Cargando…

Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution

INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment of choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis remains controversial. Common surgical methods vary among endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct explor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guo, Tong, Wang, Lu, Xie, Peng, Zhang, Zhiwei, Huang, Xiaorui, Yu, Yahong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34731303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08843-x
_version_ 1784719206472744960
author Guo, Tong
Wang, Lu
Xie, Peng
Zhang, Zhiwei
Huang, Xiaorui
Yu, Yahong
author_facet Guo, Tong
Wang, Lu
Xie, Peng
Zhang, Zhiwei
Huang, Xiaorui
Yu, Yahong
author_sort Guo, Tong
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment of choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis remains controversial. Common surgical methods vary among endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), laparoscopic transductal common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with or without T-tube drainage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical methods and to determine the appropriate procedure for patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis. METHODS: From January 2013 to January 2019, a total of 1555 consecutive patients diagnosed with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis who underwent surgical treatment in Tongji Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Total 521 patients with intrahepatic bile duct stones underwent LC + LCBDE + T-Tube were excluded from the analysis. At last, 1034 patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into three groups according to their surgical methods: preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC (ERCP + LC group, n = 275), LC + LCBDE + intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) + primary duct closure (Tri-scope group, n = 479) and LC + laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration (LTCBDE group, n = 280). Clinical records, operative findings and postoperative follow-up were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: There was no mortality in three groups. Common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate was 97.5% in ERCP + LC group, 98.7% in Tri-scope group, and 99.3% in LTCBDE group. There were no difference in terms of demographic characteristics, biochemistry findings and presentations, but the Tri-scope group had the biggest diameter and amount of stones and diameter of CBD, the LTCBDE group had the least CBD stones and the biggest diameter of cystic gall duct (CGD). ERCP + LC group have the longest hospital stay (14.16 ± 3.88 days vs 6.92 ± 1.71 days vs 10.74 ± 5.30 days, P < 0.05), also has the longest operative time than others (126.08 ± 42.79 min vs 92.31 ± 10.26 min, 99.09 ± 8.46 min, P < 0.05). Compared to ERCP + LC group, LTCBDE group and Tri-scope group had lower postoperation-leukocyte, shorter surgery duration and hospital stay (P < 0.05). Compared to the Tri-scope group, the LTCBDE group had the shorter hospital stay, extubation time and operation time and less intraoperative bleeding. There were less postoperative complications in LTCBDE group (1.1%) compared to the ERCP + LC group (3.6%) and Tri-scope group (2.2%). Follow-up time was 6 to 72 months. Four patients in ERCP + LC group and 5 in Tri-scope group reported recurrent stones. CONCLUSION: All the three surgical methods are safe and effective. Tri-scope approach and LTCBDE approach have superiority to preoperative ERCP + LC. LC + LTCBDE shows priority over Tri-scope approach, but should be performed in selected patients. LC + LCBDE + T-Tube can be an alternative management if the other three procedures were failed. The surgeons should choose the most appropriate surgical procedure according to the preoperative examination results and intraoperative situation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9160127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91601272022-06-03 Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution Guo, Tong Wang, Lu Xie, Peng Zhang, Zhiwei Huang, Xiaorui Yu, Yahong Surg Endosc Article INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment of choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis remains controversial. Common surgical methods vary among endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), laparoscopic transductal common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with or without T-tube drainage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical methods and to determine the appropriate procedure for patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis. METHODS: From January 2013 to January 2019, a total of 1555 consecutive patients diagnosed with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis who underwent surgical treatment in Tongji Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Total 521 patients with intrahepatic bile duct stones underwent LC + LCBDE + T-Tube were excluded from the analysis. At last, 1034 patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into three groups according to their surgical methods: preoperative ERCP + subsequent LC (ERCP + LC group, n = 275), LC + LCBDE + intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) + primary duct closure (Tri-scope group, n = 479) and LC + laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration (LTCBDE group, n = 280). Clinical records, operative findings and postoperative follow-up were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: There was no mortality in three groups. Common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate was 97.5% in ERCP + LC group, 98.7% in Tri-scope group, and 99.3% in LTCBDE group. There were no difference in terms of demographic characteristics, biochemistry findings and presentations, but the Tri-scope group had the biggest diameter and amount of stones and diameter of CBD, the LTCBDE group had the least CBD stones and the biggest diameter of cystic gall duct (CGD). ERCP + LC group have the longest hospital stay (14.16 ± 3.88 days vs 6.92 ± 1.71 days vs 10.74 ± 5.30 days, P < 0.05), also has the longest operative time than others (126.08 ± 42.79 min vs 92.31 ± 10.26 min, 99.09 ± 8.46 min, P < 0.05). Compared to ERCP + LC group, LTCBDE group and Tri-scope group had lower postoperation-leukocyte, shorter surgery duration and hospital stay (P < 0.05). Compared to the Tri-scope group, the LTCBDE group had the shorter hospital stay, extubation time and operation time and less intraoperative bleeding. There were less postoperative complications in LTCBDE group (1.1%) compared to the ERCP + LC group (3.6%) and Tri-scope group (2.2%). Follow-up time was 6 to 72 months. Four patients in ERCP + LC group and 5 in Tri-scope group reported recurrent stones. CONCLUSION: All the three surgical methods are safe and effective. Tri-scope approach and LTCBDE approach have superiority to preoperative ERCP + LC. LC + LTCBDE shows priority over Tri-scope approach, but should be performed in selected patients. LC + LCBDE + T-Tube can be an alternative management if the other three procedures were failed. The surgeons should choose the most appropriate surgical procedure according to the preoperative examination results and intraoperative situation. Springer US 2021-11-03 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9160127/ /pubmed/34731303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08843-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Guo, Tong
Wang, Lu
Xie, Peng
Zhang, Zhiwei
Huang, Xiaorui
Yu, Yahong
Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution
title Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution
title_full Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution
title_fullStr Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution
title_full_unstemmed Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution
title_short Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution
title_sort surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34731303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08843-x
work_keys_str_mv AT guotong surgicalmethodsoftreatmentforcholecystolithiasiscombinedwithcholedocholithiasissixyearsexperienceofasingleinstitution
AT wanglu surgicalmethodsoftreatmentforcholecystolithiasiscombinedwithcholedocholithiasissixyearsexperienceofasingleinstitution
AT xiepeng surgicalmethodsoftreatmentforcholecystolithiasiscombinedwithcholedocholithiasissixyearsexperienceofasingleinstitution
AT zhangzhiwei surgicalmethodsoftreatmentforcholecystolithiasiscombinedwithcholedocholithiasissixyearsexperienceofasingleinstitution
AT huangxiaorui surgicalmethodsoftreatmentforcholecystolithiasiscombinedwithcholedocholithiasissixyearsexperienceofasingleinstitution
AT yuyahong surgicalmethodsoftreatmentforcholecystolithiasiscombinedwithcholedocholithiasissixyearsexperienceofasingleinstitution