Literature DB >> 22476872

[Laparoscopic versus endoscopic primary management of choledocholithiasis. A retrospective case-control study].

G Sgourakis1, S Lanitis, Ch Karaliotas, I Gockel, M Kaths, C Karaliotas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim was to present the long-term results of one-stage laparoscopic procedure for the management of common bile duct (CBD) lithiasis in comparison with the primary endoscopic approach via ERCP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed to determine the outcome of patients treated for CBD lithiasis (04/1997 - 11/2011). Data of patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing the two treatment modalities - laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC, group A, n = 101) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/S + LC, group B, n = 116) were matched according to their clinical characteristics. Patients of group A underwent either laparoscopic choledochotomy or transcystic exploration. The policy was to convert to open choledochotomy only after the sequential application of the two treatment modalities (laparoscopic/endoscopic procedure) had failed.
RESULTS: No significant difference in morbidity was found between the groups (group A 8% versus group B 11.2%). Conversion to another procedure was mandatory in 12 out of 101 and 17 out of 116 patients of groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 7.8 years (range 1-12 years). Effective laparoscopic treatment of CBD stones (cholecystectomy and CBD clearance) was possible in 89 of the 101 patients in group A (88.1%) compared with 99 of the 116 patients in group B (85.4%) after the endoscopic approach.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showes that both - primary endoscopy and one-stage laparoscopic management of CBD lithiasis - are highly effective and safe with comparable results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22476872     DOI: 10.1007/s00104-012-2279-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chirurg        ISSN: 0009-4722            Impact factor:   0.955


  21 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Management of common bile duct stones in a rural area of the United States: results of a survey.

Authors:  J Bingener; W H Schwesinger
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic stone extraction.

Authors:  Constantine Karaliotas; George Sgourakis; Constantine Goumas; Nickolaos Papaioannou; Constantine Lilis; Emmanouel Leandros
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a case-control study comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for a "laparoscopy-first" attitude with the outcome for sequential treatment (systematic endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy).

Authors:  Renato Costi; Antonio Mazzeo; Francesco Tartamella; Christine Manceau; Bernard Vacher; Alain Valverde
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-05-23       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Changing methods of imaging the common bile duct in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era in Western Australia: implications for surgical practice.

Authors:  Nigel T Barwood; Liora J Valinsky; Michael S T Hobbs; David R Fletcher; Matthew W Knuiman; Steve C Ridout
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 12.969

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.  Predictors of common bile duct lithiasis in laparoscopic era.

Authors:  George Sgourakis; Georgia Dedemadi; Athanasios Stamatelopoulos; Emmanuel Leandros; Dionysius Voros; Konstantinos Karaliotas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-06-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 9.  Long-term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Authors:  A Waage; C Strömberg; C-E Leijonmarck; D Arvidsson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-05-13       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Surgery vs endoscopy as primary treatment in symptomatic patients with suspected common bile duct stones: a multicenter randomized trial. French Associations for Surgical Research.

Authors:  B Suc; J Escat; D Cherqui; G Fourtanier; J M Hay; A Fingerhut; B Millat
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1998-07
View more
  1 in total

1.  Synchronous vs sequential laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

Authors:  Yan-Bing Ding; Bin Deng; Xin-Nong Liu; Jian Wu; Wei-Ming Xiao; Yuan-Zhi Wang; Jian-Ming Ma; Qiang Li; Ze-Sheng Ju
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-04-07       Impact factor: 5.742

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.