Surgical Endoscopy

, 24:51 | Cite as

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)

  • Renato CostiEmail author
  • Antonio Mazzeo
  • Francesco Tartamella
  • Christine Manceau
  • Bernard Vacher
  • Alain Valverde



No unanimous consensus has been achieved regarding the ideal management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis. The treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones may be achieved currently according to a two-step-protocol (endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy) or by a one-step laparoscopic procedure, including exploration of the CBD and cholecystectomy. Endoscopic sphincterotomy is reported to have considerable morbidity/mortality and CBD stone recurrence rates, whereas laparoscopic CBD clearance is a demanding procedure, which to date has not spread beyond specialized environments.


To evaluate our “laparoscopy first” (LF) approach for patients affected by gallbladder/CBD stones (laparoscopic exploration and intraoperative decision whether to proceed with laparoscopic CBD exploration or to postpone CBD stone treatment to a postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]), we performed a retrospective, two-center case–control comparison of the postoperative outcome for 49 consecutive patients treated for gallbladder/CBD stones from January 2000 through December 2004. The results obtained with this LF approach were compared with those achieved with the traditional, “endoscopy-first” (EF) approach (ERCP plus endoscopic sphincterotomy, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The mean follow-up period was 6.4 years (range, 4–8 years).


No difference emerged concerning early and late complications, mortality, or laparotomies needed to accomplish cholecystectomy and CBD clearance. The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for the LF group. In the LF group, only 22 patients underwent choledochotomy (45%), and 15 patients underwent perioperative ERCP (30%). Conversions decreased with practice. After choledochotomy, an increasing number of patients underwent primary closure of the CBD (with no biliary drain), without complications.


An LF approach to gallbladder/CBD stones is safe and feasible. It may allow the majority of surgeons to avoid excessively difficult/dangerous surgical procedures as well as unnecessary ERCPs in most cases. A tendency toward a lower incidence of conversions and a rarer use of biliary drains may lead to an improved immediate outcome for patients undergoing an LF approach.


CBD stones Endoscopy ERCP Laparoscopy Outcome Therapy 



Native English speaker translation was performed by Kathleen Page Jones (email:


  1. 1.
    Martin DJ, Vernon DR, Toouli J (2006) Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD003327Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scientific Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (E.A.E.S.) (1998) Diagnosis and treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS): results of a consensus development conference. Surg Endosc 12:856–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morino M, Baracchi F, Miglietta C, Furlan N, Ragona R, Garbarini A (2006) Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus laparoendoscopic rendezvous in patients with gallbladder and bile duct stones. Ann Surg 244:889–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clayton ES, Connor S, Alexakis N, Leandros E (2006) Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ. Br J Surg 93:1185–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barwood NT, Valinsky LJ, Hobbs MS, Fletcher DR, Knuiman MW, Ridout SC (2002) Changing methods of imaging the common bile duct in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era in Western Australia: implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 235:41–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghazi A, McSherry CK (1984) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg 199:21–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis MP (1998) Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet 351:159–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heinerman PM, Boeckl O, Pimpl W (1989) Selective ERCP and preoperative stone removal in bile duct surgery. Ann Surg 209:267–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ong TZ, Khor JL, Selamat DS, Yeoh KG, Ho KY (2005) Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the post-MRCP era: a tertiary center experience. World J Gastroenterol 11:5209–5212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, Moore JP, Fennerty MB, Ryan ME, Shaw MJ, Lande JD, Pheley AM (1996) Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 335:909–918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rábago LR, Vicente C, Soler F, Delgado M, Moral I, Guerra I, Castro JL, Quintanilla E, Romeo J, Llorente R, Vázquez Echarri J, Martínez-Veiga JL, Gea F (2006) 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 38:779–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ammori BJ, Birbas K, Davides D, Vezakis A, Larvin M, McMahon MJ (2000) Routine vs “on demand” postoperative ERCP for small bile duct calculi detected at intraoperative cholangiography: clinical evaluation and cost analysis. Surg Endosc 14:1123–1126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erickson RA, Carlson B (1995) The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Gastroenterology 109:252–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sarli L, Costi R, Gobbi S, Iusco D, Sgobba G, Roncoroni L (2003) Scoring system to predict asymptomatic choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a matched case-control study. Surg Endosc 17:1396–1403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montariol T, Rey C, Charlier A, Marre P, Khabtani H, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Lacaine F (1995) Preoperative evaluation of the probability of common bile duct stones. French Association for Surgical Research. J Am Coll Surg 180:293–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Menezes N, Marson LP, debeaux AC, Muir IM, Auld CD (2000) Prospective analysis of a scoring system to predict choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg 87:1176–1181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Topal B, Fieuws S, Tomczyk K, Aerts R, Van Steenbergen W, Verslype C, Penninckx F (2009) Clinical models are inaccurate in predicting bile duct stones in situ for patients with gallbladder. Surg Endosc 23:38–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berdah SV, Orsoni P, Bege T, Barthet M, Grimaud JC, Picaud R (2001) Follow-up of selective endoscopic ultrasonography and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiography prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study of 300 patients. Endoscopy 33:216–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Topal B, Van de Moortel M, Fieuws S, Vanbeckevoort D, Van Steenbergen W, Aerts R, Penninckx F (2003) The value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in predicting common bile duct stones in patients with gallstone disease. Br J Surg 90:42–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suc B, Escat J, Cherqui D, Fourtanier G, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Millat B (1998) 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 133:702–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Morino M, Croce E, Lacy A, Toouli J, Faggioni A, Ribeiro VM, Jakimowicz J, Visa J, Hanna GB (1999) 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 13:952–957CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Russell I (1995) Evaluating new surgical procedures. BMJ 311:1243–1244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nathanson LK, O’Rourke NA, Martin IJ, Fielding GA, Cowen AE, Roberts RK, Kendall BJ, Kerlin P, Devereux BM (2005) Postoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of selected bile duct calculi: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 242:188–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Waage A, Strömberg C, Leijonmarck CE, Arvidsson D (2003) Long-term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 17:1181–1185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tranter SE, Thompson MH (2002) Comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Br J Surg 89:1495–1504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bingener J, Schwesinger WH (2006) Management of common bile duct stones in a rural area of the United States: results of a survey. Surg Endosc 20:577–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poulose BK, Arbogast PG, Holzman MD (2006) National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores. Surg Endosc 20:186–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, Fitzgerald E, O’Sullivan GC (2004) A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Ann Surg 239:28–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tranter SE, Thompson MH (2003) Spontaneous passage of bile duct stones: frequency of occurrence and relation to clinical presentation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 85:174–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin IJ, Bailey IS, Rhodes M, O’Rourke N, Nathanson L, Fielding G (1998) Towards T-tube free laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a methodologic evolution during 300 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg 228:29–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gurusamy KS, Samraj K (2007) Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD005640Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renato Costi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Antonio Mazzeo
    • 2
  • Francesco Tartamella
    • 2
  • Christine Manceau
    • 1
  • Bernard Vacher
    • 1
  • Alain Valverde
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de Chirurgie Viscérale Digestive et UrologiqueHôpital Victor DupouyArgenteuilFrance
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze ChirurgicheUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations