Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Risk Factors of Open Converted Cholecystectomy for Cholelithiasis After Endoscopic Removal of Choledocholithiasis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstracts

Background

Open converted cholecystectomy could occur in patients who planned for laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic removal of choledocholithiasis.

Aim

To evaluate the risk factors associated with open converted cholecystectomy.

Patients and Methods

The data for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy after endoscopic removal of choledocholithiasis were retrospectively reviewed. Factors predictive for conversion to open cholecystectomy were analyzed.

Results

The rate of open converted cholecystectomy was 15.7 %. In multivariate analysis, cholecystitis (OR 1.908, 95 % CI 1.390–6.388, p = 0.005), mechanical lithotripsy (OR 6.129, 95 % CI 1.867–20.123, p < 0.005), and two or more choledocholithiases (OR 2.202, 95 % CI 1.097–4.420, p = 0.026) revealed significant risk factors for conversion to open cholecystectomy. Analyzing the risk factors for open converted cholecystectomy according to duration from endoscopic stone removal to cholecystectomy (within 2 weeks, between 2 and 6 weeks, and beyond 6 weeks), acute cholangitis (OR 3.374, 95 % CI 1.267–8.988, p = 0.015), cholecystitis (OR 3.127, 95 % CI 1.100–8.894, p = 0.033), and mechanical lithotripsy (OR 17.504, 95 % CI 3.548–86.355, p < 0.005) were related to open converted cholecystectomy in ≤2 weeks group.

Conclusions

For patients who need cholecystectomy after endoscopic removal of choledocholithiasis, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography-related factors predictive for open converted cholecystectomy are helpful in planning the appropriate timing of surgery.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Joyce WP, Keane R, Burke GJ, et al. Identification of bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1991;78:1174–1176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sarli L, Iusco DR, Roncoroni L. Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: 10-year experience. World J Surg. 2003;27:180–186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Morino M, et al. 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;13:952–957.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arregui ME, Davis CJ, Arkush AM, Nagan RF. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone extraction or laparoscopic choledochoscopy and electrohydraulic lithotripsy for management of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc. 1992;6:10–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alimoglu O, Ozkan OV, Sahin M, Akcakaya A, Eryilmaz R, Bas G. Timing of cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis: outcomes of cholecystectomy on first admission and after recurrent biliary pancreatitis. World J Surg. 2003;27:256–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boerma D, Rauws EA, Keulemans YC, et al. Wait-and-see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile-duct stones: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360:761–765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prat F, Malak NA, Pelletier G, et al. Biliary symptoms and complications more than 8 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:894–899.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill J, Martin DF, Tweedle DE. Risks of leaving the gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. Br J Surg. 1991;78:554–557.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lai KH, Lin LF, Lo GH, et al. Does cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy prevent the recurrence of biliary complications? Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:483–487.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chan AC, Chung SC, Wyman A, et al. Selective use of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43:212–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Anderson MA, Fisher L, Jain R, et al. Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:467–473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–918.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Vries A, Donkervoort SC, van Geloven AA, Pierik EG. Conversion rate of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the treatment of choledocholithiasis: does the time interval matter? Surg Endosc. 2005;19:996–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eldar S, Eitan A, Bickel A, Sabo E, et al. The impact of patient delay and physician delay on the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Am J Surg. 1999;178:303–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mathuna PM, White P, Clarke E, Merriman R, Lennon JR, Crowe J. Endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty (papillary dilation) for bile duct stones: efficacy, safety, and follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:468–474.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schneider MU, Matek W, Bauer R, Domschke W. Mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in 209 patients-effect of technical advances. Endoscopy. 1988;20:248–253.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hochberger J, Tex S, Maiss J, Hahn EG. Management of difficult common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;13:623–634.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stefanidis G, Viazis N, Pleskow D, et al. Large balloon dilation vs. mechanical lithotripsy for the management of large bile duct stones: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:278–285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lai PB, Kwong KH, Leung KL, et al. Randomized trial of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 1998;85:764–767.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lu J, Cheng Y, Xiong XZ, Lin YX, Wu SJ, Cheng NS. Two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:3156–3166.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Clayton ES, Connor S, Alexakis N, Leandros E. Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1185–1191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC+LCBDE vs ERCP/S+LC for common bile duct stone disease. Arch Surg. 2010;145:28–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liberman MA, Phillips EH, Carroll BJ, Fallas MJ, Rosenthal R, Hiatt J. Cost-effective management of complicated choledocholithiasis: laparoscopic transcystic duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;182:488–494.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Yong Hwan Kwon, Min Kyu Jung, Chang-Min Cho, Sang Gul Kim, Young Kook Yoon have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang-Min Cho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwon, Y.H., Cho, CM., Jung, M.K. et al. Risk Factors of Open Converted Cholecystectomy for Cholelithiasis After Endoscopic Removal of Choledocholithiasis. Dig Dis Sci 60, 550–556 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3337-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3337-6

Keywords

Navigation