care center for further management for postoperative ERCP. Although, the interventions attempted for this patient allowed him to become stable, the need for further advancements in ERCP must be established for patients who present with anatomical challenges in order to prevent repeated procedures as well as complications relating to delayed removal of gallstones.

Observation versus intervention for incidental common bile duct stones at intraoperative cholangiogram: a systematic review.

The natural history of incidental common bile duct stones (CBDS) is poorly understood. Current evidence is conflicting, with several studies suggesting the majority may pass spontaneously. Despite this, guidelines recommend routine removal even if asymptomatic. This study aimed to systematically reviewthe outcomes of expectant management for CBDS detected on operative cholangiography during cholecystectomy. MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases were systematically searched. Participants were adult patients with CBDS identified by intraoperative cholangiography. Intervention was regarded as any perioperative effort to remove common bile duct stones, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic and open bile duct exploration. This was compared to observation. Outcomes of interest included rates of spontaneous stone passage, success of duct clearance and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Eight studies were included. All studies were non-randomized, heterogeneous and at serious risk of bias. In patients observed after a positive IOC, 20.9% went on to have symptomatic retained stones. In patients directed to ERCP for positive IOC, persistent CBDS were found in 50.6%. Spontaneous passage was not associated with stone size. Meta-analysis is dominated by the results from one large database, which recommends intervention for incidental stones, despite low rates of persistent stones seen at postoperative ERCP. Further evidence is required before a definitive recommendation on observation can be made. There is some evidence that asymptomatic stones may be safely observed. In clinical scenarios where the risks of biliary intervention are considered high, a conservative strategy could be more widely considered.

Single-step laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

Current treatment of complicated calculous biliary disease typically involves a two-step procedure consisting of pre- or post-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This practice creates drawbacks as there is the need for two anesthesia inductions and longer hospital stay. The combination of LC and ERCP (LC + ERCP) for patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis has shown safety advantages, reducing anesthesia inductions and bringing high efficiency. This is a retrospective case series implemented at the Department of General Surgery - Hanoi Medical University Hospital between March 2020 and July 2022. In total, 44 patients met the criteria of this study. The average age of the cohort was 55.43 ± 18.12 years. The mean operating times of ERCP and LC were 58.05 ± 20.10 min and 54.09 ± 23.80 min, respectively. There was one intra-operative adverse event and no conversion. The mean hospital stay was 3.95 ± 2.28 days, and the rate of stones clearance was 100 per cent. LC combine ERCP in a single setting is a safe, effective procedure in treating cholecysto-choledocholithiasis.

Upfront Laparoscopic Management of Common Bile Duct Stones: What Are the Risk Factors of Failure?

BackgroundTreatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) includes laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with either laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) or perioperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The main objective of this study was to identify predictive factors for the failure of upfront and exclusive surgical treatment by LCBDE. MethodsThis is a single-center, retrospective study on patients with CBDS and operated for LC between 2007 and 2019. The use of intra- or postoperative endoscopy for CBD clearance within 6 months after surgery was considered as failure of LCBDE. Predictors for the failure of LCBDE were investigated and outcomes were compared. ResultsAmong 222 operated patients, LCBDE was successfully performed in 173 patients (78%) and 49 (22%) required ERCP with sphincterotomy (intraoperative (n=29) or postoperative (n=20)). Independent risk factors for surgical failure were male sex (OR: 2.525 (1.111–5.738); p=0.027), anesthesia induction time ≥ 4 p.m. (OR: 4.858 (1.731–13.631); p=0.003), pediculitis (OR: 4.147 (1.177–14.606); p=0.027), and thin CDB < 4mm (OR: 11.951 (3.562–40.097), p< 0.0001). Age, ASA score, cystic anatomy, presence of cholecystitis, and the surgeon’s experience were not identified as predictors for surgical failure. A general anesthesia number >1 (6% vs. 33%; p < 0.0001), length of initial stay (6 [1–42] vs. 8 [2–27], p=0.012), total length of hospitalization (6 [1–45] vs. 9 [2–27]; p=0.010), and the rate of emergency readmissions (3.5% vs. 12.2%; p=0.027) were significantly higher in the LCBDE failure group. ConclusionsUpfront LCBDE for CBDS was associated with improved outcomes compared to intra-/postoperative ERCP recourse. Male sex, pediculitis, thin CBD, and surgery later than 4 p.m were associated with LCBDE failure and the need for endoscopic treatment. Registration Number and AgencyThe present retrospective study was approved by our local ethics committee and was declared on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04467710).

