Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transcystic versus traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: its advantages and a meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The best approach for treating common bile duct stones remains a matter of debate. Traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) can cause adverse events such as stenosis of the bile duct. Moreover, with advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) is gradually rising.

Objectives

To compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term clinical benefits of LTCBDE and LCBDE through matched cases.

Methods

Web of science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2007 and December 2017 that compared LTCBDE and LCBDE without a restriction of languages. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Twenty-one studies matched the selection criteria, including 1561 cases of LTCBDE and 1500 cases of LCBDE. There was no obvious difference in stone clearance (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84–2.47; P = 0.18). However, LTCBDE had a shorter operative time (MD − 17.72, 95% CI − 19.42 to − 16.02; P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (MD − 2.20, 95% CI − 2.32 to − 2.08; P < 0.00001). Besides, the LTCBDE group showed significantly better results for blood loss (MD − 7.61, 95% CI − 8.85 to − 6.37; P < 0.00001) and postoperative complications (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19–0.41; P < 0.00001). In addition, LTCBDE was more cost efficient (MD − 2.51, 95% CI − 2.72 to − 2.30; P < 0.00001). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of operative time (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 97.56:117.81 min), hospital stay (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 5.22:8.91 days), hospital expenses (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 8646.121:11848.31 RMB), blood loss (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 29.3:52.0 ml), the rate of CBD stone clearance (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 92.8:95.0%), and postoperative complications (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 6.7:14.6%) in both groups to obtain more convincing results.

Conclusions

The stone clearance of LTCBDE was equal to that of LCBDE, and LTCBDE demonstrated a shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and other advantages. Thus, the surgical procedure of laparoscopic transcystic choledochotomy is feasible and safe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Petelin JB (2003) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 17(10):1705–1715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tazuma S (2006) Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and classification of biliary stones (common bile duct and intrahepatic). Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 20(6):1075–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stromberg C, Nilsson M, Leijonmarck C-E (2008) Stone clearance and risk factors for failure in laparoscopic transcystic exploration of the common bile duct. Surg Endosc 22(5):1194–1199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garteiz Martínez D, Sa´nchez AW, Lo´pez Acosta ME (2008) Laparoscopic T-tube choledochotomy for biliary lithiasis. JSLS 12(3):326–331

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shojaiefard A, Esmaeilzadeh M, Ghafouri A, Mehrabi A (2009) Various techniques for the surgical treatment of common bile duct stones: a meta review. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2009:840208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hanif F, Ahmed Z, Samie MA, Nassar AH (2010) Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration: the treatment of first choice for common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 24(7):1552–1556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhu JG, Han W, Guo W, Su W, Bai ZG, Zhang ZT (2015) Learning curve and outcome of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg 102(13):1691–1697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Otani T, Yokoyama N, Sato D et al (2017) Safety and efficacy of a novel continuous incision technique for laparoscopic transcystic choledocholithotomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 10(3):282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al (2015) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 18 Mar 2015

  10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151(4):W65–W94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paganini AM, Guerrieri M, Sarnari J et al (2007) Thirteen years’ experience with laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration for stones. Effectiveness and long-term results. Surg Endosc 21(1):34–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Topal B, Aerts R, Penninckx F (2007) Laparoscopic common bile duct stone clearance with flexible choledochoscopy. Surg Endosc 21(12):2317–2321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen Xiaoyan D, Youming W, Weixin et al (2007) The comparative study on two types of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. J Clin Surg 15:520–521

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jameel M, Darmas B, Baker AL (2008) Trend towards primary closure following laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90(1):29–35

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. ElGeidie AA, ElShobary MM, Naeem YM (2011) Laparoscopic exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial. Dig Surg 28(5–6):424–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grubnik VV, Tkachenko AI, Ilyashenko VV, Vorotyntseva KO (2012) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus open surgery: comparative prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 26(8):2165–2171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen XM, Zhang Y, Cai HH et al (2013) Transcystic approach with microincision of the cystic duct and its confluence part in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(12):977–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou YP, Guo ZJ, Dai T, Chen B (2013) Curative effects of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration. Chin J Clin Med 20(3):294–296

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yongze T, Dexin C, Haibin L, et al (2013) Comparison of transcyst with trarsduct incision in laparoscopic choledochotomy with primary ductal closure. Chin J Min Inv Surg 13:869–872

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wang C, Gu H, He JY (2014) A comparative study of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration with laparoscopic transcystic common bile exploration for secondary extrahepatic bile duct stones. J Xinjiang Med Univ 37(10):1318–1320

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tulati T (2014) Effects of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration. Front Med 6:21–22

    Google Scholar 

  22. Poh B, Cashin P, Bowers K et al (2014) Management of choledocholithiasis in an emergency cohort undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-centre experience. HPB (Oxford) 16(7):629–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu S, Zhan S, Qiu H (2014) The clinical study of treatment common bile duct stones by laparoscopic cystic duct approach. Anhui Med J 35:685–686

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang WJ, Xu GF, Huang Q et al (2015) Treatment of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era. BMC Surg 15:7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang HJ, Yong WB (2015) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: choledochotomy versus transcystic approach? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(3):218–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Aawsaj Y, Light D, Horgan L (2016) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: 15-year experience in a district general hospital. Surg Endosc 30(6):2563–2566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang S (2015) Efficacy comparison of laparoscopic common bile duct through the cystic duct lithotomy and choledocholithotomy surgery. Mod Pract Med 27:213–214

    Google Scholar 

  28. Li P, Wu Y, Huang ZY et al (2016) Clinical analysis of laparoscopic choledocholithotomy by choledochal duct exploration. Mod Diagn Treat 27(13):2453–2454

    Google Scholar 

  29. Han MM, Bao Z, Yang ZJ et al (2016) Analysis of clinical efficacy of LTCBDE in patients with secondary extrahepatic bile duct stones. J Pract Med 32(12):1991–1993

    Google Scholar 

  30. Liu Y, Han W, Gong PM, Shi W (2016) Clinical analysis of laparoscopic surgery for secondary bile duct stones via cystic duct. China J Endosc 22(4):31–33

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sun H (2017) The clinical efficacy of LTCBDE in the treatment of secondary extrahepatic bile duct stones. J Clin Med 4(11):2050–2051

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ghazal AH, Sorour MA, El-Riwini M et al (2009) Single-step treatment of gall bladder and bile duct stones: a combined endoscopic-laparoscopic technique. Int J Surg 7:338–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Poulose BK, Arbogast PG, Holzman MD (2006) National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores. Surg Endosc 20(2):186–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Thompson MH, Tranter SE (2002) All-comers policy for laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Br J Surg 89(12):1608–1612

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tinoco R, Tinoco A, El-Kadre L et al (2008) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Ann Surg 247(4):674–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Leida Z, Ping B, Shuguang W et al (2008) A randomized comparison of primary closure and T-tube drainage of the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy. Surg Endosc 22(7):1595–1600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lyass S, Phillips EH (2006) Laparoscopic transcystic duct common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 20:S441–S445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Khan MR, Naureen S, Hussain D, Azami R (2005) Management outcome if residual common bile duct stones at Aga Khan University Hospital. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 17(3):7–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Feng Q, Huang Y, Wang K et al (2016) Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration: advantages over laparoscopic choledochotomy. PLOS ONE 11(9):e0162885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Riciardi R, Islam S, Canete J et al (2003) Effectiveness and long-term results of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 17(1):19–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bove A, Bongarzoni G, Palone G et al (2009) Why is there recurrence after transcystic laparoscopic bile duct clearance? risk factor analysis. Surg Endosc 23(7):1470–1475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Gough V, Stephens N, Ahmed Z et al (2012) Intrahepatic choledochoscopy during trans-cystic common bile duct exploration; technique, feasibility and value. Surg Endosc 26(11):3190–3194

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biliary and Minimally Invasive Surgery, China Medical University Shengjing Hospital Shenyang, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China

    Liwei Pang, Yan Zhang & Jing Kong

  2. Department of Surgery, The Sixth People’s Hospital of Shenyang, No.85 Heping South Street, Shenyang, 110006, Liaoning, China

    Yuwen Wang

Authors
  1. Liwei Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuwen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jing Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LP: Literature research, Manuscript preparation. YZ: Data acquisition and analysis. YW: Data acquisition and analysis. JK: Manuscript final version approval.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jing Kong.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Liwei Pang, Yan Zhang, Yuwen Wang, and Jing Kong have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pang, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y. et al. Transcystic versus traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: its advantages and a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32, 4363–4376 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6286-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6286-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation