First targeted therapy in multiple myeloma.

K. M. Kortüm,H. Einsele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-09-805341

IF: 20.3

2017-11-30

Blood

Abstract:In this issue of Blood, Kumar et al and Moreau et al both report venetoclax to be safe and effective in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), the second most common hematological malignancy.1,2

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Intraoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis

Gao Min,Zhou Wen,Shi Jian-ming,Hong De-fei,Mu Yi-ping,Wang Jian-guo,Wang Yao-dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.2000.0456

2000-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the benefit of intraoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the treatment of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Methods: Fifty-two patients with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis (as determined by intraoperative cholangiography) were randomly divided into 2 groups during LC. In group A (27 patients), common bile duct stones were extracted by intraoperative EST during LC. In group B(25 patients), common bile duct (CBD) stones were extracted by conversion to open CBD exploration and cholecyctectomy. Results: The success rate was 26/27 (96.3%) in group A and 25/25 (100%) in group B (0.25< P <0.5); The mean postoperative hospitalization was 3.32±0.56 days in group A and 17.5±4.61 days in group B ( P <0.001). In group A, two cases were complicated transient hyperamylasemia after the combined procedure. In group B, one case of bile leakage and one case of duodenal ulcer occurred after conversion to open cholecystectomy with CBD exploration. There were no retained stones in group A but 2 cases in group B. Conclusion: Intraoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with LC for treatment of cholelithiasis and chiledochlithiasis is safe, effective and results in shorter hospitalization and fewer complications than traditional open cholecystectomy with CBD exploration.
The comparative analysis between two methods for minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis

Houxian LIU,Xianfa WANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-7147.2016.03.006

2016-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effects of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography and endoscopic sphincterotomy(ERCP/EST) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) in the treat-ment of cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Methods The clinical data of patients suffering from cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis from Jan.2012 to Jul.2013 were retrospectively analyzed. LC+LCBDE was performed in 124 cases and ERCP/EST combined LC was performed in 123 cases. Parameters including common bile duct (CBD) diameter, stone size, hospitalization cost, hospital stay, postoperative complications, residual bile duct stone incidence were comparatively studied. Results There was no statistical difference in the number of stone , conversion rate and residual bile duct stones incidence. But there were significant dif-ference in CBD diameter, stone size, hospitalization cost, hospital stay, and early postoperative complication. Conclusion Both of LC+LCBDE and ERCP/EST+LC were safe and reliable to treat patients with cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. The treatment for patients must be individualized. LC+LCBDE was better than ERCP/EST combined LC.
Comparison of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Combined with Intraoperative Endoscopic Sphincterotomy and Laparoscopic Exploration of the Common Bile Duct for Cholecystocholedocholithiasis

D.-F. Hong,Y. Xin,D.-W. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8248-8

2006-01-01

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOEST) was compared with laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct (LCBDE) for cholecystocholedocholithiasis in an attempt tried to find the best mini-invasive treatment for the cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Methods For this study, 234 patients with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis diagnosed by preoperative B-ultrasonography and intraoperative cholangiogram were divided at random into an LC-LCBDE group (141cases) and an LC-IOEST group (93 cases). The surgical times, surgical success rates, number of stone extractions, postoperative complications, retained common bile duct stones, postoperative lengths of stay, and hospital charges were compared prospectively. Results There were no differences between the two groups in terms of surgical time, surgical success rate, number of stone extractions, postoperative complications, retained common bile duct stones, postoperative length of stay, and hospital charge. Conclusion Both LC-IOEST and LC-LCBDE were shown to be safe, effective, minimally invasive treatments for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Combined with Intraoperative Cholangiography and Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for the Treatment of Choledocholithiasis

洪德飞,李君达,高敏,袁晓明,王建国,蔡秀军,王先法

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/j.issn:1007-631x.2003.11.002

2002-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effects of Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative cholanggiography (IOC)and intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOEST) for the treatment of cholecystocholedocolithiasis. Methods 106 cases with cholecystocholedocolithiasis diagnosed and treated by LC combined with IOC and IOEST were reviewed retrospectively. Results 60 40%(64/106)patients diagnosed cholelithiasis pre-LC were found choledocholithisis; LC combined with IOC and IOEST was successfully performed on 99 of 106 cases(93 40%),and their CBD stones were completely cleared in 98 of 99 cases(99 00%). Six cases(6 1%) were complicated with mild acute pancreatitis, 1 case(0 01%) with duodenal perforation,1 case(0 01%) with bile leakage, and 2 cases(0 02%) with stomach stasis. Conclusions LC combined with IOC and IOEST was a safe ,effective approach to diagnosis and minimally invasive treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for acute cholangitis due to cholecystocholedocholithiasis

袁兴贵,俞仕梅,马阿火,王荣泉,任培土,洪德飞

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2007.15.029

2007-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC)combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy(IOEST)for the treatment of acute cholangitis due to cholecystocholedocolithiasis.Methods Statistical analysis was carried out for 18 patients with acute cholangitis due to cholecystocholedocolithiasis diagnosed and treated by LC combined with IOEST.Therapeutic effects were evaluated on the basis of the cure rate,incidence of early complications and days of hospitalization.Results LC with IOEST was successfully performed in 17 of 18 cases(94.44%),and their CBD stones were cleared completely in 16/18(88.89%)cases.Two cases(11.12%)were undertaken extraction of retained common bile duct stones by second EST,1 case(5.56%)complicated with mild acute pancreatitis,1 case(5.56%)missed diagnosis with duodenal adenocarcinoma,and 1 case(5.56%) was complicated with stomach stasis.Conclusion LC combined with IOEST is a safe,effective approach to minimally invasive treatment of acute cholangitis due to cholecystocholedocholithiasis.
Intraoperative Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Common Bile Duct Stones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

DF Hong,M Gao,U Bryner,XJ Cai,YP Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v6.i3.448

2000-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effects of approach-intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) for common bile duct (CBD) stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).METHODS:Twenty-seven patients with secondary CBD stones were treated by IOES during LC. Therapeutic effects were evaluated on the basis of the cure rate, early complications, and days of hospitalization.RESULTS:IOES was successfully performed in 26 (96.30%) of 27 cases, and their CBD stones were cleared completely. Two cases (7.69%) were complicated by mild acute pancreatitis.CONCLUSION:IOES as an alternative to the treatment of CBD stones during LC is safe and avoids reoperation.
Optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and common bile duct clearance: A prospective observational study

Ramlal P. Prajapati,Sidhant R. Vairagar,Amay M. Banker,Monty U. Khajanchi,AmayM Banker,RamlalP Prajapati,SidhantR Vairagar,MontyU Khajanchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_321_21

2022-01-01

Journal of Minimal Access Surgery

Abstract:Background: The treatment of patients with cholelithiasis with common bile duct (CBD) stones is CBD clearance with cholecystectomy. While traditional teachings advocate waiting for 4-6-week post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) with CBD clearance, recent studies favour an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the optimal timing of LC post-ERCP.Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study between March 2017 and October 2018. Patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis and CBS stones on ultrasonography or computed tomography were included. They were assigned to one of two groups (<2 weeks and >2 weeks) based on the time interval between ERCP and subsequent LC. Chi-square test was used to analyse the intraoperative and post-operative outcomes between the two study groups.Results: One hundred and forty patients were included in the study of which 69 underwent an early LC (<2 weeks). There was a significant decrease in the blood loss and incidence of bowel injury in the early group. Calots triangle was better defined and critical view of safety was achieved more in the patients who underwent an early LC. This resulted in a significantly lower incidence of drain placement and length of hospital stay in those patients who underwent an early LC.Conclusion: A delay of 2 weeks after ERCP makes the LC more difficult and is associated with a longer hospital stay. We advocate LC within 2 weeks of ERCP whenever feasible.