Index admission vs elective laparoscopic common bileductexploration: adistrictgeneralhospitalexperience over 6years.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is relatively a new approach for clearing choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study is to assess the safety ofthisapproachtoclearing common bile duct (CBD) stones on an index admission including emergency setting. Retrospective data collectionand analysiswerecarried out for 207 consecutive cases of LCBDE performed in Royal Cornwall Hospital over 6years (2015-2020).Patientswere dividedinto two groups (Index admission vs elective) then both groups compared. A total of 207 cases of LCBDEwereperformed in our unitduring the time period.One hundred twenty-two operations were performed on the index admission and 85 on a subsequent elective list. Mean operative time was 146 ± 64minin the index admission group and 145 ± 65minin the elective group(p = 0.913). Length of stay post-operatively was 3.3 ± 6.3daysin the index admission cases and 3.5 ± 4.6daysafter elective cases. Successful clearance was achieved at the end of the operation in 116 patients in the index admission group, clearance failed in one case and negative exploration in 5 patients. In the elective group 83 patients had a successful clearance at the end of the operation, and 2 patients has had a negative exploration. Twelve patients(index admission group) and 8 patients of the elective cases required post-operative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to manage retained stones, recurrent stones and bile leak(p = 0.921). Three patients required re-operation for post-operative complications in each group. Common bile duct exploration in index admissionis safe with high success rateif performed by well-trained surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills.

Win or lose, nighttime transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is a win

ObjectivesAlthough controversial, recent data suggest nighttime versus daytime laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) have comparable outcomes. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis decreases length of stay (LOS) as compared with...

HPB P33 Management of Gallstone Disease with Deranged Liver Function Tests – Single Centre Experience

Abstract Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has emerged as the gold standard for the treatment of symptomatic cholelithiasis, however, things are not quite so clear when it comes to managing cholelithiasis with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones and debate continues among surgeons about the optimal pathway of management. The current recommendation is that patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis should be investigated for CBD stones. There is controversy because investigating for suspected choledocholithiasis by means of Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP)/ pre-operative or post-operative Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/ laparoscopic cholecystectomy with on-table cholangiography (OTC) may lead to subsequent over or under treatment with significant morbidity, readmissions, decline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and costs to the health service. We conducted a retrospective clinical audit to compare our care provision for symptomatic gall stone disease with suspected choledocholithiasis against the guidelines laid down by Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) in 2016, NICE (2014) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). This also highlights the importance of a single stage approach (LC with OTC) for management of gall stones with suspected CBD stones. Methods A retrospective audit was conducted for 18 months at a referral centre for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) diseases, with available expertise for management of CBD stones, endoscopically and surgically. All patients admitted to general surgery facility with a diagnosis of gallstone disease with deranged liver function tests (LFTs), and suspicious of having or diagnosed to have common bile duct stones were included in the study. Patients aged 18 years and above with symptomatic gall stones suspected to have or diagnosed with choledocholithiasis were included, while patients with cholelithiasis but no evidence of stones in CBD on initial investigations were excluded. A total of 95 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. We used the guidelines put forth by AUGIS (2016), NICE guidelines (2014), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) in 2017 and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2019 to compare management of symptomatic gallstone disease. Data with regards to length of hospital stay, comorbidities, investigations done, diagnosis, management, readmissions before undergoing further investigations or having a surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy) with or without on-table cholangiogram (OTC) were analysed. Data analysis for this set of data was done using numbers, percentages and descriptive statistics, using SPSS 25.0. Results Out of 95 patients, 90 had deranged LFTs at presentation (3 presented with cholangitis) and 5 had suspicious findings on initial imaging. The diagnosis included Mirizzi syndrome, pancreatitis, Choledocholithiasis, Biliary colic, Acute cholecystitis and benign CBD stricture. Out of 95 patients, 76 of them had Ultrasound abdomen as their initial investigation, mostly on the day of admission. 41 patients had MRCP, 73% of them during their index admission. Amongst the 95, 59% underwent ERCP, 76.8% of them during the index admission. The median time from admission to MRCP and ERCP was 5 and 8 days, respectively. Out of 56 patients who underwent ERCP, 9 of them had it done within 72 hours of admission. Overall, 22 patients underwent LC with OTC. Out of 95 patients, 51 patients underwent LC. Out of 79 patients who were fit for surgery, 28 of them were still awaiting surgery. Amongst 18 patients who had Pancreatitis at presentation, 14 of them underwent ERCP. Out of which 3 of them had LC during index admission. The maximum length of stay observed amongst 95 patients was 36. Amongst the 95 patients, the study also records that 13 patients had readmissions before they underwent ERCP or LC. Conclusions We found 16% compliance with the guidelines in regards to the timing of biliary decompression with ERCP. Our results show 66.66% compliance with guidelines, with regards to timing of biliary decompression in Cholangitis. The study reflects a significant non-adherence to the guidelines as 68.40% of patients could not have definitive management within the recommended time frame. Looking into the finer details, we found that 35.40% of the patients did not have their surgery at the time of the audit. 22% of patients had LC performed in accordance with the recommendations, while the timing of surgery in 78% of patients showed no compliance with the guidelines. Guidelines for management of patients with gallstone disease associated with CBD stones was not met for majority of patients. A significant number of patients were readmitted to the hospital because of delay in receiving further investigations or definitive surgery. There may be a role for multidisciplinary team meetings to identify patients requiring expedited ERCP, which in turn may translate into early definitive surgical management. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with OTC, with or without laparoscopic CBD exploration or post-operative ERCP can be incorporated as an alternative to pre-operative ERCP to reduce patient morbidity and length of hospital stay.

Five-Year Experience with Transcystic Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.

Background: Common bile duct (CBD) stones associated with cholecystitis can be treated by single-stage CBD exploration at the time of cholecystectomy or a two-stage approach with endoscopic stone extraction before or after cholecystectomy. The ideal management remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study is to analyze our outcomes with transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). Material and Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent transcystic LCBDE between 2015 and 2019 was performed. Results: A total of 106 patients underwent transcystic LCBDE over 5 years. We performed 1192 laparoscopic cholecystectomies with cholangiograms from March 2015 to December 2019. Fifteen patients had a preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for CBD stones seen on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography that during laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), there were stones and/or sludge found in the CBD, which required clearance through a transcystic approach. Of the 91 patients who did not have a preoperative ERCP, clearance of the CBD was successful through a transcystic approach in 78 patients (86%). In the 13 patients that intraoperative clearance was not achieved (n = 13, 14%), a postoperative ERCP was performed. A total of 28 patients underwent either pre- or postoperative ERCP (n = 28, 26%). Choledochotomy was not performed in any of the patients. The mean operative time was 127 minutes (127 ± 48). The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 4 days (3.9 ± 2.8) with a median LOS of 3 days. Complications observed include wound infection (n = 2, 2%), pancreatitis after ERCP (n = 1, 1%), pneumonia (n = 1, 1%), and right hepatic duct injury (n = 1, 1%). Conclusion: Transcystic LCBDE is an effective and safe option for treatment of CBD stones. While a transcystic approach does not guarantee clearance of the CBD, it avoids the morbidity associated with a choledochotomy and can often prevent patients from having to undergo an additional procedure.

Evaluating Safety, Effectiveness, and Resource Efficiency in Management Strategies for Intermediate Risk Choledocholithiasis: Defining the Optimal Approach

INTRODUCTION: Optimal management of emergency department patients with intermediate-risk choledocholithiasis (IR-CDL) remains undefined. At a safety-net hospital where timely patient throughput is essential, we hypothesized that forgoing additional preoperative diagnostics and proceeding directly to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) ± intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) is a safe, effective, and resource-efficient strategy. METHODS: Adults with IR-CDL who underwent cholecystectomy during index hospitalization from 2016 to 2020 were included. IR-CDL was defined as total bilirubin 1.8 to 4.0 mg/dL, common bile duct (CBD) >6 mm, or gallstone pancreatitis on admission. Safety was assessed using the rate of CBD injury, reoperation, readmission, and retained CBD stones within 30 days of discharge. Effectiveness was assessed using the rate of successful endoscopic CBD clearance. Efficiency was measured using hospital length of stay (LOS) and direct and total cost. Patients taken direct-to-operating room (OR) for LC ± IOC were compared with those who received preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (“additional-workup”). RESULTS: Of 655 patients, 611 (93%) were direct-to-OR and 44 (7%) were additional workup. Demographics were similar between groups. There was no difference in CBD injury, reoperation, readmission, or retained stones after discharge (all p > 0.05; Table). Of direct-to-OR patients who underwent LC+IOC, 34% had choledocholithiasis. Rates of successful endoscopic CBD clearance were similar between preoperative and postoperative ERCP (97% vs 100%, p = 0.96). Direct-to-OR patients had a shorter median hospital LOS by 38.5 hours and lower median direct and total cost by $5,121/patient and $8,535/patient, respectively.TableCONCLUSION: Proceeding directly to the OR for LC ± IOC expedites treatment of IR-CDL at lower cost without compromising safety or efficacy. These findings help clarify optimal management of IR-CDL.

Liver Function Tests after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Are Not Reliable

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) to manage choledocholithiasis at the time of cholecystectomy (LC+LCBDE) is gaining traction and requires examination of the role of postoperative laboratory data to guide clinical care. We examined postoperative liver function test (LFT) trends in the context of successful and failed LCBDE. METHODS: Retrospective review of all adult emergency general surgery (EGS) patients undergoing LCBDE over a 3-year period. Failed LC+LCBDE was defined as the subsequent need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for duct clearance. Postoperative LFTs from both successful and failed LCBDE attempts were analyzed. Postoperative laboratory values from all LC+LCBDE were classified as increased, decreased, or unchanged from preoperative. Procedure outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent LCBDE. Ten patients were excluded for not having preoperative laboratory tests or any postoperative laboratory tests. Thirty-three of the remaining 50 patients had 2 sets of postoperative laboratory tests. In patients who underwent successful LCBDE, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) between the preoperative and the 1st postoperative or 2nd postoperative laboratory tests regarding total bilirubin, aspartate/alanine aminotransferase, or alkaline phosphatase. For patients who had an unsuccessful LCBDE and required postoperative ERCP, this was also true. No patients with successful LCBDE with increased postoperative laboratory tests had complication. CONCLUSION: Despite the LCBDE outcome, postoperative laboratory tests do not provide reliable prognostication as would be expected in the given clinical context. Contrast flow into the duodenum and surgeon judgment are better indicators of duct clearance. It is safe to discharge patients without LFT after successful and uneventful LCBDE.

Outcomes following common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic stone extraction before, during and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with common bile duct stones

BackgroundLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are two methods of retrieving common bile duct (CBD) stones. The best method for CBD stone removal is debatable. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following LCBDE and/or ERCP, including laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MethodsData were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing LCBDE and/or ERCP at a single centre from 2008 to 2018. Patients were grouped by intention-to-treat (single-stage LCBDE, pre-operative-, intra-operative-, or post-operative ERCP) and eventual plan (surgical or endoscopic). Outcomes included complication rates (minor Clavien-Dindo 1/2, major Clavien-Dindo 3/4, non-biliary complications) and mortality. ResultsOf 671 patients, 578 patients received LCBDE and 93 patients received ERCP as primary care. Endoscopic clearance had significantly higher complications and mortality compared to surgical clearance. On an intention-to-treat basis LCBDE had the lowest minor-, major- and non-biliary complications, and mortality (5.2%, 6.1%, 2.9% and 0.5%, respectively), whilst pre-operative ERCP the worst (39.6%, 27.1%, 29.2% and 8.3%, respectively) (p=<0.001). LCBDE and postERCP had similar major complications and mortality. ConclusionSurgical clearance of CBD stones was potentially safer than endoscopic clearance. Pre-operative ERCP had the worst outcomes. LCBDE and postERCP are likely to have similar short-term patient outcomes.

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Clearance, is It Feasible and Safe After Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography?

Introduction: Concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones is a common problem, and there is still no consensus on the best approach in the management. Options include preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with CBD exploration, and LC with postoperative ERCP. Each option has its own limitations and complications. In this article, we assessed the feasibility of laparoscopic surgical clearance of the CBD after a failed ERCP, reasons for failure of endoscopic clearance in our cohort. We will discuss the management options after ERCP failure, the challenges, and the outcomes. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all the cases of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) performed in our hospital between April 2006 and January 2019. Two hundred cases were performed, 178 cases as a primary procedure while 22 were performed as a secondary procedure after failed ERCP. We have previously published data on the case series (PMID 33140155) and here explored the cases performed after failed ERCP as a secondary procedure. We analyzed demographics of patients, preoperative investigations, ERCP trials, and reasons for ERCP failure, operative approach, duration of operation, conversion rate, complications, and outcomes. Results: Twenty-two patients underwent a laparoscopic CBD clearance after failed ERCP. Sixteen of these were in the first 5 years of the study. Multiple attempts of ERCP were made in 7 patients (31.8%) and a single attempt in 15 patients. In 8 patients (32%), the duct was not accessible (failed cannulation) due to a variety of reasons. Nine patients had impacted stones larger than 1 cm, 4 patients had Mirrizi syndrome with concomitant large CBD stones, and 1 patient failed endoscopic clearance because of the large number of stones in the CBD. CBD clearance was successful in 19 patients (88%), 8 were completed by a transcystic approach and 14 by a transcholedochal approach. Postoperative length of stay was 12 (+10) days. One patient had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. One patient required reoperation for bleeding. Three patients developed recurrent stones and 1 developed a subsequent stricture. No mortalities were recorded. Conclusion: LCBDE is feasible and appears safe as a secondary procedure after failed ERCP. The new technologies and the advancement of surgical techniques will continue to improve success and reduce morbidity.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration by acute care surgeons saves time and money compared to ERCP

BackgroundA typical pathway for treatment of choledocholithiasis (CD) in emergency general surgery patients involves same admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with either preoperative or postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The goal of this study was to describe our initial experience at a safety net hospital with acute care surgeon-performed laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) when CD is confirmed at the time of LC. We hypothesized that this strategy would result in reduced length of stay, and lower charges compared to ERCP. MethodsThis was a retrospective case control study over a 2 year period matching LCBDE to ERCP (1:3) among a cohort of patients with CD confirmed at first procedure. Data is reported as median (interquartile range). Statistical analysis used the Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared tests with 95% confidence interval. ResultsDemographics, preoperative WBC, and bilirubin were similar between the LCBDE (n = 14) and ERCP (n = 37) groups. Success rate for LCBDE was 11/14 (79%), and the remaining three subjects successfully underwent post-operative ERCP. Overall complication rate for the LCBDE group was 1/14 (7%) and the readmission rate was 0/14 (0%). Length of stay for LCBDE vs ERCP was 2.5 (1–3) vs 5 (3–5) days (p < 0.01). Charges during initial hospitalization was $35858 ($26587-$49570) vs $48662 ($36018-$57106) (p = 0.05). ConclusionsLCBDE by acute care surgeons at the time of LC was associated with lower charges, reduced hospital length of stay, low rates of post-operative complications, and no readmissions.

Inpatient Choledocholithiasis Management: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Management Algorithms

BackgroundCholedocholithiasis is commonly encountered. It is frequently managed with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (either preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative relative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective method to manage inpatient choledocholithiasis. MethodsA decision tree model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a ceiling willingness to pay threshold assumed of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Model parameters were determined through review of published literature and institutional data. Costs were from the perspective of the healthcare system with a time horizon of 1 year. Sensitivity analyses were performed on model parameters. ResultsIn the base case analysis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was cost-effective, resulting in 0.9909 quality-adjusted life years at an expected cost of $18,357. Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography yielded more quality-adjusted life years (0.9912) at a higher cost ($19,717) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,789,025, exceeding the willingness to pay threshold. Both preoperative and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies were eliminated for being both more costly and less effective. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective if the probability of successful biliary clearance was above 0.79, holding all other variables constant. If its base cost remained below $18,400 and intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography base cost rose above $18,200, then laparoscopic common bile duct exploration remained cost-effective. ConclusionLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration is the most cost-effective method to manage choledocholithiasis. Efforts to ensure availability of local expertise and resources for this procedure are warranted.