Changes in the Management of Common Bile Duct Stones: 1980 to Date
Abstract
Objective:
To compare the results of treating patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), surgical exploration, or a combination of ES and surgical CBD exploration (the rendezvous technique).
Methods:
A narrative review of the literature.
Summary of Data:
Before 1990, 17 cohort studies indicated that ES cleared CBD stones in 92.0% of patients, with a mortality rate of 1.5%. Surgery removed CBD stones in 90.2% of patients, with a 2.1% mortality rate. A single randomized controlled trial in 1987 showed that ES removed CBD stones in 91% of 55 patients, with a 3.6% mortality rate and a 27% complication rate, whereas surgical CBD exploration removed CBD stones in 92%, with a 1.8% mortality rate and a 22% complication rate. Since 1991, 26 randomized controlled trials have shown that laparoscopic–ES rendezvous is as effective as ES alone and laparoscopic surgery alone but is associated with fewer complications, a reduced need for additional procedures, and a shorter hospital stay.
Conclusions:
A laparoscopic–ES rendezvous appears to be the optimal approach to the treatment of CBD stones in younger and fit patients. The choice between ES alone and laparoscopic–ES rendezvous in older or high-risk patients remains uncertain.
Article type: Review Article
Keywords: Common bile duct calculi, controlled trials, choledocholithiasis
License: © 2024 Stalnikowicz and Benbassat CC BY 4.0 This is an open-access article. All its content, except where otherwise noted, is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Article links: DOI: 10.5041/RMMJ.10521 | PubMed: 38717178 | PMC: PMC11065094
Relevance: Relevant: mentioned in keywords or abstract
Full text: PDF (2.2 MB)
INTRODUCTION
The alternative approaches to the management of patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones include open surgical choledochotomy, endoscopic sphincterotomy, and laparoscopic CBD exploration. Open choledochotomy requires anesthesia and abdominal surgery. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) entails upper endoscopy, identification of the ampulla of Vater, and clearance of the CBD stones after sphincterotomy. Since it was described in 1974, ES is an established technique for CBD stone removal.ref. 1 Laparoscopic CBD exploration was first employed in the 1990s. It is as safe and efficient as open surgery, provides a clearer vision, and is associated with less pain and quicker recovery.ref. 2 As many as 26% of the patients who were discharged with gallbladders in situ after CBD clearance required follow-up cholecystectomy for biliary symptoms.ref. 3 Therefore, it is considered best practice to combine CBD clearance with cholecystectomy.
Endoscopic sphincterotomy may be complicated by failure to cannulate the ampulla of Vater and pancreatitis that can follow inadvertent pancreatic cannulation and contrast injection. Hence the advantage of the simultaneous clearance of CBD stones by ES during laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic–ES rendezvous).ref. 4 The laparoscopic–ES rendezvous procedure is a single-stage laparoscopic and endoscopic approach to CBD treatment that minimizes the risk of inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation and pancreatitis, thereby leading to a shorter hospital stay, higher success rate, and lower cost. It entails laparoscopic incision of the cystic duct by a first team of surgeons; introduction of a radiopaque guiding catheter toward the duct; intraoperative cholangiography to confirm biliary stones; and introduction of a guidewire through the biliary tree into the duodenum under radiological guidance. This guidewire helps the endoscopic identification of the ampulla of Vater by a second team who also clears the CBD stones.
The choice between these alternatives depends on the severity of the symptoms, the presence of the gallbladder, and local expertise. Endoscopic sphincterotomy has gained acceptance in the treatment of patients with retained CBD stones after cholecystectomy and in high-risk patients with intact gallbladders. Its role in the treatment of younger and fit patients is uncertain. In 1980–1990, this uncertainty led to different management of CBD stones: in the United States, only 15% of the patients with intact gallbladders and biliary symptoms had ES; in Europe, this figure exceeded 60%.ref. 5 The choice between laparoscopic–ES rendezvous and preoperative ES is similarly uncertain. A 2018 Cochrane Review of five randomized trials concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine this choice because the quality of evidence was low.ref. 6
The aim of the present study is, first, to review the changes in the treatment of patients with CBD stones since 1980; and, second, to compare the results of ES alone, surgical (open and laparoscopic) CBD exploration, and laparoscopic–ES rendezvous to determine the optimal approach for the treatment of patients with CBD stones.
METHODS
This is not a systematic review. We searched a single database (Google Scholar) for reports published in English since 1970 on combinations of the following terms: choledocholithiasis, cholecystectomy, common bile duct calculi, randomized trials, and choledocholithiasis. Additional studies were sought by screening the bibliographies of review articles. We included uncontrolled cohort studies published before 1990 and randomized trials since 1990. We excluded reports of patients with previously attempted CBD stone clearance, malignant biliary disorders, and those that compared the timing of cholecystectomy after ES. The number of patients with CBD stones in the reported series was the denominator for calculations of the success rate in clearing CBD stones, while the total number of patients entered into the trial, including those with suspected but absent CBD stones, was the denominator for complications and mortality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Table 1 summarizes uncontrolled cohort studies published before 1990; Tables 2 and 3 present their results in more detail. Endoscopic sphincterotomy cleared CBD stones in 92.0%, with a mortality of 1.5%, complications in 8.2%, and a need for additional treatment in 3.3%. The most common complications after ES were hemorrhage and duodenal perforation after cutting the papilla, and acute pancreatitis and cholangitis after injection of the contrast media.ref. 7 Before 1990, open surgical CBD exploration cleared CBD stones in 90.2% of the patients. Mortality was 2.1%, and complications occurred in 18.3%. Reoperations, needed in 6.5% of the patients, were most commonly for recurrent/retained stones, stenosis of the ampulla, and pancreatitis.ref. 8 In both ES and surgical CBD exploration, complications and mortality increased with age.