surgery
Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Victor Vakayil,Samuel T. Klinker,Megan L. Sulciner,Reema Mallick,Guru Trikudanathan,Stuart K. Amateau,Helen T. Davido,Martin Freeman,James V. Harmon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07215-w

2019-10-15

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:<h3 class="Heading">Background</h3><p class="Para">Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, the optimal technique for extracting common bile duct stones remains unclear. Recent studies have noted improved outcomes with single-stage techniques, such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); however only few studies have directly compared those two single-stage techniques.</p><h3 class="Heading">Objectives</h3><p class="Para">Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we retrospectively analyzed the postoperative outcomes of all patients who underwent single-stage LC for choledocholithiasis from 2005 to 2017. Using <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">Current Procedural Terminology</em> (CPT) codes, as well as <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision</em> (ICD-9) and <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">10th Revision</em> (ICD-10) codes, we stratified patients into two cohorts: those who underwent iERCP and LCBDE. Applying univariate techniques, we evaluated baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes for both cohorts. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality; our secondary outcomes included rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and hospital length of stay.</p><h3 class="Heading">Results</h3><p class="Para">Of the 1814 single-stage LC patients during our 13-year study period, 1185 (65.3%) underwent LCBDE; 629 (34.6%) underwent iERCP. Our univariate analysis showed that the two cohorts were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics, including demographics, preoperative comorbidities, laboratory values, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. 30-day postoperative morbidity (including infectious and noninfectious complications) and overall mortality between groups were low and comparable. The mean operative time was slightly longer with LCBDE (125.1 ± 62.0 min) than iERCP (113.5 ± 65.2 min; <em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">P</em> < 0.001), however the mean hospital length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate were similar.</p><h3 class="Heading">Conclusion</h3><p class="Para">We found that both iERCP and LCBDE resulted in low, comparable rates of morbidity and mortality. Centers with readily available endoscopic expertise might favor iERCP for its ease of access and shorter operative time. However, LCBDE remains an appropriate technique for patients with choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention is unavailable.</p>
Management of Choledocholithiasis in a Community Hospital: Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Versus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Molly M McNamee,Michael P Stolz,Robert Tyler Harvell,Christopher A Staley,Emilie E Green,Hedaya D Othman,Brian H Gibson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241241626

Abstract:Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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 4.6 days P < .0001). No difference in LOS between LC + IOC and LC + CBDE (1.4 vs 1.8 days, P > .05) was found. No difference in complication rates was found. Mean operative time differed between LC + IOC and LC + CBDE (63 vs 113 minutes, P < .0001). Fifty-five attempts of LC + CBDE were performed with only 10 requiring post-operative ERCP. Discussion: 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.
Timing of Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Min Zhang,Wenyi Hu,Mingjie Wu,Guoping Ding,Songmei Lou,Liping Cao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lers.2020.02.001

2020-01-01

Laparoscopic Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery

Abstract:Objective: This study was performed to compare the effect of different time intervals between endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) on the operation duration, postoperative hospitalization, and postoperative complications. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed data for 105 patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis who underwent ERCP and LC from January 2016 to May 2019. The patients were divided into three groups. In Group A, the interval from ERCP to LC was ≤3 days; in Group B, the interval was 4–6 days; and in Group C, the interval was >6 days. We compared operation duration, blood loss volume, postoperative hospitalization, and rate of biliary complications among the three groups and analyzed the risk factors for postoperative complications. Results: Operation duration differed significantly between Groups A and B (47.5 min vs. 60.0 min, p = 0.033) and between Groups B and C (60.0 min vs. 47.5 min, p = 0.033). The median blood loss volume was significantly less in Group A than in Group B (8 ml vs. 10 ml, p = 0.041), and the postoperative hospitalization and rate of postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Conclusion: The best time for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis to undergo LC is 0–3 days after ERCP. If the operation cannot be performed within 3 days, we recommend 6 days after ERCP.
Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Yan Lin,Yan Su,Jun Yan,Xun Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07698-y

2020-06-12

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundThe ideal management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), combined with laparoscopy and endoscopy, is a novel and attractive technique. The aim of this research was to compare LERV with traditional two-stage management, preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), for treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.MethodFour databases, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Medline, all updated to through September 2019, were searched to identify comparative studies on LERV versus ERCP + LC for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Total operative time, successful common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance, postoperative morbidity, conversion to other procedures, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Pooled data were measured by odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsEight studies with a total of 1061 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 542 patients who received LERV and 519 patients who received ERCP + LC. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding successful CBD stone clearance (OR 2.20, P = 0.10), postoperative bleeding (OR 0.67, P = 0.37), postoperative cholangitis (OR 0.66, P = 0.53), postoperative bile leak (OR 0.87, P = 0.81), or conversion to other procedures (OR 0.75, P = 0.62). The total operative time was longer in the LERV group (MD = 44.93, P < 0.00001), while LERV was associated with less postoperative pancreatitis than the two-stage management group (OR 0.26, P = 0.0003). The incidence of overall morbidity was lower in the LERV group than in the two-stage management group (OR 0.41, P < 0.0001), and the LERV group had a shorter hospital stay (MD = − 3.52, P < 0.00001).ConclusionLERV is equivalent to traditional two-stage procedures in terms of CBD stone clearance and conversion, with less pancreatitis, lower overall morbidity, and shorter hospital stay but longer operation time. More clinical trials are needed to determine the best treatment for patients in different conditions.
Intraoperative cholangiography: a stepping stone to streamlining the treatment of choledocholithiasis

Savas Tsikis,Sophia H Yin,Stephen R Odom,Nisha Narula

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08840-0

Abstract:Background: An estimated 8-15% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy have concomitant common bile duct stones. In this 14-year study, we utilize data of patients at a high-volume tertiary care academic center and compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP). Methods: The charts of 1715 patients in the institutional NSQIP database who underwent cholecystectomy between October 1st, 2005 and September 30th, 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent cholecystectomy in relation to a malignancy diagnosis or who underwent an ERCP in a different index hospitalization were excluded. Main outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), post-operative morbidity, and rate of readmissions. Results: Of the 1409 patients included in the final analysis, 185 patients underwent ERCP, while 95 patients underwent IOC. Use of IOC compared to preoperative ERCP resulted in a shorter LOS (2.6 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001), lower rate of readmission (1.1% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.040), and similar rates of post-operative complications. Mean operative time increased by only 15 min in the IOC compared to the ERCP group (129 vs.114 min, p = 0.047). Additional variables that increased LOS on multivariable logistic regression included age, ASA classification, post-operative complications, and increased number of preoperative tests. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that use of IOC during cholecystectomy results in shorter LOS and fewer readmissions compared to ERCP. Future studies comparing these two approaches should focus on patient randomization, a cost-effectiveness analysis, and identifying barriers to implementation of a one-stage approach in the management of suspected choledocholithiasis.
Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Versus Intraoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Gallbladder and Common Bile Duct Stones: a Meta-Analysis

Jisheng Zhu,Guoyong Li,Peng Du,Xin Zhou,Weidong Xiao,Yong Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08052-y

2021-01-01

Abstract:Background To compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (IO-ERCP + LC) for the treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones. Methods We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library from their inception dates to April 2020, for studies that compared the efficacy and safety of LCBDE + LC with those of IO-ERCP + LC in patients with gallbladder and CBD stones. The technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, biliary leak, postoperative pancreatitis, conversion, retained stones, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between these two approaches. Results Five randomized controlled trials involving 860 patients were evaluated. Overall, no significant difference was found between LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC regarding technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and the conversion rate. Biliary leak and retained stones were significantly more prevalent in the LCBDE + LC group, while postoperative pancreatitis was significantly more prevalent in the IO-ERCP + LC group. Conclusions LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC have similar efficacy and safety in terms of technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and conversion rate. However, LCBDE + LC is associated with a higher biliary leak rate, lower postoperative pancreatitis rate, and higher rate of retained stones.
Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years' experience of a single institution

Tong Guo,Lu Wang,Peng Xie,Zhiwei Zhang,Xiaorui Huang,Yahong Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08843-x

Abstract: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.
Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: a retrospectively cohort study

Yawei Qian,Jianglin Xie,Ping Jiang,Yuchun Yin,Quan Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07051-y

2019-08-19

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundThere are a variety of strategies for the treatment of patients with cholecysto-choledocholithiasis (CCL). Although the surgical approach of choice is preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), controversy remains regarding which procedure is optimal for CCL.MethodsTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) versus ERCP + LC for CCL, a total of 528 patients with CCL were retrospectively studied from January 2013 to December 2018. The patients were scheduled to undergo either the LERV or ERCP + LC procedure. The LERV group included 123 cases, whereas the ERCP + LC group contained 137 cases. The incidence of postoperative complications, success of stone clearance, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization charges were statistically analyzed.ResultsThe incidence of pancreatitis was lower in the LERV group than in the ERCP + LC group (3/123 vs. 12/137, P = 0.0291). The median level of post-ERCP amylase was much lower in the LERV group (202.5 U/dL vs. 328.1 U/dL, P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in the stone clearance rate or other early complications between the two groups. Further study showed that the length of hospital stay and cost in the LERV group were less than those in the ERCP + LC group (12 days vs. 18 days, P < 0.01; 53591.4¥ vs. 60089.2¥, P < 0.01). In addition, more patients in the two-stage procedure group experienced later biliary complications compared with those in the one-stage approach group (34/137 vs. 4/123, P < 0.05). However, the median operation time was 107.7 min in the two-stage group and 139.8 min in the one-stage group (P < 0.05).ConclusionsThe LERV technique is a safe and effective approach for CCL with lower pancreatitis; it was associated with few later biliary complications, shortened hospital stays, and fewer charges but significantly longer operative time.
ThP4.7 - The outcome of a single stage Laparoendoscopic rendezvous ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis in a DGH

Luke Thompson,Joshua Fultang,Neng Gao,Fraser Cullen,Jeyakumar Apollos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znae197.267

2024-09-01

Abstract:Abstract Cholecystocholedocholithiasis is managed surgically by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and simultaneous common bile duct (CBD) exploration or by preoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by LC. Rendezvous ERCP (RERCP) is an innovative laparoendoscopic technique combining LCs and ERCPs. As a single staged procedure, a LC is performed and selective canulisation of the CBD is aided by laparoscopic transcystic placement of a guide-wire into the duodenum. We present a case series of RERCPs within a DGH. This case series collected retrospective data (2014-2023) involving 33 patients, of which 21 underwent RERCP. Preoperative variables included age, indication, gender, ASA grade, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), frailty score and indication. Postoperative variables analysed were operating time, complications, 30-day re-admission rates and length of stay in hospital (LOSH). Of the 21 patients who underwent a RERCP, 76% (n=16) were female. The average age was 60±17years and 59% (n=13) of all procedures were elective. The ASA range was I to III, average CCI and frailty score were 2.4±1.9 and 0.1±0.4 respectively. 52% (n=11) of patients had a previous failed ERCP. The average operating time was 152±39mins. The average LOSH was 3.5±2.8days and 2.5±2.1days following the RERCP. Biliary (including pancreatitis) and non-biliary complications were 9.5% (n=2) and 9.5% (n=2) respectively. The 30-day readmission rate was 9.5% (n=2). There was no significant difference in the operating time (p=0.16), LOSH (p=0.19) complication (p=0.13) and readmission rates (p=0.50) between emergencies and elective procedures. RERCP remains a valuable option when managing cholecystocholedocholithiasis in emergency and elective settings.
Two institutes' experience in laparoendoscopic "rendezvous" technique for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct: a prospective randomized comparative clinical trial

Mohamed Farid,Azza Baz,Alaaedin Ramadan,Mohamed Elhorbity,Ashraf Amer,Ahmed Arafa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01973-6

2024-09-26

Updates in Surgery

Abstract:There is still disagreement on the best treatment option for cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Although there are some benefits to the single-step procedure, the "laparoendoscopic rendezvous" (LERV) technique that include a lower risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and a shorter hospital stay, the standard technique is still the two-step approach for clearing the common bile duct (CBD) using ERCP and then performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of the LERV technique vs. the standard two-step approach. Four hundred thirty-six patients with symptomatized concomitant stones at both the gall bladder (GB) and the (CBD), at two gastroenterology centers in Zagazig city, Egypt, from January 2010 till April 2022, were analyzed. Patients were randomly divided into two equally groups. The overall length of hospital stay was the primary outcome, and the success of CBD clearance and morbidity, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis, were the secondary endpoints. The LERV group experienced a significantly shorter hospital stay (median 2(2–8) days compared to 4.5 (4–11) days for the two-stage approach ( p < 0.001)). The two groups did not differ in terms of CBD clearing success. Also, there was no significant difference in the number of patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis between the LERV group [14 patients (6.4%)] and the two-stage approach [26 patients (11.9%)] with p value = 0.703. For patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis, the optimal treatment must be determined by the knowledge and resources that are accessible locally. Our data further supported the idea that treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis in one stage is a safe and successful strategy.

surgery
Optimal Timing of Cholecystectomy for Patients with Concurrent Acute Cholecystitis and Acute Cholangitis after Successful Biliary Drainage by Interventional Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Yau-Ren Chang,Chi-Huan Wu,Huan-Wu Chen,Yu-Liang Hung,Chia-Hsiang Hu,Ruo-Yi Huang,Min-Jung Wu,Hao-Wei Kou,Ming-Yang Chen,Chun-Yi Tsai,Shang-Yu Wang,Keng-Hao Liu,Jun-Te Hsu,Chun-Nan Yeh,Nai-Jen Liu,Yi-Yin Jan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11216603

2022-11-07

Abstract:Background: Concurrent acute cholecystitis and acute cholangitis is a unique clinical situation. We tried to investigate the optimal timing of cholecystectomy after adequate biliary drainage under this condition. Methods: From January 2012 to November 2017, we retrospectively screened all in-hospitalized patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and then identified patients with concurrent acute cholecystitis and acute cholangitis from the cohort. The selected patients were stratified into two groups: one-stage intervention (OSI) group (intended laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the same hospitalization) vs. two-stage intervention (TSI) group (interval intended laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Interrogated outcomes included recurrent biliary events, length of hospitalization, and surgical outcomes. Results: There were 147 patients ultimately enrolled for analysis (OSI vs. TSI, 96 vs. 51). Regarding surgical outcomes, there was no significant difference between the OSI group and TSI group, including intraoperative blood transfusion (1.0% vs. 2.0%, p = 1.000), conversion to open procedure (3.1% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.236), postoperative complication (6.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.342), operation time (118.0 min vs. 125.8 min, p = 0.869), and postoperative days until discharge (3.37 days vs. 4.02 days, p = 0.643). In the RBE analysis, the OSI group presented a significantly lower incidence of overall RBE (5.2% vs. 41.2%, p < 0.001) than the TSI group. Conclusions: Patients with an initial diagnosis of concurrent acute cholecystitis and cholangitis undergoing cholecystectomy after ERCP drainage during the same hospitalization period may receive some benefit in terms of clinical outcomes.
Clinical application of ERCP concurrent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis complicated with extrahepatic bile duct stones

Jiang-Bo Shen,Peng-Cheng Chen,Jin-Gen Su,Qing-Chun Feng,Pei-Dong Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31022

IF: 3.776

2024-05-10

Heliyon

Abstract:Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and lithotomy (LCBDE) in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with bile duct stones. Methods: From September 2018 to January 2022, 195 patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with extrahepatic bile duct stones from Department of Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Jiading Central Hospital met the inclusion criteria, including 60 cases in the LC group and 86 cases in the LCBDE group. The general condition, operation success rate, complications and residual stone rate of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In the simultaneous operation group, 58 patients successfully performed ERCP, and the indwelling rate of the abdominal drainage tube (41.7 % vs. 95.3 %) was significantly better than that in the LCBDE group. There was no significant difference in the conversion rate to open surgery, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. In the simultaneous surgery group, 4 patients (6.7 %) developed pancreatitis after ERCP, which was cured by conservative treatment. The pain score at 6 h after operation was significantly lower than that in the LCBDE group (3.9 ± 1.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.4). There were no significant differences in biliary leakage (1.7 % vs. 4.7 %), postoperative cholangitis (5.0 % vs. 5.8 %), incision infection (3.3 % vs. 3.5 %), and bile duct stone residue rate (5.0 % vs 3.5 %) between the two groups. There was no severe pancreatitis, second operation or death. The duration of hospital stay was shortened in the concurrent operation group (5.1 ± 2.3d vs 7.9 ± 3.7d), and the operation cost was significantly higher than that in the LCBDE group (48839.9 ± 8549.5 vs 34635.9 ± 5893.7 yuan). Conclusion: ERCP combined with LC and LCBDE are both safe and effective methods for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with extrahepatic bile duct stones. The simultaneous operation group has certain advantages in patient comfort and rapid rehabilitation, which can be popularized in qualified units.
One-stage laproendoscopic procedure versus two-stage procedure in the management for gallstone disease and biliary duct calculi: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Pankaj Prasson,Xueli Bai,Qi Zhang,Tingbo Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4657-0

2015-01-01

Abstract:Background Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are secure and effective techniques that recently been used to treat bile duct stones. The purpose of this research was to assess the intra-procedural efficacy and postprocedural upshots of the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE) and ERCP plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC). Methods All studies contrasting one-stage (LCBDE) with two-stage (ERCP/EST + LC) managements in patients with concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones were included. The primary outcomes were CBD stone clearance, postoperative morbidity, and mortality, while secondary outcomes were conversion with other techniques, duration of stay in hospital, number of procedures used per patient, and operating time. Data were pooled by meta-analysis. Results Fourteen studies with 1600 participants were identified. Each arm contains 800 participants. There is no significant difference between the two arms regarding successful CBD stone clearance (RR = 0.96, P = 0.15), mortality (RR = 1.74, P = 0.33), morbidity (RR = 0.89, P = 0.32), conversion to additional procedure (RR = 1.44, P = 0.09), operating time (MD = −1.43 min, P = 0.95), hospital stay (MD = 1.31 days, P = 0.17), and retained stone rate (RR = 1.73, P = 0.38). Conclusions One- and two-stage management had similar efficacy and safety in terms of CBD stone clearance rate, mortality, morbidity, operating time, hospital stay, and retained stone rate. One-stage management may reduce additional procedure.

First targeted therapy in multiple myeloma.

Intraoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis

The comparative analysis between two methods for minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis

Comparison of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Combined with Intraoperative Endoscopic Sphincterotomy and Laparoscopic Exploration of the Common Bile Duct for Cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Combined with Intraoperative Cholangiography and Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for the Treatment of Choledocholithiasis

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for acute cholangitis due to cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Intraoperative Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Common Bile Duct Stones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and common bile duct clearance: A prospective observational study

Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

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

Timing of Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Intraoperative cholangiography: a stepping stone to streamlining the treatment of choledocholithiasis

Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Versus Intraoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Gallbladder and Common Bile Duct Stones: a Meta-Analysis

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

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: a retrospectively cohort study

ThP4.7 - The outcome of a single stage Laparoendoscopic rendezvous ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis in a DGH

Two institutes' experience in laparoendoscopic "rendezvous" technique for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct: a prospective randomized comparative clinical trial

Optimal Timing of Cholecystectomy for Patients with Concurrent Acute Cholecystitis and Acute Cholangitis after Successful Biliary Drainage by Interventional Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Clinical application of ERCP concurrent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis complicated with extrahepatic bile duct stones

One-stage laproendoscopic procedure versus two-stage procedure in the management for gallstone disease and biliary duct calculi: a systemic review and meta-analysis