Users Online : 255 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   |   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
  Search
 
  
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Bhardwaj AM
    -  Trehan KK
    -  Sharma V
    Article in PDF
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


   Abstract
  Introduction
  Patients and Methods
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed206    
    PDF Downloaded6    

Recommend this journal

 

Previous Article  Table of Contents     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year :   |  Volume :   |  Issue :   |  Page :
 

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: Our patient series over a period of 10 years


 Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission23-Jun-2021
Date of Acceptance12-Oct-2021
Date of Web Publication19-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Arun M Bhardwaj,
A 106, Shiv Vihar, Poojari Apartments, Rohtak Road, Near Udyog Nagar, Metro Station, Pillar No 318, New Delhi - 110 087
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_207_21

  Abstract 


Aim: Laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) for Common bile duct (CBD) stones with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an alternative to open CBD exploration, in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). It is being performed at few centres with adequate surgical expertise. Herein, we present our experience of LCBDE with LC over a period of 10 years.
Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data of 121 consecutive patients was performed from February 2010 to November 2019, who underwent LC and LCBDE by choledochotomy in a single surgical unit. These included all patients with failed pre-operative ERCP.
Results: Out of 121 patients, LCBDE successfully cleared the CBD in 118, and three patients were converted to open surgery. All these patients underwent choledochotomy for adequate exploration of CBD. T-tube closure of CBD was performed in 103 patients and removed after a mean of 14.6 ± 2.4 days. Primary closure was performed in 15 patients. The mean hospital stay post-procedure was 3.4 ± 0.7 days. Complete ductal clearance was achieved in 115 patients, and residual stone fragments reported in three patients were removed by ERCP. None of the patients experienced biliary peritonitis, biliary fistula, pancreatitis or cholangitis. There was no 30-day mortality and no recurrent stones reported with a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 3.9 months.
Conclusion: With adequate surgical expertise, LCBDE is a feasible alternative to open surgery for CBD stones after failed ERCP with early recovery and low morbidity.


Keywords: Common bile duct stones, choledocholithiasis, common bile duct, failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography, laparoscopic CBD exploration, T-tube



How to cite this URL:
Bhardwaj AM, Trehan KK, Sharma V. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: Our patient series over a period of 10 years. J Min Access Surg [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2021 Dec 5]. Available from: https://www.journalofmas.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=330768





  Introduction Top


Over the years, for gallstone disease, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is an established procedure as gold standard. Approximately 9%–16% of patients with gallbladder stones have concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones.[1],[2] The two-stage endo-laparoscopic approach (LC with preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography – [ERCP]) has been widely adopted as standard practice for managing gallstones with CBD stones. It has replaced traditional open choledocholithotomy and cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) with LC is performed at few centres with adequate surgical expertise. One-stage LCBDE and stone removal during LC has proven to be equivalent to the two-stage approach, but with a shorter hospital stay.[3] A recent meta-analysis of randomised trials made similar conclusions.[4] Herein, we present the result of our experience using LC and LCBDE as a single-stage procedure for managing gallstones with CBD stones.


  Patients and Methods Top


A retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data of 121 consecutive patients was performed from February 2010 to December 2019, who underwent LC and LCBDE by choledochotomy in a single surgical unit [Table 1].
Table 1: Patient characteristics and profile

Click here to view


The study included patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis on imaging. USG was the first line of imaging and was performed in all the patients. Magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography was obtained in patients with suspected ductal stones (based on CBD dilatation on ultrasound and deranged liver function suggestive of bile stasis). All these patients underwent ERCP by the gastroenterology team at our center, but complete ductal clearance could not be achieved. The reasons for failed ERCP included large CBD stones, CBD studded with stones, simultaneous stones in CBD and both hepatic ducts, CBD stone with an impacted stent or inability to cannulate CBD [Table 2]. Two of these patients had the Dormia basket impacted in the CBD when using it for ductal stone clearance, and the procedure had to be abandoned. These patients underwent LCBDE with the mean time interval between ERCP and CBD exploration being 1.6 ± 0.5 days (range 1–5 days).
Table 2: Reasons for failed ERCP

Click here to view


Patient data were collected using case records, operation notes and follow-up data with regard to complications, residual stones and recurrent stones.

Operative procedure

The conventional four-port configuration of LC was used. A 10-mm fifth port was made between the right midclavicular and epigastric port just below the sub-costal margin for CBD exploration. The procedure was started as for any standard LC. The fundus of the gallbladder was retracted towards the right shoulder. Calot's triangle was dissected, and a 'critical view of safety' was obtained. The cystic artery was clipped and divided. Then, the cystic duct was clipped. The CBD was dissected carefully and confirmed by demonstrating bile aspiration using a 22G or 23G scalp vein set [Figure 1]. Choledochotomy was performed on the anterior surface of CBD by giving a longitudinal incision (1 cm or more depending on stone size) just below the cystic duct-CBD junction using an endoscopic monopolar hook or knife.
Figure 1: Common bile duct confirmation by aspiration

Click here to view


CBD exploration was done most commonly using a nephroscope [Figure 2]. Other scopes used included GI endoscope [Figure 3], ureteroscope, and hysteroscope [Table 3]. Lower CBD was explored through a 10-mm incision between right midclavicular and epigastric ports, and umbilical port site incision was used to explore proximal CBD and both right and left hepatic ducts. Stone removal was done using Triprong or tooth graspers [Figure 4], Fogarty's balloon catheter, Dormia basket or LithoClast.
Table 3: Endoscopes used for CBD exploration

Click here to view
Figure 4: Common bile duct stone removal with Triprong grasper

Click here to view
Figure 3: Common bile duct exploration using upper GI endoscope

Click here to view
{Figure 4}

After confirming complete CBD clearance by choledochoscopy, primary closure was done using no 3-0 vicryl interrupted sutures with or without T-tube [Figure 5]. T-tube was not used in cases where CBD clearance was confirmed, and papillotomy was wide (confirmed by the scope that could easily negotiate into the duodenum). Four patients had primary closure over previously placed endoscopic CBD stent. Abdominal drain of 28 Fr size was placed in sub hepatic space and all 10-mm ports were suture closed.
Figure 5: Common bile duct closure over T-tube

Click here to view


The abdominal drain was removed when its volume was <25 ml, serosanguinous in nature, and T-tube was draining bile. Patients were usually discharged on the 3rd or 4th post-operative day (POD). T-tube was removed between 10th and 21st POD after a T-tube cholangiogram to rule out residual stones.


  Results Top


Out of 121 patients, LCBDE was completed in 118 patients, and three patients were converted to open. Of these three patients, one had intra-operative suspicion of malignancy and underwent open CBD exploration after frozen section negative. The second patient had bleeding from choledochotomy, which made it difficult to proceed with LCBDE. The third patient underwent CBD exploration laparoscopically but had an intractable bleed from gallbladder fossa, for which packing had to be done to control the bleed.

These patients either had large CBD stones, CBD studded with stones, simultaneous CBD and hepatic duct stones or stones with an impacted stent [Figure 6], resulting in failure of ERCP to achieve complete ductal clearance.
Figure 6: CBD stones with impacted stent

Click here to view


Seven of these patients were post-cholecystectomy and underwent LCBDE for primary CBD stones (formed 2 years post-cholecystectomy). Two patients underwent LCBDE for CBD stones with impacted Dormia basket after ERCP, which was successfully retrieved [Figure 7]. One patient had accidental portal vein injury as the portal vein was lying anterior to CBD, mistaken as CBD. The repair was performed laparoscopically, followed by LCBDE. It was the only case where CBD was not confirmed by aspiration. Therefore, CBD confirmation is mandatory, by either aspiration or per-operative cholangiogram.
Figure 7: Impacted Dormia basket with stone in common bile duct

Click here to view


The CBD was closed over T-tube in 103 patients, which was removed after a mean of 14.6 ± 2.4 days after doing a T-tube cholangiogram. Fifteen patients underwent primary suturing of CBD, of which 4 had a stent in situ (placed pre-operatively during ERCP).

The mean hospital stay post-procedure was 3.4 ± 0.7 days. Complete ductal clearance was achieved in 115 patients, and residual stone fragments reported in three patients on T-tube cholangiography were removed by ERCP. None of the patients experienced biliary peritonitis, biliary fistula, pancreatitis or cholangitis. There was no 30-day mortality and no recurrent stones or CBD strictures reported with a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 3.9 months.


  Discussion Top


Cholelithiasis with concomitant CBD stones is a common scenario faced in the clinical practice. There are various approaches for the management of this pathology. With the availability and advancement of endoscopic training, pre-operative ERCP followed by LC is considered the standard of care. ERCP has its own limitations concerning very large stones which cannot be removed endoscopically or when the ampulla cannot be cannulated due to anatomical challenges. Furthermore, sphincterotomy may lead to late complications, including pancreatitis, bile duct stricture and cholangitis.[5] It may also predispose to cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic tumours.[6]

Open CBD exploration is associated with morbidity, resulting in delayed patient recovery and prolonged hospital stay. LCBDE can be performed by trans-cystic or choledochotomy approach. The trans-cystic approach has its limitations as it requires a dilated cystic duct, and it might be difficult to remove very large stones (indicated only up to 7–8 mm size stone). The choledochotomy approach has no such limitations. In fact, there is enough literature that considers LCBDE to be superior compared to two-stage endo-laparoscopic approach with respect to higher ductal clearance, shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity.[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] These findings have been confirmed by two meta-analyses and one systematic review.[12],[13],[14] Despite this, LCBDE is still not the first choice for the management of CBD stones as it is technically challenging and requires a high level of expertise.

Our study reports the result of LC-LCBDE over a period of 10 years. Our study included only those patients with failed ERCP (two patients had an impacted Dormia basket after ERCP). Thus, it was even more technically demanding.

After complete CBD clearance, the choledocotomy was closed over T-tube in 103 patients. Closure over T-tube enables us to perform a T-tube cholangiogram to image the biliary system postoperatively. Its disadvantages include accidental dislodgment with the rare possibility of bile leak and peritonitis at its removal. We did not face any major complications with the T-tube, except for late dislodgement in 2 of our cases with no peritoneal sepsis. Primary closure of choledochotomy over stent was performed in four patients, which provides biliary decompression like T-tube but requires follow-up ERCP to remove the stent.

Primary closure of choledochotomy without T-tube has been reported in the literature, with studies reporting it as a safe and feasible alternative to T-tube closure.[15],[16] However, it should be avoided in case of any doubts concerning complete clearance of CBD. In our series, primary closure without T-tube/stent was performed in 11 patients. These mostly included cases with solitary stone which required minimal CBD manipulation and had wide papillotomy. All these cases recovered well without any post-operative issues such as abdominal collection or leak.

The length of hospital stay for LCBDE in most studies range from 1 to 7 days.[17],[18],[19] In our study, patients were usually discharged on 3rd or 4th POD. The mortality of LCBDE has been reported to be 0%–1% in most studies when performed by experienced biliary surgeons.[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] We have no reported mortality, which may be attributed to surgical expertise and case selection.

Our study shows that LCBDE can be performed safely with no significant post-operative complications or long-term sequelae like recurrent stones or bile duct stricture. These findings are similar to certain other studies reported in the literature.[25],[26] Our study is a retrospective analysis of collected data. The limitation of this study is its relatively small sample size, as it includes only those cases with failed ERCP and performed in a single surgical unit.

The technique of the one-stage laparo-endoscopic Rendezvous approach (LERV) for treating gallbladder and CBD stones in the same setting has been reported in literature too that does not require laparoscopic suturing skills or biliary drainage.[27],[28],[29] This approach has shown better outcomes for stone clearance and lower post-procedural pancreatitis rate, as compared to the two-stage treatment.[30] At our center, we have no experience with this technique and it would be worthwhile comparing the two single-stage approaches (LC-LERV versus LC-LCBDE) in future trials for their outcomes, both at short- and long-term follow-up.


  Conclusion Top


LCBDE by choledochotomy approach is safe and an effective single-stage minimally invasive technique for treating GB and CBD stone after failed ERCP. It is associated with a learning curve and requires surgical expertise and experience to avoid morbidity and long-term sequelae.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Nahrwold D. The biliary system. In: Sabiston X, editor. Textbook of Surgery. Philadelphia: WE Saunders; 1986.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Way LW, Admirand WH, Dunphy JE. Management of choledocholithiasis. Ann Surg 1972;176:347-59.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Cuschieri A, Croce E, Faggioni A, Jakimowicz J, Lacy A, Lezoche E, et al. EAES ductal stone study. Preliminary findings of multi-center prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs. single-stage management. Surg Endosc 1996;10:1130-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Martin DJ, Vernon D, Toouli J. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006; CD003327. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003327.pub2.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Langerth A, Sandblom G, Karlson BM. Long-term risk for acute pancreatitis, cholangitis, and malignancy more than 15 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy: A population-based study. Endoscopy 2015;47:1132-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Strömberg C, Luo J, Enochsson L, Arnelo U, Nilsson M. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and risk of malignancy in the bile ducts, liver, and pancreas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1049-53.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis MP. Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet 1998;351:159-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Millat B, Atger J, Deleuze A, Briandet H, Fingerhut A, Guillon F, et al. Laparoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: A prospective evaluation in 247 consecutive unselected patients. Hepatogastroenterology 1997;44:28-34.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Paganini AM, Lezoche E. Follow-up of 161 unselected consecutive patients treated laparoscopically for common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 1998;12:23-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Berci G, Morgenstern L. Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones. A multi-institutional SAGES study. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Surg Endosc 1994;8:1168-74.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Lyass S, Phillips EH. Laparoscopic transcystic duct common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 2006;20 Suppl 2:S441-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Liu JG, Wang YJ, Shu GM, Lou C, Zhang J, Du Z. Laparoscopic versus endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2014;24:287-94.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Zhu HY, Xu M, Shen HJ, Yang C, Li F, Li KW, et al. A meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2015;39:584-93.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Dasari BVM, Tan CJ, Gurusamy KS, Martin DJ, Kirk G, McKie L, et al. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013:CD003327. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003327.pub3.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Estellés Vidagany N, Domingo Del Pozo C, Peris Tomás N, Díez Ares JÁ, Vázquez Tarragón A, Blanes Masson F. Eleven years of primary closure of common bile duct after choledochotomy for choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1975-82.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Khaled YS, Malde DJ, de Souza C, Kalia A, Ammori BJ. Laparoscopic bile duct exploration via choledochotomy followed by primary duct closure is feasible and safe for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 2013;27:4164-70.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Carroll BJ, Phillips EH, Daykhovsky L, Grundfest WS, Gershman A, Fallas M, et al. Laparoscopic choledochoscopy: An effective approach to the common duct. J Laparoendosc Surg 1992;2:15-21.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Sackier JM, Berci G, Pas-Partlow M. Laparoscopic transcystic-choledochotomy as an adjunct to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 1991;57:323-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy. J Laparoendosc Surg 1991;1:79-82.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Quattlebaum JK Jr, Flanders HD. Laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1991;1:26-32.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Appel S, Krebs H, Fern D. Techniques for laparoscopic cholangiography and removal of common duct stones. Surg Endosc 1992;6:134-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Dion YM, Morin J, Dionne G, Dejoie C. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and choledocholithiasis. Can J Surg 1992;35:67-74.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Fanning NF, Horgan PG, Keane FB. Evolving management of common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1997;42:389-94.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Heili MJ, Wintz NK, Fowler DL. Choledocholithiasis: Endoscopic versus laparoscopic management. Am Surg 1999;65:135-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Prasson P, Bai X, Zhang Q, Liang T. One-stage laproendoscopic procedure versus two-stage procedure in the management for gallstone disease and biliary duct calculi: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2016;30:3582-90.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Aawsaj Y, Light D, Horgan L. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: 15-year experience in a district general hospital. Surg Endosc 2016;30:2563-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Morino M, Baracchi F, Miglietta C, Furlan N, Ragona R, Garbarini A. Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus laparoendoscopic rendezvous in patients with gallbladder and bile duct stones. Ann Surg 2006;244:889-93.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Tzovaras G, Baloyiannis I, Zachari E, Symeonidis D, Zacharoulis D, Kapsoritakis A, et al. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: Interim analysis of a controlled randomized trial. Ann Surg 2012;255:435-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Lella F, Bagnolo F, Rebuffat C, Scalambra M, Bonassi U, Colombo E. Use of the laparoscopic-endoscopic approach, the so-called “rendezvous” technique, in cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A valid method in cases with patient-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Surg Endosc 2006;20:419-23.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Arezzo A, Vettoretto N, Famiglietti F, Moja L, Morino M. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous reduces perioperative morbidity and risk of pancreatitis. Surg Endosc 2013;27:1055-60.  Back to cited text no. 30
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous Article 

    

2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04