BACKGROUND: Different approaches are available for the treatment of combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis including totally laparoscopic (TL) treatment, simultaneous laparoendoscopic treatment, and sequential treatments (ST) combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with cholecystectomy. This review aimed to clarify the issue of the simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous (RV). METHODS: A careful analysis of papers was performed to determine the results, technical differences, limits, disadvantages, and advantages of RV compared with other options. RESULTS: Data were collected from 27 papers concerning 795 patients. The overall effectiveness of RV was 92.3%. The morbidity rate was 5.1%, and the mortality rate was 0.37%. Almost all the authors were satisfied with the procedure. The authors' comparison to ST and TL showed that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages mostly related to logistical problems. CONCLUSIONS: There is confusion concerning the definitions and techniques of RV due to differences in combining surgical and endoscopic steps of the procedure. The results are at least comparable with those of the other available approaches. The effectiveness of RV is greater with reciprocal implementation of surgical and endoscopic procedures. The morbidity and the risk of iatrogenic damage seem lower than with ERCP-ES and the risk of residual stones lower than with TL treatment. The RV procedure is safe and can sometimes be the preferable option, but collaboration between surgeon and endoscopist is mandatory.
BACKGROUND: Different approaches are available for the treatment of combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis including totally laparoscopic (TL) treatment, simultaneous laparoendoscopic treatment, and sequential treatments (ST) combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with cholecystectomy. This review aimed to clarify the issue of the simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous (RV). METHODS: A careful analysis of papers was performed to determine the results, technical differences, limits, disadvantages, and advantages of RV compared with other options. RESULTS: Data were collected from 27 papers concerning 795 patients. The overall effectiveness of RV was 92.3%. The morbidity rate was 5.1%, and the mortality rate was 0.37%. Almost all the authors were satisfied with the procedure. The authors' comparison to ST and TL showed that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages mostly related to logistical problems. CONCLUSIONS: There is confusion concerning the definitions and techniques of RV due to differences in combining surgical and endoscopic steps of the procedure. The results are at least comparable with those of the other available approaches. The effectiveness of RV is greater with reciprocal implementation of surgical and endoscopic procedures. The morbidity and the risk of iatrogenic damage seem lower than with ERCP-ES and the risk of residual stones lower than with TL treatment. The RV procedure is safe and can sometimes be the preferable option, but collaboration between surgeon and endoscopist is mandatory.
Authors: G Iodice; C Giardiello; G Francica; G Sarrantonio; G Angelone; S Cristiano; R Finelli; G Tramontano Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: E Deslandres; M Gagner; A Pomp; M Rheault; R Leduc; R Clermont; J Gratton; E J Bernard Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1993 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Gaetano La Greca; Michele Di Blasi; Francesco Barbagallo; Manuela Di Stefano; Saverio Latteri; Domenico Russello Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-03-21 Impact factor: 5.742