While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)remains the primary treatment modality for common bile duct stones(CBDS)or choledocho-lithiasis due to advancements in instruments,surgical intervention,known ...While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)remains the primary treatment modality for common bile duct stones(CBDS)or choledocho-lithiasis due to advancements in instruments,surgical intervention,known as common bile duct exploration(CBDE),is still necessary in cases of difficult CBDS,failed endoscopic treatment,or altered anatomy.Recent evidence also supports CBDE in patients requesting single-step cholecystectomy and bile duct stone removal with comparable outcomes.This review elucidates relevant clinical anatomy,selection indications,and outcomes to enhance surgical understanding.The selection between trans-cystic(TC)vs trans-choledochal(TD)approaches is described,along with stone removal techniques and ductal closure.Detailed surgical techniques and strategies for both the TC and TD approaches,including instrument selection,is also provided.Additionally,this review comprehensively addresses operation-specific complications such as bile leakage,stricture,and entrapment,and focuses on preventive measures and treatment strategies.This review aims to optimize the management of CBDS through laparoscopic CBDE,with the goal of improving patient outcomes and minimizing risks.展开更多
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)combined with laparoscopic common bile duct(CBD)exploration(LCBDE)is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm.However,for pat...BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)combined with laparoscopic common bile duct(CBD)exploration(LCBDE)is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm.However,for patients with small CBD(CBD diameter≤8 mm),endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the preferred treatment at present,but it also has some drawbacks associated with a series of complications,such as pancreatitis,hemorrhage,cholangitis,and duodenal perforation.To date,few studies have been reported that support the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.AIM To investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.METHODS A total of 257 patients without acute cholangitis who underwent LC+LCBDE for cholecystolithiasis from January 2013 to December 2018 in one institution were reviewed.The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed.According to whether the diameter of CBD was larger than 8 mm,257 patients were divided into large CBD group(n=146)and small CBD group(n=111).Propensity score matching(1:1)was performed to adjust for clinical differences.The demographics,intraoperative data,short-term outcomes,and long-term follow-up outcomes for the patients were recorded and compared.RESULTS In total,257 patients who underwent successful LC+LCBDE were enrolled in the study,146 had large CBD and 111 had small CBD.The median follow-up period was 39(14-86)mo.For small CBD patients,the median CBD diameter was 0.6 cm(0.2-2.0 cm),the mean operating time was 107.2±28.3 min,and the postoperative bile leak rate,rate of residual CBD stones(CBDS),CBDS recurrence rate,and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41%(6/111),3.60%(4/111),1.80%(2/111),and 0%(0/111),respectively;the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.4±3.6 d.For large CBD patients,the median common bile duct diameter was 1.0 cm(0.3-3.0 cm),the mean operating time was 115.7±32.0 min,and the postoperative bile leak rate,rate of residual CBDS,CBDS recurrence rate,and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41%(9/146),1.37%(2/146),6.85%(10/146),and 0%(0/146),respectively;the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.7±2.7 d.After propensity score matching,184 patients remained,and all preoperative covariates except diameter of CBD stones were balanced.Postoperative bile leak occurred in 11 patients overall(5.98%),and no difference was found between the small CBD group(4.35%,4/92)and the large CBD group(7.61%,7/92).The incidence of CBDS recurrence did not differ significantly between the small CBD group(2.17%,2/92)and the large CBD group(6.52%,6/92).CONCLUSION LC+LCBDE is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis patients with small CBD and did not increase the postoperative bile leak rate compared with choledocholithiasis patients with large CBD.展开更多
AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register o...AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011,were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers.The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct,postoperative morbidity and mortality.The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures,number of procedures per patient,length of hospital stay,total operative time,hospitalization charges,patient acceptance and quality of life scores.RESULTS:Seven eligible RCTs [five trials(n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE);two trials(n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE],composed of 787 patients in total,were included in the final analysis.The metaanalysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios(RR) =-0.10,95% confidence intervals(CI):-0.24 to 0.04,P = 0.17],postoperative morbidity(RR = 0.79,95% CI:0.58 to 1.10,P = 0.16),mortality(RR = 2.19,95% CI:0.33 to 14.67,P = 0.42),conversion to other procedures(RR = 1.21,95% CI:0.54 to 2.70,P = 0.39),length of hospital stay(MD = 0.99,95% CI:-1.59 to 3.57,P = 0.45),total operative time(MD = 12.14,95% CI:-1.83 to 26.10,P = 0.09).Two-stage(LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage(LC + LCBDE) management.CONCLUSION:Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures.However,patient's condition,operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.展开更多
Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones.To avoid serious complications,these stones should be removed.There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for su...Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones.To avoid serious complications,these stones should be removed.There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for such patients.Traditionally,open surgery was offered but with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) minimally invasive approach had nearly replaced laparotomy because of its well-known advantages.Minimally invasive approach could be done in either twosession(preoperative ERCP followed by LC or LC followed by postoperative ERCP) or single-session(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or LC with intraoperative ERCP).Most recent studies have found that both options are equivalent regarding safety and efficacy but the singlesession approach is associated with shorter hospital stay,fewer procedures per patient,and less cost.Consequently,single-session option should be offered to patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiaisis provided that local resources and expertise do exist.However,the management strategy should be tailored according to many variables,such as available resources,experience,patient characteristics,clinical presentations,and surgical pathology.展开更多
AIM:To evaluate the safety and feasibility of biliary tract reoperation by laparoscopy for the patients with retained or recurrent stones who failed in endoscopic sphincterotomy. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of da...AIM:To evaluate the safety and feasibility of biliary tract reoperation by laparoscopy for the patients with retained or recurrent stones who failed in endoscopic sphincterotomy. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of data obtained from attempted laparoscopic reoperation for 39 patients in a single institution was performed, examining open conversion rates, operative times, complications, and hospital stay. RESULTS:Out of the 39 cases, 38 (97%) completed laparoscopy, 1 required conversion to open operation because of difficulty in exposing the common bile duct. The mean operative time was 135 min. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 4 d. Procedures included laparoscopic residual gallbladder resection in 3 cases, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary duct closure at choledochotomy in 13 cases, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and choledochotomy with T tube drainage in 22 cases. Duodenal perforation occurred in 1 case during dissection and was repaired laparoscopically. Retained stones were found in 2 cases. Postoperative asymptomatic hyperamlasemia occurred in 3 cases. There were no complications due to port placement, postoperative bleeding, bile or bowel leakage and mortality. No recurrence or formation of duct stricture was observed during a mean follow-up period of 18 mo. CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic biliary tract reoperation is safe and feasible if it is performed by experiencedlaparoscopic surgeons, and is an alternative choice for patients with choledocholithiasis who fail in endoscopic sphincterectomy.展开更多
Gallstone cholangiopancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening pathology which requires quick intervention involving endoscopists,interventional radiologists,anesthesiologists and surgeons in relation to clinical c...Gallstone cholangiopancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening pathology which requires quick intervention involving endoscopists,interventional radiologists,anesthesiologists and surgeons in relation to clinical conditions.Treatment possibilities are varied,especially with current progress in advanced endoscopy,interventional radiology,and minimally invasive surgery.The following treatments are available:endoscopic sphincterotomy(ES)with stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy;simultaneous endoscopic stone extraction with laparoscopic cholecystectomy(rendezvous technique);combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct(CBD)exploration;open CBD exploration;ES post-cholecystectomy;percutaneous placement of biliary drains for unstable patients,followed by percutaneous cholangioscopy;and lithotripsy with different approaches,including a laser and balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi.Each technique has its strengths and weaknesses,and there is great discussion in the literature on choosing the ideal approach based on the patient’s clinical conditions.展开更多
目的比较内镜下括约肌切开取石术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)和腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术(laparscop-ic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)在治疗肝外胆管结石中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析合肥市第二人民医院2018至2022年...目的比较内镜下括约肌切开取石术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)和腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术(laparscop-ic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)在治疗肝外胆管结石中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析合肥市第二人民医院2018至2022年间176例肝外胆管结石患者的临床资料,根据患者采取的治疗方式,将患者分为EST组和LCBDE组。比较两组患者基线资料及手术时间、术中出血量、住院费用和术后并发症发生率的差异。结果两组患者在年龄、性别、体重指数、ASA分级及人院主诉方面无明显差异,采用EST治疗的患者术前行MRCP进行确诊的占比例更高(69.3%对53.45%,P=0.03)。EST组患者在手术时间、术中出血量.住院天数及住院费用分别为(77.81±15.02)min.(24.95±5.64)ml.(5.32±2.29)天.(2.92±0.65)万元,LCBDE组相应为(111.17±14.40)min.(30.75±6.83)ml.(8.66±2.13)天.(3.69±1.23)万元,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P均<0.001)。EST组术后发生出血患者4例,延迟性穿孔1例,胰腺炎6例,胆管炎4例;LCBDE组患者术后发生出血2例,胰腺炎4例,胆管炎3例,胆漏3例,伤口感染3例,肺炎3例,两组比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。两组残余结石率分别为2.3%和10.2%(P=0.029),两组患者均未发生围手术期死亡。结论EST与LCBDE在治疗肝外胆管结石中均安全有效,并发症发生情况相当,但是EST作为更微创的手术方式,不需要全身麻醉,手术时间更短,术中出血量低,患者住院时间更短,费用也更低。展开更多
文摘While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)remains the primary treatment modality for common bile duct stones(CBDS)or choledocho-lithiasis due to advancements in instruments,surgical intervention,known as common bile duct exploration(CBDE),is still necessary in cases of difficult CBDS,failed endoscopic treatment,or altered anatomy.Recent evidence also supports CBDE in patients requesting single-step cholecystectomy and bile duct stone removal with comparable outcomes.This review elucidates relevant clinical anatomy,selection indications,and outcomes to enhance surgical understanding.The selection between trans-cystic(TC)vs trans-choledochal(TD)approaches is described,along with stone removal techniques and ductal closure.Detailed surgical techniques and strategies for both the TC and TD approaches,including instrument selection,is also provided.Additionally,this review comprehensively addresses operation-specific complications such as bile leakage,stricture,and entrapment,and focuses on preventive measures and treatment strategies.This review aims to optimize the management of CBDS through laparoscopic CBDE,with the goal of improving patient outcomes and minimizing risks.
文摘BACKGROUND Laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)combined with laparoscopic common bile duct(CBD)exploration(LCBDE)is one of the main treatments for choledocholithiasis with CBD diameter of larger than 10 mm.However,for patients with small CBD(CBD diameter≤8 mm),endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the preferred treatment at present,but it also has some drawbacks associated with a series of complications,such as pancreatitis,hemorrhage,cholangitis,and duodenal perforation.To date,few studies have been reported that support the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.AIM To investigate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE for choledocholithiasis with small CBD.METHODS A total of 257 patients without acute cholangitis who underwent LC+LCBDE for cholecystolithiasis from January 2013 to December 2018 in one institution were reviewed.The clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed.According to whether the diameter of CBD was larger than 8 mm,257 patients were divided into large CBD group(n=146)and small CBD group(n=111).Propensity score matching(1:1)was performed to adjust for clinical differences.The demographics,intraoperative data,short-term outcomes,and long-term follow-up outcomes for the patients were recorded and compared.RESULTS In total,257 patients who underwent successful LC+LCBDE were enrolled in the study,146 had large CBD and 111 had small CBD.The median follow-up period was 39(14-86)mo.For small CBD patients,the median CBD diameter was 0.6 cm(0.2-2.0 cm),the mean operating time was 107.2±28.3 min,and the postoperative bile leak rate,rate of residual CBD stones(CBDS),CBDS recurrence rate,and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41%(6/111),3.60%(4/111),1.80%(2/111),and 0%(0/111),respectively;the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.4±3.6 d.For large CBD patients,the median common bile duct diameter was 1.0 cm(0.3-3.0 cm),the mean operating time was 115.7±32.0 min,and the postoperative bile leak rate,rate of residual CBDS,CBDS recurrence rate,and CBD stenosis rate were 5.41%(9/146),1.37%(2/146),6.85%(10/146),and 0%(0/146),respectively;the mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.7±2.7 d.After propensity score matching,184 patients remained,and all preoperative covariates except diameter of CBD stones were balanced.Postoperative bile leak occurred in 11 patients overall(5.98%),and no difference was found between the small CBD group(4.35%,4/92)and the large CBD group(7.61%,7/92).The incidence of CBDS recurrence did not differ significantly between the small CBD group(2.17%,2/92)and the large CBD group(6.52%,6/92).CONCLUSION LC+LCBDE is safe and feasible for choledocholithiasis patients with small CBD and did not increase the postoperative bile leak rate compared with choledocholithiasis patients with large CBD.
文摘AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011,were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers.The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct,postoperative morbidity and mortality.The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures,number of procedures per patient,length of hospital stay,total operative time,hospitalization charges,patient acceptance and quality of life scores.RESULTS:Seven eligible RCTs [five trials(n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE);two trials(n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE],composed of 787 patients in total,were included in the final analysis.The metaanalysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios(RR) =-0.10,95% confidence intervals(CI):-0.24 to 0.04,P = 0.17],postoperative morbidity(RR = 0.79,95% CI:0.58 to 1.10,P = 0.16),mortality(RR = 2.19,95% CI:0.33 to 14.67,P = 0.42),conversion to other procedures(RR = 1.21,95% CI:0.54 to 2.70,P = 0.39),length of hospital stay(MD = 0.99,95% CI:-1.59 to 3.57,P = 0.45),total operative time(MD = 12.14,95% CI:-1.83 to 26.10,P = 0.09).Two-stage(LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage(LC + LCBDE) management.CONCLUSION:Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures.However,patient's condition,operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.
文摘Up to 18% of patients submitted to cholecystectomy had concomitant common bile duct stones.To avoid serious complications,these stones should be removed.There is no consensus about the ideal management strategy for such patients.Traditionally,open surgery was offered but with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) minimally invasive approach had nearly replaced laparotomy because of its well-known advantages.Minimally invasive approach could be done in either twosession(preoperative ERCP followed by LC or LC followed by postoperative ERCP) or single-session(laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or LC with intraoperative ERCP).Most recent studies have found that both options are equivalent regarding safety and efficacy but the singlesession approach is associated with shorter hospital stay,fewer procedures per patient,and less cost.Consequently,single-session option should be offered to patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiaisis provided that local resources and expertise do exist.However,the management strategy should be tailored according to many variables,such as available resources,experience,patient characteristics,clinical presentations,and surgical pathology.
文摘AIM:To evaluate the safety and feasibility of biliary tract reoperation by laparoscopy for the patients with retained or recurrent stones who failed in endoscopic sphincterotomy. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of data obtained from attempted laparoscopic reoperation for 39 patients in a single institution was performed, examining open conversion rates, operative times, complications, and hospital stay. RESULTS:Out of the 39 cases, 38 (97%) completed laparoscopy, 1 required conversion to open operation because of difficulty in exposing the common bile duct. The mean operative time was 135 min. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 4 d. Procedures included laparoscopic residual gallbladder resection in 3 cases, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary duct closure at choledochotomy in 13 cases, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and choledochotomy with T tube drainage in 22 cases. Duodenal perforation occurred in 1 case during dissection and was repaired laparoscopically. Retained stones were found in 2 cases. Postoperative asymptomatic hyperamlasemia occurred in 3 cases. There were no complications due to port placement, postoperative bleeding, bile or bowel leakage and mortality. No recurrence or formation of duct stricture was observed during a mean follow-up period of 18 mo. CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic biliary tract reoperation is safe and feasible if it is performed by experiencedlaparoscopic surgeons, and is an alternative choice for patients with choledocholithiasis who fail in endoscopic sphincterectomy.
文摘Gallstone cholangiopancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening pathology which requires quick intervention involving endoscopists,interventional radiologists,anesthesiologists and surgeons in relation to clinical conditions.Treatment possibilities are varied,especially with current progress in advanced endoscopy,interventional radiology,and minimally invasive surgery.The following treatments are available:endoscopic sphincterotomy(ES)with stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy;simultaneous endoscopic stone extraction with laparoscopic cholecystectomy(rendezvous technique);combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct(CBD)exploration;open CBD exploration;ES post-cholecystectomy;percutaneous placement of biliary drains for unstable patients,followed by percutaneous cholangioscopy;and lithotripsy with different approaches,including a laser and balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi.Each technique has its strengths and weaknesses,and there is great discussion in the literature on choosing the ideal approach based on the patient’s clinical conditions.
文摘目的比较内镜下括约肌切开取石术(endoscopic sphincterotomy,EST)和腹腔镜胆总管探查取石术(laparscop-ic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)在治疗肝外胆管结石中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析合肥市第二人民医院2018至2022年间176例肝外胆管结石患者的临床资料,根据患者采取的治疗方式,将患者分为EST组和LCBDE组。比较两组患者基线资料及手术时间、术中出血量、住院费用和术后并发症发生率的差异。结果两组患者在年龄、性别、体重指数、ASA分级及人院主诉方面无明显差异,采用EST治疗的患者术前行MRCP进行确诊的占比例更高(69.3%对53.45%,P=0.03)。EST组患者在手术时间、术中出血量.住院天数及住院费用分别为(77.81±15.02)min.(24.95±5.64)ml.(5.32±2.29)天.(2.92±0.65)万元,LCBDE组相应为(111.17±14.40)min.(30.75±6.83)ml.(8.66±2.13)天.(3.69±1.23)万元,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P均<0.001)。EST组术后发生出血患者4例,延迟性穿孔1例,胰腺炎6例,胆管炎4例;LCBDE组患者术后发生出血2例,胰腺炎4例,胆管炎3例,胆漏3例,伤口感染3例,肺炎3例,两组比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。两组残余结石率分别为2.3%和10.2%(P=0.029),两组患者均未发生围手术期死亡。结论EST与LCBDE在治疗肝外胆管结石中均安全有效,并发症发生情况相当,但是EST作为更微创的手术方式,不需要全身麻醉,手术时间更短,术中出血量低,患者住院时间更短,费用也更低。
