Outcomes following common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic stone extraction before, during and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with common bile duct stones

Harendra M De Silva,Tess Howard,David Bird,Russell Hodgson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2022.08.014
Abstract:Background: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are two methods of retrieving common bile duct (CBD) stones. The best method for CBD stone removal is debatable. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following LCBDE and/or ERCP, including laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing LCBDE and/or ERCP at a single centre from 2008 to 2018. Patients were grouped by intention-to-treat (single-stage LCBDE, pre-operative-, intra-operative-, or post-operative ERCP) and eventual plan (surgical or endoscopic). Outcomes included complication rates (minor Clavien-Dindo 1/2, major Clavien-Dindo 3/4, non-biliary complications) and mortality. Results: Of 671 patients, 578 patients received LCBDE and 93 patients received ERCP as primary care. Endoscopic clearance had significantly higher complications and mortality compared to surgical clearance. On an intention-to-treat basis LCBDE had the lowest minor-, major- and non-biliary complications, and mortality (5.2%, 6.1%, 2.9% and 0.5%, respectively), whilst pre-operative ERCP the worst (39.6%, 27.1%, 29.2% and 8.3%, respectively) (p=<0.001). LCBDE and postERCP had similar major complications and mortality. Conclusion: Surgical clearance of CBD stones was potentially safer than endoscopic clearance. Pre-operative ERCP had the worst outcomes. LCBDE and postERCP are likely to have similar short-term patient outcomes.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?