Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 263–266 | Cite as

Robot-assisted common bile duct exploration as an option for complex choledocholithiasis

  • Nawar A. Alkhamesi
  • Ward T. Davies
  • R. Fiona Pinto
  • Christopher M. Schlachta



This study aimed to describe the authors’ early experience with robot-assisted common bile duct exploration (CBDE) for choledocholithiasis refractory to endoscopic therapy and to compare the outcomes with those of equivalent patients undergoing an open technique.


At our institution, 55 CBDEs were performed between 2005 and 2010. All 19 robot-assisted cases were unselected elective referrals for stone disease. Of 36 open procedures, emergency cases and exploration not for stone disease were excluded, leaving 18 cases for analysis. Cases were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. A P value of 0.05 denoted statistical significance.


The patients did not differ in terms of demography, comorbidity, or presenting symptoms. The reasons for endoscopic failure in both groups were similar. The mean operating time was longer for robot-assisted surgery (220 ± 41.26 min) than for open surgery (169 ± 65.81 min) (P = 0.01), but the median hospital stay was shorter (4 vs 11 days; P = 0.02). Four conversions to open surgery (21 %) were performed due to severe adhesions. The two groups did not differ statistically in terms of T-tube usage (74 vs 61 %; P = 0.414). One death occurred in the robotic group and two in the open cohort. Postoperative complications occurred in seven robotic and ten open cases (P = 0.402). They were mainly respiratory complications in the robot-assisted group, whereas they were cardiac and wound-related complications in the open group. Two of the converted cases had complications similar to those of the open group. Postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for retained stones was performed in one open case and three robotic cases.


Robot-assisted CBDE offers some benefit when ERCP fails. Ideal case selection may enhance success.


Robotic-assisted surgery Common bile duct exploration Cholecystectomy Choledocholithiasis Common bile duct stones Minimally invasive surgery 



Nawar A. Alkhamesi, Ward T. Davies, R. Fiona Pinto, and Christopher M. Schlachta have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Hungness ES, Soper NJ (2006) Management of common bile duct stones. J Gastrointest Surg 10:612–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ponsky JL, Heniford BT, Gersin K (2000) Choledocholithiasis: evolving intraoperative strategies. Am Surg 66:262–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parra-Membrives P, Diaz-Gomez D, Vilegas-Portero R, Molina-Linde M, Gomez-Bujedo L, Lacalle-Remigio JR (2010) Appropriate management of common bile duct stones: a RAND Corporation/UCLA Appropriateness Method statistical analysis. Surg Endosc 24:1187–1194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ozcan N, Kahriman G, Mavili E (2012) Percutaneous transhepatic removal of bile duct stones: results of 261 patients. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 35(3):621–627Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Morino M, Croce E, Lacy A, Toouli J et al (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 13:952–957PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 93:1185–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91:1390–1397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roeyen G, Chapelle T, Ysebaert D (2004) Robot-assisted choledochotomy: feasibility. Surg Endosc 18:165–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jayaraman S, Davies W, Schlachta CM (2008) Robot-assisted minimally invasive common bile duct exploration: a Canadian first. Can J Surg 51:E93–E94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ilgit ET, Gurel K, Onal B (2002) Percutaneous management of bile duct stones. Eur J Radiol 43:237–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim DW, Lee SY, Cho JH, Kang MJ, Noh MH, Park BH (2010) Risk factors for recurrent symptomatic pigmented biliary stones after percutaneous transhepatic biliary extraction. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21:1038–1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Masci E, Fanti L, Mariani A, Spagnolo S, Zuliani W, Castrucci M et al (1997) Multidisciplinary conservative treatment of difficult bile duct stones: a real alternative to surgery. HPB Surg 10:229–233 (discussion 234)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin DJ, Vernon DR, Toouli J (2006) Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD003327Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I, Parks R, Martin D, Lombard M et al (2008) Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 57:1004–1021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noble H, Whitley E, Norton S, Thompson M (2011) A study of preoperative factors associated with a poor outcome following laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 25:130–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sweeney T, Rattner DW (2002) Robotically assisted minimally invasive biliary surgery in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 16:138–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nawar A. Alkhamesi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ward T. Davies
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Fiona Pinto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher M. Schlachta
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CSTAR (Canadian Surgical Technologies & Advance Robotics)University Hospital, London Health Science CentreLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of SurgerySchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations