ANZ journal of surgery · 2023
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: what factors determine success?
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.
Sirimanna Pramudith, Suh Hyerim, Falk Gregory L
Аннотация
BACKGROUNDS: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been shown to be effective in managing choledocholithiasis whilst avoiding ERCP-related complications. However, patient and technical factors effects outcome. This study aimed to explore the matters effecting the failure of LCBDE.
METHODS: All patients who underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) between 2007 and 2021 were identified using a prospective database. Data were collected for patients who underwent LCBDE including demographics, pre-operative investigations, intra-operative findings, technique of bile duct clearance and clearance rates, and post-operative outcomes. Predictors of failed LCBDE were identified.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 3648 patients. Of these, 374 underwent LCBDE for suspected choledocholithiasis. Choledochoscopy was most frequently used (58.8%) with a success rate of 84.1%. Small cystic duct diameter (4.7 vs. 3.4 mm, P = 0.002), stone size >6 mm (P = 0.02), stone: cystic duct ratio >1 (P = 0.04), and >3 stones was associated with failed LCBDE by univariate analysis. Small cystic duct diameter (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26-0.77, P = 0.004) and stone size >6 mm (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.92), P = 0.04) correlated with failure by multivariate analysis. Failed LCBDE was associated with increased length of stay (6.6 days vs. 3.1 days, P = 0.001), however the rate of serious complications or mortality was unaffected.
CONCLUSION: LCBDE is safe and effective in managing choledocholithiasis. Factors such as cystic duct diameter, size and number of CBD stones, and stone: cystic duct ratio are associated with increased likelihood of inadequate clearance. The presence of these factors can help clinicians in decision making during LCBDE to improve chance of success.
METHODS: All patients who underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) between 2007 and 2021 were identified using a prospective database. Data were collected for patients who underwent LCBDE including demographics, pre-operative investigations, intra-operative findings, technique of bile duct clearance and clearance rates, and post-operative outcomes. Predictors of failed LCBDE were identified.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 3648 patients. Of these, 374 underwent LCBDE for suspected choledocholithiasis. Choledochoscopy was most frequently used (58.8%) with a success rate of 84.1%. Small cystic duct diameter (4.7 vs. 3.4 mm, P = 0.002), stone size >6 mm (P = 0.02), stone: cystic duct ratio >1 (P = 0.04), and >3 stones was associated with failed LCBDE by univariate analysis. Small cystic duct diameter (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26-0.77, P = 0.004) and stone size >6 mm (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.92), P = 0.04) correlated with failure by multivariate analysis. Failed LCBDE was associated with increased length of stay (6.6 days vs. 3.1 days, P = 0.001), however the rate of serious complications or mortality was unaffected.
CONCLUSION: LCBDE is safe and effective in managing choledocholithiasis. Factors such as cystic duct diameter, size and number of CBD stones, and stone: cystic duct ratio are associated with increased likelihood of inadequate clearance. The presence of these factors can help clinicians in decision making during LCBDE to improve chance of success.