Table 1: Summary of the Outcomes of Uncontrolled Cohort Studies Published Before 1990 of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES) and Open Surgical Common Duct Exploration (Surg.).
| Years | Intervention | Patients n | Stone Clearance n (%)* | Additional CBDI needed (ES or Surg.) n (%)† | Complications n (%)† | Mortality n (%) | Length of Hospital Stay d (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1982–1989 | ES | 3,818 | 2,210/2,403 (92.0) | 110/3,306 (3.3) | 312/3,798 (8.2) | 56/3,818 (1.5) | 3–6 |
| 1972–1990 | Surg. | 3,606 | 1,952/2,164 (90.2) | 155/2,391 (6.5) | 575/3,142 (18.3) | 77/3,606 (2.1) | 10–16 |
The short mean hospital stay of patients undergoing ES suggests that mortality rate and hospital stay from the subsequent cholecystectomy were not taken into account.
* The denominators include the total number of patients entered into the trial, after excluding those with suspected but absent CBD stones.
† The denominators include the number of patients with available data.
CBDI, common bile duct interventions; d, day(s).
Table 2: Uncontrolled Studies Published Before 1990 of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in Patients with Common Bile Duct Stones.
| Author | Mean age y | Patients n | Stone Clearance n (%)* | Additional CBDI Needed (ES or Surg.) n (%)† | Complications n (%)† | Mortality n (%) | Length of Hospital Stay d (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cotton (1982)ref. 18 | 75.0 | 71 | 61/71 (85.9) | 2/71 (2.8) | 2/71 (2.8) | 1/71 (1.4) | NG |
| Danilewitz (1984)ref. 11 | 61.9 | 53 | 48/53 (90.6) | NG | 5/53 (9.4) | 0/53 (0.0) | NG |
| Escourrou et al. (1984)ref. 21 | 79.0 | 443 | 428/443 (91.2) | 7/443 (1.6) | 27/443 (6.1) | 6/443 (1.4) | NG |
| Neoptolemos et al. (1984)ref. 20 | 78.0 | 100 | 91/100 (91.0) | 5/100 (5.0) | 13/100 (13.0) | 1/100 (1.0) | NG |
| Roberts-Thomson (1984)ref. 12 | 63.0 | 300 | 147/164 (90.0) | 5/300 (1.7) | 14/300 (4.7) | 0/300 (0.0) | NG |
| Leow and Thompson (1986)ref. 22 | 79.5 | 20 | 16/20 (80.0) | NG | NG | 0/20 (0.0) | NG |
| Duron et al. (1987)ref. 25 | 83.0 | 33 | 25/26 (96.2) | 1/33 (3.0) | 0/33 (0.0) | 2/33 (6.1) | NG |
| Neoptolemos et al. (1987)ref. 19 | 75.7 | 190 | 156/190 (82.1) | 19/190 (10.0) | 33/190 (17.4) | 15/190 (7.9) | NG |
| Davidson (1988)ref. 17 | 79.0 | 106 | 98/106 (97.1) | 6/106 (5.7) | 21/106 (19.8) | 12/106 (11.3) | NG |
| Ikeda et al. (1988)ref. 13 | 65.0 | 469 | 438/469 (93.4) | NG | 30/469 (6.4) | 2/469 (0.4) | NG |
| Miller et al. (1988)ref. 14 | 68.0 | 156 | 133/156 (85.3) | 18/156 (11.5) | 22/156 (14.1) | 5/156 (3.2) | 6.0 |
| Siegel et al. (1988)ref. 5 | 73.3 | 1272 | NG | 25/1272 (2.0) | 109/1272 (8.6) | 2/1272 (0.2) | NG |
| Hansell et al. (1989)ref. 24 | 80.0 | 121 | 115/121 (95.0) | 4/121 (3.3) | 5/121 (4.1) | 6/121 (5.0) | NG |
| Heinerman et al. (1989)ref. 10 | 56.3 | 190 | 189/190 (99.5) | 1/190 (0.5) | 4/190 (2.1) | 0/190 (0.0) | NG |
| Ingoldby et al. (1989)ref. 23 | 79.7 | 186 | 172/186 (92.5) | 4/186 (2.2) | 9/186 (4.8) | 3/186 (1.6) | 3.7 |
| Worthley (1989)ref. 16 | 73.0 | 50 | 44/50 (88.0) | 7/50 (14.0) | 12/50 (24.0) | 0/50 (0.0) | 3.0 |
| Miller and Ferguson (1990)ref. 15 | NG | 58 | 52/58 (90.0) | 6/58 (10.3) | 6/58 (10.3) | 1/58 (1.7) | 3.6 |
| Total | 56–83 | 3818 | 2210/2403 (92.0) | 110/3306 (3.3) | 312/3798 (8.2) | 56/3818 (1.5) | 3–6 |
The short mean hospital stay of patients undergoing ES suggests that the added complication rates, mortality rate, and hospital stay from the subsequent cholecystectomy were not taken into account.
* The denominators include the total number of patients entered into the trial, after excluding those with suspected but absent CBD stones.
† The denominators include the number of patients with available data.
CBDI, common bile duct interventions; d, day(s); NG, not given; y, year(s).
Table 3: Uncontrolled Studies Published Before 1990 of the Outcomes of Cholecystectomy with Open Common Duct Exploration.
| Author | Mean age y | Patients n | Stone Clearance n (%)* | Additional CBDI Needed (ES or Surg.) n (%)† | Complications n (%)† | Mortality n (%) | Length of Hospital Stay d (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Way et al. (1972)ref. 29 | 56.9 | 200 | 127/141 (90.1) | 22/200 (11.0) | NG | 5/200 (2.5) | NG |
| Stefanini et al. (1974)ref. 28 | 56.6 | 712 | NG | NG | 14/712 (2.0) | 7/712 (1.1) | NG |
| Vellacott and Powel (1979)ref. 35 | 66 | 122 | 71/78 (92.2) | NG | 11/122 (9.0) | 9/122 (7.4) | 16 |
| Gaskill et al. (1982)ref. 27 | 56 | 71 | 64/71 (90.1) | NG | 21/71 (29.6) | 2/71 (2.8) | 13 |
| Antrum and Hall (1984)ref. 34 | 60.8 | 118 | 101/118 (85.6) | 4/118 (3.4) | 7/118 (5.9) | 3/118 (2.5) | 12 |
| Crumplin et al. (1985)ref. 33 | 60.4 | 160 | 84/95 (88.4) | 5/160 (3.1) | 73/160 (45.6) | 4/160 (2.5) | 16.2 |
| Rogers et al. (1985)ref. 32 | 60 | 100 | 46/55 (83.6) | 3/100 (3.0) | NG | 3/100 (3.0) | NG |
| Roukema et al (1986)ref. 37 | <70 | 657 | 514/557 (92.3) | 42/1007 (4.2) | 203/1007 (20.2) | 6/657 (0.9) | NG |
| 70–79 | 266 | 7/266 (2.6) | |||||
| >80 | 84 | 8/84 (9.5) | |||||
| Neoptolemos et al. (1987)ref. 9 | 57.9 | 248 | 212/238 (89.1) | 26/248 (10.5) | 56/248 (22.6) | 10/248 (4.0) | NG |
| Sheridan et al. (1987)ref. 30 | 57.4 | 257 | 163/200 (81.5) | 22/257 (8.6) | 118/257 (45.9) | 5/257 (1.9) | 15.6 |
| Irvin and Arnstein (1988)ref. 36 | <70 | 77 | 75/77 (97.4) | NG | 5/77 (7.0) | 0/77 (0.0) | 10.4 |
| >70 | 69 | 66/69 (95.7) | NG | 12/69 (17.4) | 2/69 (2.9) | 13.4 | |
| Miller et al. (1988)ref. 14 | 58.0 | 81 | 76/81 (93.8) | 5/81 (6.2) | 13/81 (16.0) | 1/81 (1.2) | 10.3 |
| Heinerman et al. (1989)ref. 10 | 56.3 | 78 | 65/78 (83.3) | 12/78 (15.4) | 17/78 (21.8) | 3/78 (3.8) | NG |
| McEntee et al. (1989)ref. 31 | 59.4 | 164 | 160/164 (97.6) | NG | NG | 1/164 (0.6) | NG |
| Miller and Ferguson (1990)ref. 15 | NG | 42 | 33/42 (78.6) | 9/42 (21.4) | 10/42 (23.8) | 1/42 (2.4) | 10.4 |
| Pappas et al. (1990)ref. 26 | 52.7 | 100 | 95/100 (95.0) | 5/100 (5.0) | 15/100 (15.0) | 0/100 (0.0) | NG |
| Total | 52–>80 | 3606 | 1952/2164 (90.2) | 155/2391 (6.5) | 575/3142 (18.3) | 77/3606 (2.1) | 10.3–16 |
* The denominators include the total number of patients entered into the trial, after excluding those with suspected but absent CBD stones.
† The denominators include the number of patients with available data.
CBDI, common bile duct interventions; d, day(s); NG, not given; y, year(s).
Table 4 summarizes the outcomes of the 26 randomized controlled trials that we could identify in the literature since Neoptolemos et al.ref. 9 published the first one in 1987, and Tables 5, 6, and 7 present their results in more detail. Before 2000, six of nine trials indicated that ES was associated with either a lower clearance of CBD stones or a higher mortality than open surgical CBD exploration. The remaining three studies indicated that ES and surgical treatment were equally effective (Table 5). In 2001–2010, five of eight trials showed that ES and laparoscopic surgery were equally safe and effective. In three studies, laparoscopic–ES rendezvous prevented post-ES pancreatitis and was associated with shorter hospital stays and less morbidity than ES alone (Table 6). Since 2011, four of nine trials found that laparoscopic surgery was preferred as it avoids cholangitis, papillary stenosis, or pancreatitis after ES, with less morbidity and earlier recovery. One of nine trials indicated that ES alone and laparoscopic surgery alone were equally safe and effective. The remaining four studies confirmed that laparoscopic–ES rendezvous prevents post-ES pancreatitis and is associated with shorter hospital stays (Table 7).
Table 4: Summary of the Outcomes of Randomized Controlled Trials Since 1980 Comparing Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES), Open Surgical Common Duct Exploration (Surg.), Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration (Lap.), and Laparo–ES Rendezvous (Lap.–ES).
| Years | Intervention | Patients n | Stone Clearance n (%)* | Additional CBDI needed (ES or Surg.) n (%)† | Complications n (%)† | Mortality n (%) | Length of Hospital Stay d (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980–2000 | ES | 472 | 301/358 (84.1) | 70/472 (14.8) | 73/472 (15.5) | 10/472 (2.1) | 3.5–17 |
| Surg. | 313 | 201/220 (91.4) | 37/265 (14.0) | 60/313 (19.2) | 4/313 (1.3) | 6–22 | |
| Lap. | 173 | 130/149 (87.2) | 29/149 (19.5) | 28/173 (16.2) | 1/173 (0.6) | 1–6 | |
| 2001–2010 | ES | 421 | 274/353 (77.6) | 42/421 (9.8) | 55/421 (13.1) | 1/421 (0.2) | 3–9 |
| Lap. | 293 | 217/239 (90.8) | 26/293 (8.9) | 31/293 (10.6) | 1/293 (0.3) | 4–8 | |
| Lap.–ES | 165 | 123/131 (93.9) | 9/165 (5.5) | 8/165 (4.8) | 0/165 (0) | 3–5 | |
| 2011–2023 | ES | 637 | 496/553 (89.7) | 28/433 (6.5) | 62/596 (10.4) | 3/637 (0.5) | 3–11 |
| Lap. | 528 | 423/449 (94.2) | 22/366 (6.0) | 42/528 (8.0) | 0/528 (0) | 2–7 | |
| Lap.–ES | 220 | 155/167 (92.8) | 3/79 (3.8) | 8/178 (4.5) | 1/220 (0.5) | 1–7 | |
* The denominators include the total number of patients entered into the trial, after excluding those with suspected but absent CBD stones.
† The denominators include the number of patients with available data.
CBDI, common bile duct interventions; d, day(s).
Table 5: Randomized Controlled Trials of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES), Open Surgical Duct Exploration (Surg.), and Laparoscopic Surgery (Lap.), 1980–2000.
| Author | Intervention | Mean Age y (range or ±SD) | Patients n | Stone Clearance n (%)* | Additional CBDI needed (ES or Surg.) n (%)† | Minor and Major Complications n (%)† | Mortality n (%) | Length of Hospital Stay d (mean or mean range) | Author Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neoptolemos et al. (1987)ref. 9 | ES | 61 (20–83) | 55 | 50/55 (91.0) | 2/55 (2.8) | 18/55 (32.7) | 2/55 (3.6) | 9 | No support for ES for CBD stones |
| Surg. | 59 (20–82) | 59 | 54/59 (91.5) | 0/59 (0.0) | 13/59 (22.1) | 1/59 (1.7) | 11 | ||
| Stain et al. (1991)ref. 38 | ES | 48.4 (31–78) | 26 | 17/26 (65.4) | 1/26 (3.1) | 4/26 (15.4) | 0.0 | 5 | No support for ES for CBD stones |
| Surg. | 42.4 (20–86) | 26 | 16/17 (84.2) | 1/17 (3.1) | 8/26 (30.8) | 0.0 | 6 | ||
| Stiegmann et al. (1992)ref. 39 | ES | 46.3±21.7 | 16 | 5/7 (71.4) | 2/7 (28.6) | 0 (0.0) | 0.0 | 11.0 | No advantage to treating CBD stones with ES |
| Surg. | 38.1±14.8 | 18 | 6/7 (85.7) | Not given | 3/18 (16.7) | 0.0 | 9.2 | ||
| Hammarström et al. (1995)ref. 40 | ES | 75.0 (56–85) | 39 | 35/39 (89.7) | 7/39 (17.9) | 7/39 (17.9) | 0.0 | 13‡ | ES and Surg. for CBD stones are equally effective |
| Surg. | 73.5 (56–85) | 41 | 37/41 (90.2) | 6/41 (14.6) | 9/41 (22.0) | 0.0 | 16‡ | ||
| Kapoor et al. (1996)ref. 42 | ES | 42 (20–60) | 13 | 11/13 (85) | 2/13 (15) | 5/13 (38.5) | 0 (0.0) | 10.6 | No support for ES in low-risk patients with CBD |
| Surg. | 46 (24–75) | 16 | 13/15 (87) | 2/15 (13) | 5/16 (31.3) | 0 (0.0) | 11.3 | ||
| Targarona et al. (1996)ref. 41 | ES | 79 | 50 | NG | 2/50 (4.0) | 8/50 (16) | 3/50 (6.0) | 17 | In elderly or high-risk patients, surgery is preferable to ES |
| Surg. | 80 | 48 | NG | 1/48 (2.1) | 11/48 (23) | 2/48 (4.0) | 22 | ||
| Rhodes et al. (1998)ref. 44 | ES | 68 (28–84) | 40 | 37/40 (92.5) | 10/40 (25.0) | 6/40 (15.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3.5‡ | Lap. is as effective as ES in clearing CBD stones |
| Lap. | 62 (24–83) | 40 | 40/40 (100) | 10/40 (25.0) | 7/40 (17.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1‡ | ||
| Suc et al. (1998)ref. 43 | ES | 66.8±17.5 | 97 | 64/80 (80.0) | 28/97 (28.9) | 11/97 (11.3) | 3/97 (3.1) | 15.3 | High risk of added procedures after ES precludes its use for treating CBD stones |
| Surg. | 66.7±18.1 | 105 | 75/81 (92.6) | 8/105 (7.6) | 13/105 (12.3) | 1/105 (1.0) | 17.5 | ||
| Cuschieri et al. (1999)ref. 45 | ES | 18–89 | 136 | 82/98 (83.7) | 16/98 (16.3) | 17/133 (12.8) | 2/136 (1.5) | 9‡ | Similar outcomes for ES and Lap., shorter hospital stay with Lap. ES to be confined to high-risk patients |
| Lap. | 19–88 | 133 | 90/109 (82.6) | 19/109 (17.4) | 21/133 (15.8) | 1/133 (0.8) | 6‡ | ||
| Total | ES | 472 | 301/358 (84.1) | 70/472 (14.8) | 73/472 (15.5) | 10/472 (2.1) | 3.5–17 | ||
| Surg. | 313 | 201/220 (91.4) | 37/265 (14.0) | 60/313 (19.2) | 4/313 (1.3) | 6–22 | |||
| Lap. | 173 | 130/149 (87.2) | 29/149 (19.5) | 28/173 (16.2) | 1/173 (0.6) | 1–6 | |||
* The denominators include the total number of patients entered into the trial, after excluding those with suspected but absent CBD stones.
† The denominators include the number of patients with available data.
‡ Median.
CBDI, common bile duct interventions; d, day(s); NG, not given; y, year(s).
Table 6: Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Outcomes of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES) Laparoscopic Common Duct Exploration (Lap.), and Laparo-Endoscopic Rendezvous Technique (Lap.-ES), 2001–2010.
| Author | Intervention | Mean Age y (range or SD) | Pts. n | Stone Clearance n (%)* | Additional CBDI needed (ES or Surg.) n (%)† | Minor and Major Complications n (%)† | Mortality n (%) | Length of Hospital Stay d (mean or mean range) | Author Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sgourakis and Karaliotas (2002)ref. 46 | ES | 46–89 | 42 | 27/32 (84.3) | 5/42 (11.9) | 6/42 (14.3) | 1/42 (2.4) | 9.0 | There is a need for further randomized trials |
| Lap. | 43–88 | 36 | 24/28 (85.7) | 4/36 (11.1) | 5/36 (13.9) | 1/36 (2.8) | 7.4 | ||
| Hong et al. (2006)ref. 47 | ES | Not given | 93 | 85/93 (91.4) | 8/93 (8.6) | 9/93 (9.4) | 0 (0.0) | 4.3 | ES and Lap. are safe and effective treatments for CBD stones |
| Lap. | 48 (15–82) | 141 | 126/141 (89.4) | 15/141 (10.6) | 8/141 (5.6) | 0 (0.0) | 4.7 | ||
| Lella et al. (2006)ref. 52 | ES | Not given (<60) | 60 | 58/60 (96.7) | 0/60 (0.0) | 8/60 (13.3) | 0 (0.0) | 6 | Lap.-ES prevents post-ES pancreatitis in patients at risk for this complication |
| Lap.-ES | Not given (<60) | 60 | 59/60 (98.3) | 2/60 (3.3) | 2/60 (3.3) | 0 (0.0) | 3 | ||
| Morino et al. (2006)ref. 4 | ES | 63.1 (25–83) | 45 | 9/45 (80.0) | 17/45 (37.8) | 3/45 (6.6) | 0 (0.0) | 8.0 | Lap.-ES carries a higher rate of CBD stones clearance and shorter hospital stays than ES |
| Lap.-ES | 56.6 (22–82) | 46 | 44/46 (95.6) | 3/46 (6.5) | 3/46 (6.5) | 0 (0.0) | 4.3 | ||
| Rábago et al. (2006)ref. 51 | ES | Not given (<80) | 64 | 28/31 (90.5) | 7/64 (10.9) | 12/64 (18.8) | 0 (0.0) | 8 | Lap.-ES had less morbidity and a shorter hospital stay than ES |
| Lap.-ES | Not given (<80) | 59 | 20/25 (80.0) | 4/59 (6.8) | 3/59 (5.1) | 0 (0.0) | 5 | ||
| Noble et al. (2009)ref. 48 | ES | 74.3 (70–79) | 47 | 26/46 (56.5) | 2/47 (4.3) | 8/47 (17.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 | No difference in hospital stay, complications, or conversion. Lap. was more effective and avoided unnecessary procedures |
| Lap. | 75.9 (70–81) | 44 | 38/38 (100) | 4/44 (9.1) | 8/44 (18.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 | ||
| Bansal et al. (2010)ref. 50 | ES | 39.1 (23–64) | 15 | 11/15 (73.3) | 2/15 (13.3) | 4/15 (26.7) | 0 (0.0) | 4.0 | Equivalent morbidity and hospital stay. Lap. carried a smaller number of procedures |
| Lap. | 47.1 (34–72) | 15 | 14/15 (93.3) | 1/15 (6.7) | 4/15 (26.7) | 0 (0.0) | 4.2 | ||
| Rogers et al. (2010)ref. 49 | ES | 44.6±1.9 | 55 | 30/31 (98) | 1/55 (1.8) | 5/55 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) | 6.6 | ES and Lap. are highly effective in treating CBD stones. Hospital stay was shorter for Lap. |
| Lap. | 39.9±1.9 | 57 | 15/17 (88) | 2/57 (3.5) | 6/57 (10.5) | 0 (0.0) | 5.3 | ||
| Total | ES | 421 | 274/353 (77.6) | 42/421 (9.8) | 55/421 (13/1) | 1/421 (0.2) | 3–9 | ||
| Lap. | 293 | 217/239 (90.8) | 26/293 (8.9) | 31/293 (10.6) | 1/293 (0.3) | 4.2–7.4 | |||
| Lap.-ES | 165 | 123/131 (93.9) | 9/165 (5.5) | 8/165 (4.8) | 0/165 (0.0) | 3–5 | |||
* The denominators include the total number of patients entered into the trial, after excluding those with suspected but absent CBD stones.
† The denominators include the number of patients with available data.
CBDI, common bile duct interventions; d, day(s); Pts., patients; y, year(s).
Table 7: Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Outcomes of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES), Laparoscopic Common Duct Exploration (Lap.), and Laparo-Endoscopic Rendezvous Technique (Lap.-ES), 2011–2023.
| Author | Intervention | Mean Age y (range or SD) | Patients n | Stone Clearance n (%)* | Additional CBDI Needed (ES or Surg.) n (%)† | Complications n (%)† | Mortality n (%) | Length of Hospital Stay d (mean or mean range) | Author Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ElGeidie et al. (2011)ref. 53 | ES | 29.2 (20–67) | 111 | 98/107 (91.6) | 7/111 (6.3) | 10/111 (9.3) | 0 (0.0) | 3.1 | ES and Lap. safe and effective treatments for CBD stones |
| Lap. | 32.5 (19–64) | 115 | 104/110 (94.5) | 9/115 (7.8) | 8/115 (7.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2.2 | ||
| Ferulano et al. (2011)ref. 54 | ES | 55±15 | 62 | 37/39 (95) | Not given | 6/62 (9.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3.5 | Lap. avoids cholangitis, papillary stenosis, or pancreatitis after ES |
| Lap. | 53±13 | 62 | 42/45 (93) | Not given | 4/62 (6.5) | 0 (0.0) | 7.1 | ||
| Tzovaras et al. (2012)ref. 59 | ES | 69 (25–85) | 49 | 39/49 (79.6) | 1/49 (2.0) | 6/49 (12.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5.5 | Lap.-ES carries less hospital stay and lower amylase levels than ES |
| Lap.-ES | 66 (22–87) | 50 | 44/50 (88.0) | 2/50 (4.0) | 7/50 (14) | 1/50 (2.0) | 4 | ||
| Koc et al. (2013)ref. 55 | ES | 54.9±17.9 | 54 | 51/54 (94.4) | 1/54 (1.9) | 6/54 (11.1) | 0 (0.0) | 6 | Lap. has less morbidity and allows earlier recovery than ES |
| Lap. | 51.5±16.6 | 57 | 55/57 (96.5) | 0/57 (0.0) | 4/57 (7.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 | ||
| Bansal et al. (2014)ref. 56 | ES | 45.1±15.1 | 84 | 73/83 (88.0) | 16/84 (19.1) | 19/84 (22.6) | 3/84 (3.7) | 5.3 | Lap. has shorter hospital stays and needs fewer procedures |
| Lap. | 43.0±13.7 | 84 | 77/84 (91.7) | 10/84 (11.9) | 20/84 (23.8) | 0 (0.0) | 4.6 | ||
| Ding et al. (2014)ref. 57 | ES | 57.5±6.3 | 111 | 105/111 (94.6) | 1/111 (0.9) | 6/111 (5.4) | 0 (0.0) | NG | Lap. is the treatment of choice for patients with CBD stones |
| Lap. | 58.4±7.2 | 110 | 103/110 (93.6) | 3/110 (2.7) | 4/110 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | NG | ||
| Sahoo et al. (2014)ref. 60 | ES | 48 (21–75) | 41 | 29/41 (70.7) | NG | NG | 0 (0.0) | 10.9 | Lap.-ES reduces pancreatitis, hospital stays, and interventions |
| Lap.-ES | 48 (21–75) | 42 | 38/42 (90.5) | NG | NG | 0 (0.0) | 6.8 | ||
| Barreras González et al. (2016)ref. 61 | ES | 57.7 (20–84) | 101 | 42/45 (93.3) | Not given | 6/101 (5.9) | 0 (0.0) | 3.1 | Lap.-ES shows a higher rate of CBD stone clearance, a shorter hospital stay, and lower morbidity |
| Lap. | 56.3 (22–87) | 100 | 42/43 (97.7) | Not given | 2/100 (2.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2.1 | ||
| Lap.-ES | 58.4 (23–87) | 99 | 45/46 (97.8) | Not given | 0/99 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1.2 | ||
| Lv et al. (2016)ref. 58 | ES | 63.5±12.4 | 24 | 22/24 (91.7) | 2/24 (8.3) | 3/24 (12.5) | 0 (0.0) | 10.9 | Lap.-ES resulted in a shorter hospital stay |
| Lap.-ES | 61.3±14.5 | 29 | 28/29 (96.6) | 1/29 (3.4) | 1/29 (3.4) | 0 (0.0) | 6.7 | ||
| Total | ES | 637 | 496/553 (89.7) | 28/433 (6.5) | 62/596 (10.4) | 3/637 (0.5) | 3.1–10.9 | ||
| Lap. | 528 | 423/449 (94.2) | 22/366 (6.0) | 42/528 (8.0) | 0/528 (0.0) | 2.1–7.1 | |||
| Lap.-ES | 220 | 155/167 (92.8) | 3/79 (3.8) | 8/178 (4.5) | 1/220 (0.5) | 1.2–6.8 | |||
* The denominators include the total number of patients entered into the trial, after excluding those with suspected but absent CBD stones.
† The denominators include the number of patients with available data.
CBDI, common bile duct interventions; d, day(s); NG, not given; y, year(s).
CONCLUSIONS
Three main findings emerge from the present review: first, as expected, since 1990, there has been a uniform decline in mortality, complications, and the need for added interventions in the treatment of choledocholithiasis by ES and laparoscopic CBD exploration. Second, since 2001, the differences in mortality (0% and 0.5%) and stone clearance (89.7% and 94.2%) between ES and laparoscopic CBD exploration were negligible. Third, laparoscopic–ES rendezvous was associated with fewer additional interventions, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stays.
Therefore, the combined approach (laparoscopic–ES rendezvous) seems to be the preferred one for the treatment of patients with choledocholithiasis. Unfortunately, this requires a high degree of collaboration between departments in those environments where this procedure is done by different services, and therefore cannot be performed in environments with low resources.
The first limitation of the presented review is its failure to assess the quality of the evidence and the risk of bias in the individual studies. Second, since the presented review is not systematic, it is possible that we missed relevant studies. Still, the consistency of our findings over the last two decades supports their validity. Therefore, we conclude that, given experience and facilities, the laparoscopic–ES rendezvous is preferable over ES alone or laparoscopic surgery alone. The combined approach obviates the need to cut the papilla, thereby preventing hemorrhage and perforation, and improves the selective cannulation of the CBD, thereby preventing inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct with the injection of contrast media into it and pancreatitis.ref. 62
Should ES alone be confined only to patients with retained CBD stones after cholecystectomy, and to high-risk patients with CBD stones and intact gallbladders? We know of no comparative studies of the outcome of ES alone and the rendezvous technique by patients’ age. Therefore, we believe that the role of the laparoscopic–ES rendezvous procedure in the treatment of high-risk patients with CBD stones remains uncertain. It should be the subject of future trials that will probably address also cost.
References
- JC Pereira Lima, ID Arciniegas Sanmartin, B Latrônico Palma, CE Oliveira Dos Santos. Risk factors for success, complications, and death after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: a 17-year experience with 2,137 cases. Dig Dis 2020;. [DOI]
- HM Halawani, H Tamim, F Khalifeh. Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open common bile duct exploration: analysis of the NSQIP database. J Am Coll Surg, 2017. [DOI | PubMed]
- TR McCarty, J Farrelly, B Njei, P Jamidar, T Muniraj. Role of prophylactic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for biliary stone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2021;. [DOI]
- M Morino, F Baracchi, C Miglietta, N Furlan, R Ragona, A Garbarini. Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus laparoendoscopic rendezvous in patients with gallbladder and bile duct stones. Ann Surg, 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
- JH Siegel, L Safrany, JS Ben-Zvi. Duodenoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladders in situ: report of a series of 1272 patients. Am J Gastroenterol, 1988. [PubMed]
- N Vettoretto, A Arezzo, F Famiglietti, R Cirocchi, L Moja, M Morino. Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018. [DOI | PubMed]
- PB Cotton, G Lehman, J Vennes. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc, 1991. [DOI | PubMed]
- J Bordley, TT White. Causes for 340 reoperations of the extrahepatic bile ducts. Ann Surg, 1979. [PubMed]
- JP Neoptolemos, DL Carr-Locke, DP Fossard. Prospective randomized study of preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 1987. [DOI]
- PM Heinerman, O Boeckl, W Pimpl. Selective ERCP and preoperative stone removal in bile duct surgery. Ann Surg, 1989. [DOI | PubMed]
- MD Danilewitz. Endoscopic retrograde sphincterotomy in the management of common bile duct stones. S Afr Med J, 1984. [PubMed]
- IC Roberts-Thomson. Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of Vater: an analysis of 300 cases. Aust N Z J Med, 1984. [DOI | PubMed]
- S Ikeda, M Tanaka, S Matsumoto, H Yoshimoto, H Itoh. Endoscopic sphincterotomy: long-term results in 408 patients with complete follow-up. Endoscopy, 1988. [DOI | PubMed]
- BM Miller, RA Kozarek, JA Ryan, TJ Ball, LW Traverso. Surgical versus endoscopic management of common bile duct stones. Ann Surg, 1988. [DOI | PubMed]
- JS Miller, CM Ferguson. Current management of choledocholithiasis. Am Surg, 1990. [PubMed]
- CS Worthley, JM Watts, J Tooli. Common duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis?. Aust N Z J Surg, 1989. [DOI | PubMed]
- BR Davidson, JP Neoptolemos, DL Carr-Locke. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct calculi in patients with gallbladder in situ considered unfit for surgery. Gut, 1988. [DOI | PubMed]
- PB Cotton, GG Vallon. Duodenoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones in patients with gallbladders. Surgery, 1982. [PubMed]
- JP Neoptolemos, BR Davidson, DE Shaw, D Lloyd, DL Carr-Locke, DP Fossard. Study of common bile duct exploration and endoscopic sphincterotomy in a consecutive series of 438 patients. Br J Surg, 1987. [DOI | PubMed]
- JP Neoptolemos, DL Carr-Locke, I Fraser, DP Fossard. The management of common bile duct calculi by endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladders in situ. Br J Surg, 1984. [DOI | PubMed]
- J Escourrou, JA Cordova, F Lazorthes, J Frexinos, A Ribet. Early and late complications after endoscopic sphincterotomy for biliary lithiasis with and without the gallbladder ‘in situ’. Gut, 1984. [DOI | PubMed]
- CK Leow, MH Thompson. Endoscopic papillotomy without cholecystectomy for bile duct stones. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 1986. [PubMed]
- CJ Ingoldby, J el-Saadi, RI Hall, ME Denyer. Late results of endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones in elderly patients with gall bladders in situ. Gut, 1989. [DOI | PubMed]
- DT Hansell, MA Millar, WR Murray, GR Gray, G Gillespie. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones in patients with intact gallbladders. Br J Surg, 1989. [DOI | PubMed]
- JJ Duron, JM Roux, P Imbaud, JL Dumont, D Dutet, J Validire. Biliary lithiasis in the over seventy-five age group: a new therapeutic strategy. Br J Surg, 1987. [DOI | PubMed]
- TN Pappas, TB Slimane, DC Brooks. 100 consecutive common duct explorations without mortality. Ann Surg, 1990. [PubMed]
- HV Gaskill, BA Levine, KR Sirinek, JB Aust. Frequency and indication for choledochoduodenostomy in benign biliary tract disease. Reassessment of therapeutic application. Am J Surg, 1982. [DOI | PubMed]
- P Stefanini, M Carboni, N Patrassi, G De Bernardinis, P Negro, P Loriga. Trans-duodenal sphincteroplasty: its use in the treatment of lithiasis and benign obstruction of the common duct. Am J Surg, 1974. [DOI | PubMed]
- LW Way, WH Admirand, JE Dunphy. Management of choledocholithiasis. Ann Surg, 1972. [DOI | PubMed]
- WG Sheridan, HO Williams, MH Lewis. Morbidity and mortality of common bile duct exploration. Br J Surg, 1987. [DOI | PubMed]
- GP McEntee, DM Mulvin, AL Peel. Surgical audit of patients undergoing common bile duct exploration for stone. Br J Surg, 1989. [DOI | PubMed]
- AL Rogers, GJ Farha, RL Beamer, FC Chang. Incidence and associated mortality of retained common bile duct stones. Am J Surg, 1985. [DOI | PubMed]
- MK Crumplin, LR Jenkinson, JY Kassab, CM Whitaker, FH Al-Boutiahi. Management of gallstones in a district general hospital. Br J Surg, 1985. [DOI | PubMed]
- RM Antrum, R Hall. Trans-duodenal sphincterotomy. An analysis of 118 consecutive cases. Br J Surg, 1984. [DOI | PubMed]
- KD Vellacott, PH Powell. Exploration of the common bile duct: a comparative study. Br J Surg, 1979. [DOI | PubMed]
