R A Erickson1, B Carlson. 1. Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The best clinical strategy for using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown. The aim of this study is to use decision analysis to assess four different approaches to using ERCP in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Decision trees were designed for four clinical strategies: (1) preoperative ERCP, with sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis; (2) selective preoperative ERCP for patients at high risk for choledocholithiasis, choledocholithiasis found at surgery treated by postoperative ERCP; (3) no preoperative ERCP, choledocholithiasis detected intraoperatively treated by postoperative ERCP; and (4) no preoperative ERCP, choledocholithiasis detected intraoperatively treated with open common bile duct exploration. Using decision analysis with literature-derived data, the impact on outcome parameters was calculated. RESULTS: Postoperative ERCP resulted in the lowest cost, procedure numbers, and hospital and back-to-work days. With high preoperative likelihood of choledocholithiasis, selective preoperative ERCP was probably a clinically equivalent strategy. Sensitivity analysis supported these conclusions when the probabilities and utilities were varied over a wide range. The open operative approach to choledocholithiasis was only favored if ERCP had < 75% diagnostic and < 50% therapeutic success rates or lengthened hospitalization by > 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that performing ERCP after laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes costs and morbidity; however, when choledocholithiasis is likely, selective preoperative ERCP may be a clinically equivalent strategy.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The best clinical strategy for using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown. The aim of this study is to use decision analysis to assess four different approaches to using ERCP in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Decision trees were designed for four clinical strategies: (1) preoperative ERCP, with sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis; (2) selective preoperative ERCP for patients at high risk for choledocholithiasis, choledocholithiasis found at surgery treated by postoperative ERCP; (3) no preoperative ERCP, choledocholithiasis detected intraoperatively treated by postoperative ERCP; and (4) no preoperative ERCP, choledocholithiasis detected intraoperatively treated with open common bile duct exploration. Using decision analysis with literature-derived data, the impact on outcome parameters was calculated. RESULTS: Postoperative ERCP resulted in the lowest cost, procedure numbers, and hospital and back-to-work days. With high preoperative likelihood of choledocholithiasis, selective preoperative ERCP was probably a clinically equivalent strategy. Sensitivity analysis supported these conclusions when the probabilities and utilities were varied over a wide range. The open operative approach to choledocholithiasis was only favored if ERCP had < 75% diagnostic and < 50% therapeutic success rates or lengthened hospitalization by > 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that performing ERCP after laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes costs and morbidity; however, when choledocholithiasis is likely, selective preoperative ERCP may be a clinically equivalent strategy.