Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration （LC＋LCBDE） and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterectomy with LC（ERCP/EST＋LC） in treatment for cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Methods From January 2008 to July 2011， 127 patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis underwent either LC＋LCBDE（85 cases， LC＋LCBDE group） or ERCP/EST＋LC（42 cases， ERCP/EST＋LC group） were collected retrospectively. The clearance rate of calculus， hospital stay， hospitalization expenses， and the rate of postoperative complications were compared between two groups. Results Eighty-five patients were performed successfully in the LC＋LCBDE group， out of which 54 patients had primary closure of common bile duct （LC＋LCBDE primary closure group）， whereas in 28 patients common bile ducts were closed over T tube （LC＋LCBDE＋T tube group）. Forty-two patients were performed successfully in the ERCP/EST＋LC group. There were no differences in the clearance rate of calculus〔100%（82/82） versus 97.37%（37/38）， P=0.317〕 and postoperative complications rate 〔（4.71% （4/85） versus 4.76%（2/42）， P=1.000〕 between the LC＋LCBDE group and ERCP/EST＋LC group. The median （quartile） hospital stay in the LC＋LCBDE group was shorter than that in the ERCP/EST＋LC group 〔12 （6） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001〕. In the LC＋LCBDE primary closure group， both median （quartile）?hospital stay and median（quartile） hospitalization expenses were less than those of ERCP/EST＋LC〔hospital stay：11（5） d versus 17（9） d， P＜0.001；hospitalization expenses：27 054（8 452） yuan versus 31 595（11 743） yuan， P=0.005〕 . Conclusions In the management of patients suffered from cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis， both LC＋LCBDE and ERCP/EST＋LC are safe and effective. LC＋LCBDE， especially primary closure after LCBDE， is associated with significantly less costs as compared with ERCP/EST＋LC. Moreover， patients can be cured by LC＋LCBDE through one-stage treatment with the protection of the papilla function and no limits to the amount or size of the choledocholithiasis. The LC＋LCBDE is a preferable choice for the appropriate cases of cholecystolithiasis with choledocholithiasis.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) with LC plus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with concomitant cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis by using meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library、EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Science and Technology Academic Journal, Chinese Journal Full-text Database and Wanfang database to identify relevant articles from their inception to 31 October 2018. A meta-analysis was carried out using the RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 13 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, 747 cases received LC+LCBDE and 761 cases underwent LC+ERCP. The meta-analysis results showed that no significant difference between the LC+LCBDE group and the LC+ERCP group in terms of common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate [RR=0.99, 95%CI (0.95, 1.02), P=0.87] and overall complications [RR=0.94, 95%CI (0.72, 1.22), P=0.64]. The LC+LCBDE group had higher rate of postoperative bile leakage rate [RR=3.87, 95%CI (2.01, 7.42), P<0.000 1] than that LC+ERCP group. However, the LC+LCBDE group had lower rate of postoperative pancreatitis [RR=0.28, 95%CI (0.14, 0.55), P=0.002] than that LC+ERCP group.ConclusionsBoth LC+LCBDE and LC+ERCP are equivalent in CBD stone clearance rate and overall complications, LC+LCBDE is associated with a higher postoperative bile leakage rate and lower rate of postoperative pancreatitis, appropriate treatment should be selected according to the individual patient’s condition.
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical value of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and LC combined with laparoscopiccommom bile duct exploration and primary sture (LBDEPS) in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis in the elderly (age more than 75 years old).MethodsThe elderly patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis in the Tianyou Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology from March 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 were retrospectively collected, then were designed into an ERCP combined with LC therapy group (ERCP+LC group) and a LC combined with LBDEPS therapy group (LC+LBDEPS group) according to the therapy methods. The operative indexes (total operation time, general anesthesia time, intraoperative bleeding volume, LC conversion to laparotomy) and postoperative indexes (conversion to ICU, use time of ventilator in the ICU, drainage tube indwelling time, ventilation time, time of getting out of bed, postoperative hospitalization time, total hospitalization time, total hospitalization costs, stone clearance rate, and complications) were compared between the two groups.ResultsIn this study, 67 patients were collected, including 35 patients in the ERCP+LC group and 32 patients in the LC+LBDEPS group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the terms of baseline data, such as the patients’ gender, age, preoperative symptoms, preoperative complications, number of choledocholithiasis, maximum diameter of choledocholithiasis, and diameter of common bile duct, etc. (P>0.05). Compared with the LC+LBDEPS group, the ERCP+LC group had more advantages in the terms of the total operation time, general anesthesia time, intraoperative bleeding, rate of LC conversion to laparotomy, time of ventilator use in the ICU, postoperative ventilation time, postoperative time of getting out of bed, and drainage tube indwelling time (P<0.05). The others indexes had no significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsAccording to the results of this study, therapeutic efficacy of ERCP+LC and LC+LBDEPS in treatment of elderly patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with choledocholithiasis have no significant differences, but ERCP+LC therapy has more advantages than LC+LBDEPS in total operation time, general anesthesia time, intraoperative bleeding, LC conversion to laparotomy, postoperative recovery and so on, and appropriate operation mode might be selected according to specific situation of patients and local medical conditions.
Objective To analyze the clinical characteristics associated with hospital infections in patients with common bile duct stones treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), thereby providing a basis for selecting treatment strategies and formulating hospital infection prevention measures for such patients. Methods Patients with common bile duct stones at Jiangsu Provincial People’s Hospital between January 2020 and July 2023 were retrospectively selected and divided into ERCP and LCBDE groups according to their surgical methods. Basic patient data, length of hospital stay, hospitalization costs, perioperative infection-related indicators, and occurance of hospital infections were compared between groups. Results A total of 402 patients were enrolled, with 242 in the ERCP group and 160 in the LCBDE group. Significant differences were noted in smoking, alcohol consumption, history of lung diseases, history of heart diseases, history of cholecystectomy/biliary surgery, presence of cholecystitis, presence of cholecystolithiasis, number of stones, maximum stone diameter, common bile duct diameter, total hospital stay, and total expenses (P<0.05). Twenty-four hours before surgery, except for the neutrophil count, which was slightly higher in the ERCP group than that in the LCBDE group (P=0.043), the infection-related indicators did not differ significantly between the two groups (P>0.05). Twenty-four hours after surgery, the levels of serum white blood cell, neutrophil, and aspartate aminotransferase in the ERCP group were lower than those in the LCBDE group (P<0.05), and the levels of alkaline phosphatase and gamma-glutamyl transferase in the ERCP group were higher than those in the LCBDE group (P<0.05). A total of 179 bile samples were collected and tested, identifying 137 strains of pathogenic bacteria (78 in the ERCP group and 59 in the LCBDE group). In the ERCP group, 42 strains (53.85%) were Gram-negative bacteria, 34 strains (45.59%) were Gram-positive bacteria, and 2 strains (2.56%) were fungi; in the LCBDE group, 33 strains (55.93%) were Gram-negative bacteria and 26 strains (44.07%) were Gram-positive bacteria. No significant difference was observed in the composition of pathogenic bacteria between the two groups (χ2=1.174, P=0.695). Among the 402 patients, 38 cases of hospital infection occurred postoperatively, with an infection rate of 9.45%. The difference in the infection rate between the ERCP group and the LCBDE group were statistically significant (11.98% vs. 5.63%; χ2=4.550, P=0.033). The main sites of infection were bloodstream, lungs, and abdominal-pelvic cavity. Conclusions The predominant pathogens isolated after both ERCP and LCBDE are Gram-negative bacteria. Compared with LCBDE, ERCP has less impact on inflammatory markers, hospital stay, and costs, but has a higher incidence of hospital infections.