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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |