Literature DB >> 20063096

Training higher surgical trainees in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Matthew G Tutton1, Nikhil Pawa, Tan H A Arulampalam, Roger W Motson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is regarded as a safe, definitive procedure for ductal calculi, avoiding the complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic CBD exploration carried out by trainees compared to those of an experienced consultant (R.W.M.).
METHODS: A prospective database of all cases of laparoscopic CBD exploration over a 15-year period was analyzed retrospectively. All patients underwent a four-port technique and intraoperative cholangiography. Patient demographics, operative technique, success, and complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: The median age of patients undergoing laparoscopic CBD exploration was 65 years (range 14-94 years). In all, 187 (79%) of the CBD explorations were performed by one consultant and 48 (21%) by trainees. Calculi were successfully cleared in 141 (88%) and 43 (96%), respectively. There were two (<1%) conversions to an open procedure in the total group. The median operating time was 130 minutes in the consultant group versus 150 minutes in the trainee group (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U-test). There was no significant difference in CBD clearance rate, surgical approach, or complication rate between consultant and trainees (Fisher's exact test).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic CBD exploration is a safe procedure in both consultant and trainee hands. With appropriate training, surgical trainees can achieve equivalent outcomes in CBD clearance with no significant difference in complication rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20063096     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0335-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  20 in total

1.  The tail of the learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A J Voitk; S G Tsao; S Ignatius
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited.

Authors:  Chris Collins; Donal Maguire; Adrian Ireland; Edward Fitzgerald; Gerald C O'Sullivan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus endoscopic stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis. A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  G Sgourakis; K Karaliotas
Journal:  Minerva Chir       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 4.  Is laparoscopic intraoperative cholangiogram a matter of routine?

Authors:  Matthew S Metcalfe; Thao Ong; Martin H Bruening; Harish Iswariah; Simon A Wemyss-Holden; Guy J Maddern
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

Authors:  D-F Hong; Y Xin; D-W Chen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ.

Authors:  E S J Clayton; S Connor; N Alexakis; E Leandros
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones.

Authors:  M Rhodes; L Sussman; L Cohen; M P Lewis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-01-17       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi.

Authors:  A Cuschieri; E Lezoche; M Morino; E Croce; A Lacy; J Toouli; A Faggioni; V M Ribeiro; J Jakimowicz; J Visa; G B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Chi-Liang Cheng; Stuart Sherman; James L Watkins; Jeffrey Barnett; Martin Freeman; Joseph Geenen; Michael Ryan; Harrison Parker; James T Frakes; Evan L Fogel; William B Silverman; Kulwinder S Dua; Giuseppe Aliperti; Paul Yakshe; Michael Uzer; Whitney Jones; John Goff; Laura Lazzell-Pannell; Abdullah Rashdan; M'hamed Temkit; Glen A Lehman
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia: patient-related and operative risk factors.

Authors:  E Christoforidis; I Goulimaris; I Kanellos; K Tsalis; C Demetriades; D Betsis
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 10.093

View more
  3 in total

1.  A survey of European-African surgeons' management of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Marie Vannijvel; Mickael Lesurtel; Wim Bouckaert; Bert Houben; Joep Knol; Guido Vangertruyden; Gregory Sergeant
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Does the surgeon's experience influence the outcome of laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones?

Authors:  Astrid Herrero; Claire Philippe; Françoise Guillon; Bertrand Millat; Frédéric Borie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Results of Medium Seventeen Years' Follow-Up after Laparoscopic Choledochotomy for Ductal Stones.

Authors:  Silvia Quaresima; Andrea Balla; Mario Guerrieri; Giovanni Lezoche; Roberto Campagnacci; Giancarlo D'Ambrosio; Emanuele Lezoche; Alessandro M Paganini
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2016-01-03       Impact factor: 2.260

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.