Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2025
Laparoscopic Reverse Cholangiopancreatography (LRCP): Our Algorithm For Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration (LCBDE).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cotter Robin R, Johnston Tawni M, Lamb Casey R, Porter Eleah D, Goldwag Jenaya L, Cooros James C, Mancini D Joshua, Rosenkranz Kari M, Santos B Fernando
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is safe and efficacious. "Classic" LCBDE technique utilizes isolated choledochoscope-guided retrograde basketing; however, it is less effective than transcholedochal exploration. We report on the evolution of our LCBDE technique away from "classic" transcystic approach towards prioritizing antegrade clearance using a novel algorithm utilizing a variety of tools, which we term laparoscopic reverse cholangiopancreatography (LRCP).
METHODS: We report an algorithm-driven LRCP technique for LCBDE that tailors intervention to the patient's anatomy and stone burden (size, location, number) seen on cholangiogram (IOC). For cystic ducts ≥4 mm, we use a choledochoscope-assisted technique versus a fluoroscopy-guided technique if <4 mm. For small stones, we use wire basketing (with the "classic" technique) or the "snow-plow" maneuver. For medium (≤10 mm) or multiple stones, we utilize sphincteroplasty plus "snow-plow" if needed. For large (>10 mm), we use laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Fallback methods are ERCP or transcholedochal exploration.
RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed our 80 LCBDE cases at a single Veterans Affairs hospital: 50 cases in the "classic" phase and 30 subsequent cases using LRCP. Transcystic clearance was significantly higher for LRCP at 97% vs. 56% during the "classic" phase (χ2=15.14, P <0.001). There was zero utilization of choledochotomy during LRCP.
CONCLUSIONS: Algorithm-driven LRCP dramatically improved transcystic clearance success and reduced reliance on choledochotomy. Our algorithm serves as a decision aid, allowing surgeons to utilize a variety of available tools for LCBDE.
METHODS: We report an algorithm-driven LRCP technique for LCBDE that tailors intervention to the patient's anatomy and stone burden (size, location, number) seen on cholangiogram (IOC). For cystic ducts ≥4 mm, we use a choledochoscope-assisted technique versus a fluoroscopy-guided technique if <4 mm. For small stones, we use wire basketing (with the "classic" technique) or the "snow-plow" maneuver. For medium (≤10 mm) or multiple stones, we utilize sphincteroplasty plus "snow-plow" if needed. For large (>10 mm), we use laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Fallback methods are ERCP or transcholedochal exploration.
RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed our 80 LCBDE cases at a single Veterans Affairs hospital: 50 cases in the "classic" phase and 30 subsequent cases using LRCP. Transcystic clearance was significantly higher for LRCP at 97% vs. 56% during the "classic" phase (χ2=15.14, P <0.001). There was zero utilization of choledochotomy during LRCP.
CONCLUSIONS: Algorithm-driven LRCP dramatically improved transcystic clearance success and reduced reliance on choledochotomy. Our algorithm serves as a decision aid, allowing surgeons to utilize a variety of available tools for LCBDE.