9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Laparoscopic Choledocholithotomy With a Novel Articulating Forceps

      1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      Surgical Innovation
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS).

          The last 30 years have seen major developments in the management of gallstone-related disease, which in the United States alone costs over 6 billion dollars per annum to treat. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become a widely available and routine procedure, whilst open cholecystectomy has largely been replaced by a laparoscopic approach, which may or may not include laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct (LCBDE). In addition, new imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance cholangiography (MR) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) offer the opportunity to accurately visualise the biliary system without instrumentation of the ducts. As a consequence clinicians are now faced with a number of potentially valid options for managing patients with suspected CBDS. It is with this in mind that the following guidelines have been written.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones.

            The management of stones in the common bile duct in the laparoscopic era is controversial. The three major options are preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct (LECBD), or postoperative ERCP. Between August, 1995, and August, 1997, 471 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were done in our department. In 427 (91%), satisfactory peroperative cholangiography was obtained. In 80 (17%) of these cases there were stones in the common bile duct, 40 patients were randomised to LECBD and 40 to postoperative ERCP. If LECBD failed, patients had either open exploration of the common bile duct or postoperative ERCP. If one postoperative ERCP failed, the procedure was repeated until the common bile duct was cleared of stones or an endoprosthesis was placed to prevent stone impaction. The primary endpoints were duct-clearance rates, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay. Analyses were by intention to treat. Age and sex distribution of patients was similar in the randomised groups. Duct clearance after the first intervention was 75% in both groups. By the end of treatment, duct clearance was 100% in the laparoscopic group compared with 93% in the ERCP group. Duration of treatment was a median of 90 min (range 25-310) in the laparoscopic group (including ERCPs for failed LECBD) compared with 105 min (range 60-255) in the postoperative ERCP group (p = 0.1, 95% CI for difference -5 to 40). Hospital stay was a median of 1 day (range 1-26) in the laparoscopic group compared with 3.5 days (range 1-11) in the ERCP group (p = 0.0001, 95% CI 1-2). LECBD is as effective as ERCP in clearing the common bile duct of stones. There is a non-significant trend to shorter time in the operating theatre and a significantly shorter hospital stay in patients treated by LECBD.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct.

              Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct is becoming more popular, although endoscopic sphincterotomy remains the usual treatment for bile duct stones. However, loss of the biliary sphincter causes permanent duodenobiliary reflux, and recurrent stone disease and biliary neoplasia may be a consequence. A systematic literature review was conducted to compare laparoscopic exploration with endoscopic sphincterotomy. A text word search of the Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane databases, and a manual search of the citations from these references, was used. Endoscopic sphincterotomy is associated with a median (range) mortality rate of 1 (0-6) per cent, compared with 1 (0-5) per cent for laparoscopic bile duct exploration. The median (range) rate of pancreatitis following endoscopic sphincterotomy is 3 (1-19) per cent; this is a rare complication after laparoscopic duct exploration. The combined morbidity rate for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic sphincterotomy is 13 (3-16) per cent, which is greater than 8 (2-17) per cent for laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Randomized trials are few and contain relatively small numbers of patients. They show little overall difference in rates of duct clearance, but a higher mortality rate and number of hospital admissions are noted for endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Endoscopic sphincterotomy is associated with recurrent stone formation (up to 16 per cent) with associated cholangitis. It is also associated with bacterobilia and chronic mucosal inflammation. The late development of bile duct cancer has been reported in up to 2 per cent of patients. Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct may be a better way of removing stones than endoscopic sphincterotomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. :
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Surgical Innovation
                Surg Innov
                SAGE Publications
                1553-3506
                1553-3514
                January 27 2016
                April 2016
                June 19 2015
                April 2016
                : 23
                : 2
                : 124-129
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University College of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
                Article
                10.1177/1553350615591399
                27768e25-6dd5-4b81-b1f3-60582de7b051
                © 2016

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article