Literature DB >> 25249145

Use of biliary stent in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Matthew Lyon1, Seema Menon, Abhiney Jain, Harish Kumar.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: It is well supported in the literature that laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis has equal efficacy when compared to ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Decompression after supra-duodenal choledochotomy is common practice as it reduced the risk of bile leaks. We conducted a prospective non-randomized study to compare outcomes and length of stay in patients undergoing biliary stent insertion versus T-tube drainage following LCBDE via choledochotomy. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The study involved 116 patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE and decompression of the biliary system by either ante-grade biliary stent or T-tube insertion. A 7 French straight/duodenal curve biliary Diagmed™ stent (9-11 cm) was placed in 82 patients (Biliary Stent Group). T-tube insertion was used for 34 patients (T-tube group). The length of hospital stay and complications for the selected patients were recorded. All trans-cystic common bile duct explorations were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: The mean hospital stay for patients who underwent ante-grade biliary stent or T-tube insertion after LBCDE were 1 and 3.4 days, respectively. This is a statistically significant result with a p value of less than 0.001. Of the T-tube group, two patients required laparoscopic washout due to bile leaks, one had ongoing biliary stasis and one reported ongoing pain whilst the T-tube was in situ. A complication rate of 11.2%, this was a significant finding. There were no complications or concerns reported for the Biliary Stent Group.
CONCLUSION: Our results show that there is a significant reduction in length of hospital stay and morbidity for patients that have ante-grade biliary stent decompression of the CBD post laparoscopic choledochotomy when compared T-tube drainage. This implies that ante-grade biliary stent insertion is likely to reduce costs and increase overall patient satisfaction. We support the use of ante-grade biliary stent insertion during LCBDE when primary closure is not preferred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25249145     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3797-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  30 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct.

Authors:  S E Tranter; M H Thompson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Comparison of laparoscopic choledochotomy closure techniques.

Authors:  J S Wu; N J Soper
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-06-14       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Is the use of T-tube necessary after laparoscopic choledochotomy?

Authors:  Ahmed Abdel-Raouf El-Geidie
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Antegrade biliary stenting versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy--a comparative cohort study.

Authors:  C N Tang; C K Tai; J P Y Ha; K K Tsui; D C T Wong; M K W Li
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2006 May-Jun

5.  Spontaneously removed endobiliary J stent drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Authors:  Jianping Huang; Jianming Zhu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct with primary closure versus T-tube drainage: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Wei-Jie Zhang; Gui-Fang Xu; Guo-Zhong Wu; Jie-Ming Li; Zhi-Tao Dong; Xiao-Dong Mo
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2009-04-18       Impact factor: 2.192

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.  Trend towards primary closure following laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct.

Authors:  M Jameel; B Darmas; A L Baker
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.891

10.  Dynamics of bile flow through the human choledochal sphincter following exploration of the common bile duct.

Authors:  R J Holdsworth; S A Sadek; S Ambikar; A Cuschieri
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1989 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  5 in total

1.  Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Authors:  Marc Zerey; Stephen Haggerty; William Richardson; Byron Santos; Robert Fanelli; L Michael Brunt; Dimitrios Stefanidis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Role of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in the management of choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Nikhil Gupta
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-05-27

3.  Surgical (Open and laparoscopic) management of large difficult CBD stones after different sessions of endoscopic failure: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Emad Hamdy Gad; Hazem Zakaria; Yasmin Kamel; Ayman Alsebaey; Talat Zakareya; Mohamed Abbasy; Anwar Mohamed; Ali Nada; Mohammed Alsayed Abdelsamee; Mohamed Housseni
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2019-05-31

4.  T-Tube Use After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.

Authors:  Cuinan Jiang; Xiuhao Zhao; Shi Cheng
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

5.  Comparative study of three common bile duct closure techniques after choledocholithotomy: safety and efficacy.

Authors:  Mohammed Ahmed Omar; Alaa Ahmed Redwan; Marwa Nasrelden Alansary
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 2.895

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.