ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to report our experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and validate the experts' opinion about anatomical predictors of failed transcystic LCBDE (TLCBDE) approach. METHODS: Patients undergoing LCBDE at Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals (2005-2015) were included. Predictors of failed TLCBDE were identified using bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 115 LCBDE, 89.6% were TLCBDE and 10.4% through choledochotomy. Success rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay were 83.5%, 6.1%, and 3.8 days respectively. Only stone size:cystic duct ratio >1 (35% versus 63%, P = .044) was associated with failure of TLCBDE. In accordance with experts' opinion, there was a suggestive association of stone size ≥6 mm, cystic duct ≤4 mm, multiple stones, and proximal stone location with failure; however, these did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: LCBDE is an effective and safe mean of clearing common bile duct stones at community hospitals of an integrated health system. Previously cited contraindications for TLCBDE are not absolute, but rather predictors of failure.
Subject(s)
Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic/adverse effects , Choledocholithiasis/surgery , Common Bile Duct/surgery , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures/methods , California , Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic/methods , Databases, Factual , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Female , Humans , Laparoscopy/methods , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We compared endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for managing choledocholithiasis found at time of cholecystectomy. METHODS: One hundred and five LCBDE (2005-2015) were compared to 195 LC/ERCP (2014-2015) from the Southern California Kaiser Permanente database. RESULTS: LC/ERCP was more effective at clearing the CBD (98% vs. 88.6%, p = 0.01); but required more procedures per patient (mean ± standard deviation, 1.1 ± 0.4 vs. 2.0 ± 0.12, p < 0.001). Morbidity, hospital length of stay and readmission were not different (P > 0.05). Four patients failed ERCP, while 12 patients failed LCBDE and had subsequent ERCP (10) or CBD exploration (2). All patients with RYGB had successful LCBDE. CONCLUSION: LC/ERCP is better than LCBDE in clearing CBD stones, but has similar morbidity and is an effective alternative for patients with RYGB.