- TT Irvin, PM Arnstein. Management of symptomatic gallstones in the elderly. Br J Surg, 1988. [DOI | PubMed]
- JA Roukema, EJ Carol, F Liem, JJ Jakimowicz. A retrospective study of surgical common bile-duct exploration: ten years experience. Neth J Surg, 1986. [PubMed]
- SC Stain, HA Cohen, MA Tsuishoysha, AJ Donovan. Choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy or common bile duct exploration. Ann Surg, 1991. [DOI | PubMed]
- GV Stiegmann, JS Goff, A Mansour, N Pearlman, RM Reveille, L Norton. Pre-cholecystectomy endoscopic cholangiography and stone removal is not superior to cholecystectomy, cholangiography, and common duct exploration. Am J Surg, 1992. [DOI | PubMed]
- LE Hammarström, T Holmin, H Stridbeck, I Ihse. Long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized study of endoscopic versus surgical treatment of bile duct calculi in patients with gallbladder in situ. Br J Surg, 1995. [DOI | PubMed]
- EM Targarona, RM Ayuso, JM Bordas. Randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with gallbladder left in situ versus open surgery for common bile duct calculi in high-risk patients. Lancet, 1996. [DOI | PubMed]
- R Kapoor, SP Kaushik, VA Saraswat. Prospective randomized trial comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by surgery with surgery alone in good risk patients with choledocholithiasis. HPB Surg, 1996. [DOI | PubMed]
- B Suc, J Escat, D Cherqui. Surgery vs endoscopy as primary treatment in symptomatic patients with suspected common bile duct stones: a multicenter randomized trial. French Associations for Surgical Research Arch Surg, 1998. [DOI]
- M Rhodes, L Sussman, L Cohen, MP Lewis. Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet, 1998. [DOI | PubMed]
- A Cuschieri, E Lezoche, M Morino. E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi. Surg Endosc, 1999. [DOI | PubMed]
- G Sgourakis, K Karaliotas. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus endoscopic stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis. A prospective randomized study. Minerva Chir, 2002. [PubMed]
- DF Hong, Y Xin, DW Chen. Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for chole-cysto-choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc, 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
- H Noble, S Tranter, T Chesworth, S Norton, M Thompson. A randomized, clinical trial to compare endoscopic sphincterotomy and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with primary laparoscopic bile duct exploration during cholecystectomy in higher risk patients with choledocholithiasis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2009. [DOI | PubMed]
- SJ Rogers, JP Cello, JK Horn. Prospective randomized trial of LC+LCBDE vs. ERCP/S+LC for common bile duct stone disease. Arch Surg, 2010. [DOI | PubMed]
- VK Bansal, MC Misra, P Garg, M Prabhu. A prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage versus single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc, 2010. [DOI | PubMed]
- LR Rábago, C Vicente, F Soler. Two-stage treatment with preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) compared with single-stage treatment with intraoperative ERCP for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis with possible choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy, 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
- F Lella, F Bagnolo, C Rebuffat, M Scalambra, U Bonassi, E Colombo. Use of the laparoscopic–endoscopic approach, the so-called “rendezvous” technique, in cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: a valid method in cases with patient-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Surg Endosc, 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
- AA ElGeidie, MM ElShobary, YM Naeem. Laparoscopic exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial. Dig Surg, 2011. [DOI | PubMed]
- GP Ferulano, S Dilillo, M D’Ambra. Laparoscopic One-stage vs Endoscopic Plus Laparoscopic Management of Common Bile Duct Stones—A Prospective Randomized Study. Advances in Endoscopic Surgery, 2011. [DOI]
- B Koc, S Karahan, G Adas, F Tutal, H Guven, A Ozsoy. Comparison of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized study. Am J Surg, 2013. [DOI | PubMed]
- VK Bansal, MC Misra, K Rajan. Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
- G Ding, W Cai, M Qin. Single-stage vs. two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up. J Gastrointest Surg, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
- F Lv, S Zhang, M Ji, Y Wang, P Li, W Han. Single-stage management with combined tri-endoscopic approach for concomitant cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc, 2016. [DOI | PubMed]
- G Tzovaras, I Baloyiannis, E Zachari. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: interim analysis of a controlled randomized trial. Ann Surg, 2012. [DOI | PubMed]
- MR Sahoo, AT Kumar, A Patnaik. Randomized study on single stage laparo-endoscopic rendezvous (intra-operative ERCP) procedure versus two stage approach (pre-operative ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy) for the management of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis. J Minim Access Surg, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
- JE Barreras González, R Torres Peña, J Ruiz Torres, MÁ Martínez Alfonso, R Brizuela Quintanilla, M Pérez Morera. Endoscopic versus laparoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open, 2016. [DOI | PubMed]
- I Baloyiannis, G Tzovaras. Current status of laparoendoscopic rendezvous in the treatment of cholelithiasis with concomitant choledocholithiasis. World J Gastrointest Endosc, 2015. [DOI | PubMed]