Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is laparoscopic fiberoptic choledochoscopy for common bile duct stones a fine option or a mandatory step?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Because choledochoscopy often is a challenging maneuver, it would be advantageous to define the real utility of its use. This study aimed to compare blind exploration of the common bile duct (CBD) with choledochoscopy-assisted CBD stone removal in terms of patient outcome and complication rate.

Methods

Two groups of patients were prospectively evaluated in a 4-year period. The study participants were 36 men and 27 women randomized to group A (n = 32) for a blind basket procedure or group B (n = 31) for a choledochoscopy-assisted procedure as the first step of laparoscopic CBD stone removal. Patients with preoperatively suspected CBD stones (n = 51) and those with unsuspected stones (n = 12) were included. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of anagraphics, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, or previous surgery. All the procedures were performed by surgeons skilled in this surgical field. Choledochoscopy, when used, was always performed with the instrument connected to a camera monitor that had a wide vision, whether in a single-monitor, in a picture-in-picture manner, or with the use of an additional monitor.

Results

From March 2004 to April 2008, 63 patients undergoing CBD exploration for stone removal were enrolled in the study. Five of these patients had undergone previous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). The mean operative time was 107 min for group A and 122 min for group B. The mean hospital stay was 3 days for group A and 3.6 days for group B. Clearance of CBD stones was achieved laparoscopically in 62 cases. One patient required open combined transduodenal papilloplasty and transcholedochotomy. In seven cases, blind basket exploration was unable to remove the stones according to the cholangiogram, so choledochoscopy was required. Six patients underwent a transversal coledocothomy for stone removal. A Kehr T-tube was placed in four of these patients. In four group A cases, the papilla was inadvertently passed during the procedure. In six group A cases, including the four aforementioned cases, a high level of amylases was found on postoperative day 1. At this writing, no late complications or stone recurrences have been observed in either group.

Conclusions

The laparoscopic basket blind technique and choledochoscopy are safe and effective for CBD stone removal. However, the latter seems to be better in terms of a higher stone removal rate and fewer minor complications despite its longer operation time. In the authors’ opinion, it may be preferable to reserve ERCP for very high-risk patients, taking into account that in addition to the related complications, it results in an approximate 10% rate of recurrent or persistent stones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Muhe E (1992) Long-term follow-up after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopy 24(9):754–758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pierce RA, Jonnalagadda S, Spitler JA, Tessier DJ, Liaw JM, Lall SC, Melman LM, Frisella MM, Todt LM, Brunt LM, Halpin VJ, Eagon JC, Edmundowicz SA, Matthews BD (2008) Incidence of residual choledocholithiasis detected by intraoperative cholangiography at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients having undergone preoperative ERCP. Surg Endosc 22:2365–2372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hekimoglu K, Ustundag Y, Dusak A, Erdem Z, Karademir B, Aydemir S, Gundogdu S (2008) MRCP vs. ERCP in the evaluation of biliary pathologies: review of current literature. J Dig Dis 9:162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Petelin J (1991) Laparoscopic approach to common bile duct pathology. Surg Laparosc Endosc 12:23–29

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paganini AM, Guerrieri M, Sarnari J, De Sanctis A, D’Amb G, Lezoche G, Perretta S, Lezoche E (2007) Thirteen years’ experience with laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration for stone. Surg Endosc 21:34–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schreurs WH, Juttmann JR, Stuifbergen WN, Oostvogel HJ, van Vroonhoven TJ (2002) Management of common bile duct stones: selective retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic sphincterotomy: short- and long-term results. Surg Endosc 16:1068–1072

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Campbell S, Mee A, Thompson MH (2004) Common bile duct calculi-ERCP versus laparoscopic exploration. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 86:470–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Macadam RCA, Goodal RJR (2004) Long-term symptoms following endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 18:363–366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Waage A, Stromberg C, Leijonmarck CE, Arvidsson D (2003) Long-term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 17:1181–1185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. JCh Berthou, Dron B, Charbonneau P, Moussalier K, Pellissier L (2007) Evaluation of laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones in a prospective series of 505 patients: indications and results. Surg Endosc 21:1970–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hamouda AH, Goh W, Mahmud S, Khan M, Nassar AH (2007) Intraoperative cholangiography facilitates simple transcystic clearance of ductal stones in units without expertise for laparoscopic bile duct surgery. Surg Endosc 21:955–959

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Paganini AM, Guerrieri M, Sarnari J, De Sanctis A, D’Ambrosio G, Lezoche G, Lezoche E (2005) Long-term results after laparoscopic transverse choledochotomy for common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 19:705–709

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lezoche E, Paganini AM (1995) Single-stage laparoscopic treatment of gallstones and common bile duct stones in 120 unselected consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 9:1070–1075

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yang MH, Chen TH, Wang SE, Tsai YF, Su CH, Wu CW, Lui WY, Shyr YM (2008) Biochemical predictors for absence of CBD stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:1620–1624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tranter SE, Thompson MH (2002) Comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Br J Surg 89:1495–1504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morino M, Baracchi F, Miglietta C, Ragona R, Garbarini A (2006) Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus laparoendoscopic rendezvous in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones. Ann Surg 244:889–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kharbutli B, Velanovich V (2008) Management of preoperative suspected choledocholithiasis: a decision analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 12:1973–1980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Phillips EH, Toouli J, Pitt HA, Soper NJ (2008) Treatment of common bile duct stones discovered during cholecystectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12:624–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kullman E, Borch K, Lindström E, Svanvik J, Anderberg B (1996) Management of bile duct stones in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: appraisal of routine operative cholangiography and endoscopic treatment. Eur J Surg 162:873–880

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. NIH state-of-the-science statement on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy (2002) NIH Consens State Sci Statements 19:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis MP (1998) Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet 351:159–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinica di Chirurgia Generale e Metodologia Chirurgica, Ospedali Riuniti, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Conca 1, 60121, Ancona, Italy

    R. Campagnacci, A. Baldoni, M. Baldarelli, M. Rimini, A. De Sanctis, M. Di Emiddio & M. Guerrieri

Authors
  1. R. Campagnacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Baldoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Baldarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Rimini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. De Sanctis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Di Emiddio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Guerrieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Campagnacci.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campagnacci, R., Baldoni, A., Baldarelli, M. et al. Is laparoscopic fiberoptic choledochoscopy for common bile duct stones a fine option or a mandatory step?. Surg Endosc 24, 547–553 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0599-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0599-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation