Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Evaluation of Two Laparoscopic Procedures for Treating Common Bile Duct Stones

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cholesystolithiasis is often associated with common bile duct stones (CBDS). In order to assess the choice of surgery in terms of effectiveness and complications in the treatment of CBDS, we have compared three surgical procedures, viz., laparoscopic choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage (LCH-TD), laparoscopic cholecystectomy with endoscopic sphincterotomy (LC-EST), and the traditional open choledocholithotomy with T-tube drainage (OCHTD). This study is a retrospective comparative analysis of LCH-TD (77 patients), LC-EST (43 patients), and OCHTD (60 patients) for CBDS. The success of the surgical procedures was assessed in terms of recovery duration, hospitalization, and post-operative complications. Both the micro-invasive procedures, LCH-TD and LC-EST, with a success rate of 92.5%, are found to be superior to the traditional OCHTD. Between the two micro-invasive procedures, patients in LCH-TD group had shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer post-operative complications. Although the size of the stones is comparable between these two groups, the CBD diameter was significantly larger in patients who underwent LCH-TD. In comparison to OCHTD, both LCH-TD and LC-EST are micro-invasive, safe, and suitable for routine use in patients with CBDS. Moreover, when the CBD diameter is wider than 1 cm, LCH-TD is strongly advocated.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kroh, M., & Chand, B. (2008). Choledocholithiasis, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surgical Clinics of North America, 88, 1019–1031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Campbell-Lloyd, A. J., Martin, D. J., & Martin, I. J. (2008). Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a 5-year follow up of 150 consecutive patients. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 78, 492–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Verbesey, J. E., & Birkett, D. H. (2008). Common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis. Surgical Clinics of North America, 88, 1315–1328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Memon, M. A., Hassaballa, H., & Memon, M. I. (2000). Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: the past, the present, and the future. American Journal of Surgery, 179, 309–315.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuschieri, A., Lezoche, E., Morino, M., Croce, E., Lacy, A., et al. (1999). E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi. Surgical Endoscopy, 13, 952–957.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. de Haes, J. C., & van Knippenberg, F. C. (1985). The quality of life of cancer patients: a review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine, 20, 809–817.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shojaiefard, A., Esmaeilzadeh, M., Ghafouri, A., & Mehrabi, A. (2009). Various techniques for the surgical treatment of common bile duct stones: a meta review. Gastroenterology Research and Practice, 2009, 840208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boerma, D., & Schwartz, M. P. (2006). Gallstone disease. management of common bile-duct stones and associated gallbladder stones: surgical aspects. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, 20, 1103–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hong, D., Gao, M., Mu, Y., Cai, X., & Bryner, U. (2000). Intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi, 38, 677–679.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kullman, E., Borch, K., Lindstrom, 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. European Journal of Surgery, 162, 873–880.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tricarico, A., Cione, G., Sozio, M., Di Palo, P., Bottino, V., et al. (2002). Endolaparoscopic rendezvous treatment: a satisfying therapeutic choice for cholecystocholedocolithiasis. Surgical Endoscopy, 16, 585–588.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Petelin, J. B. (2003). Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surgical Endoscopy, 17, 1705–1715.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cotton, P. B. (1984). Endoscopic management of bile duct stones; (apples and oranges). Gut, 25, 587–597.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Classen, M., & Demling, L. (1974). Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of vater and extraction of stones from the choledochal duct (author’s transl). Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 99, 496–497.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kawai, K., Akasaka, Y., Murakami, K., Tada, M., & Koli, Y. (1974). Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 20, 148–151.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

All of the patients were admitted in Xuzhou Medical College hospital, and the authors would like to thank the hospital administration for their support.

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare no financial interest in any commercial device, equipment, instrument, or drug that is subject of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Xuzhou Cancer Hospital, 147 Road Ring, Xuzhou, 221005, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Ai-dong Gu, Ke-xun Guo & Zu-tai Ma

  2. Department of General Surgery, Xuzhou Medical College Affiliated Hospital, 99 Huai-hai Road, Xuzhou, 221005, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Xiang-nong Li

Authors
  1. Ai-dong Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiang-nong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ke-xun Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zu-tai Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ai-dong Gu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gu, Ad., Li, Xn., Guo, Kx. et al. Comparative Evaluation of Two Laparoscopic Procedures for Treating Common Bile Duct Stones. Cell Biochem Biophys 59, 159–164 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-010-9127-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-010-9127-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation