4.1 Article

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Lessons learned after 200 cases

Journal

CIRUGIA ESPANOLA
Volume 92, Issue 5, Pages 341-347

Publisher

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2013.02.010

Keywords

Choledocholithiasis; Laparoscopy; T-tube; Stent; Primary closure

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a reliable, reproducible and cost-effective treatment for common bile duct stones. Several techniques have been described for choledochotomy closure. Aims: To present our experience and the lessons learned in more than 200 cases of LCBDE. Patients and methods: Between January 1999 and July 2012, 206 patients with common bile duct stones underwent LCBDE. At the beginning of the series, we performed the closure of the CBD over a T-tube (36 patients), subsequently we favoured closure over an antegrade stent (133 patients) but due to a high incidence of acute pancreatitis in the last 16 patients we have performed primary closure. Results: The 3 closure groups were matched for age and sex. Jaundice was the most frequent presentation. A total of 185 (88,5%) patients underwent choledochotomy whereas in 17 (8,7%) patients the transcystic route was used. The group that underwent choledochotomy had a larger size of stones compared to the transcystic group (9,7 vs 7,6 mm). In the stented group we found an 11,6% incidence of pancreatitis and 26,1% of hyperamylasemia. In the primary closure group we found a clear improvement of complications and hospital stay. The increased experience of the surgeon and age (younger than 75) had a positive impact on mortality and morbidity. Conclusions: Primary closure of the common bile duct after LCBDE seems to be superior to closure over a T tube and stents. The learning curve seems to have a positive impact on the outcomes making it a safe and reproducible technique especially for patients aged under 75. (C) 2013 AEC. Published by Elsevier Espana, S. L. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available