Transcystic Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: When to Bail.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Victoria Jenkins, David Bird, Nezor Houli, Tuck Yong, Russell Hodgson
{"title":"Transcystic Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: When to Bail.","authors":"Victoria Jenkins, David Bird, Nezor Houli, Tuck Yong, Russell Hodgson","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a procedure considered in the management of common bile duct stones. In many ways it is superior to alternatives such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, surgeons who have limited experience in CBDE are often reluctant to persist in difficult cases with concerns regarding increasing complication rates and waste of theater time. This study aims to provide an evidence-based approach to identify points to aid early abandonment (\"bail\").</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Review of all LCBDE performed in a single center from September 2008 to September 2022 was performed. Statistical analysis was performed on success and failure groups, with relevant undesirable outcomes chosen for further analysis to identify factors to be used as a guide to bail.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 952 patients were identified for analysis. Females represented 63.8% (609) of the cohort. Success was reported in 89.2% (849) of procedures. Those in whom the cystic duct could not be cannulated with the choledochoscope, those that progressed to choledochotomy, those with a prolonged operative time, and those who had adverse outcomes were selected as undesired outcomes. Factors of age, higher ASA, preoperative ERCP, and those with preoperatively identified stones or larger stones at operation were associated with higher rates of an undesired outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Older and more comorbid patients, those who underwent preoperative ERCP, and those with preoperatively or operatively identified large stones are factors that should prompt those surgeons who are developing their LCBDE experience to consider bailing early.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001374","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a procedure considered in the management of common bile duct stones. In many ways it is superior to alternatives such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, surgeons who have limited experience in CBDE are often reluctant to persist in difficult cases with concerns regarding increasing complication rates and waste of theater time. This study aims to provide an evidence-based approach to identify points to aid early abandonment ("bail").

Methods: Review of all LCBDE performed in a single center from September 2008 to September 2022 was performed. Statistical analysis was performed on success and failure groups, with relevant undesirable outcomes chosen for further analysis to identify factors to be used as a guide to bail.

Results: A total of 952 patients were identified for analysis. Females represented 63.8% (609) of the cohort. Success was reported in 89.2% (849) of procedures. Those in whom the cystic duct could not be cannulated with the choledochoscope, those that progressed to choledochotomy, those with a prolonged operative time, and those who had adverse outcomes were selected as undesired outcomes. Factors of age, higher ASA, preoperative ERCP, and those with preoperatively identified stones or larger stones at operation were associated with higher rates of an undesired outcome.

Conclusion: Older and more comorbid patients, those who underwent preoperative ERCP, and those with preoperatively or operatively identified large stones are factors that should prompt those surgeons who are developing their LCBDE experience to consider bailing early.

经囊腹腔镜胆总管探查:何时进行探查。
背景:经囊腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)是胆总管结石的一种治疗方法。在许多方面,它优于内镜逆行胆管造影术(ERCP)等替代方法;然而,在CBDE方面经验有限的外科医生往往不愿意坚持治疗困难的病例,因为担心增加并发症的发生率和浪费手术时间。本研究旨在提供一种基于证据的方法来确定帮助早期放弃(“保释”)的要点。方法:回顾2008年9月至2022年9月在单一中心进行的所有LCBDE。对成功组和失败组进行统计分析,选择相关的不良结果进行进一步分析,以确定作为保释指导的因素。结果:共确定952例患者进行分析。女性占63.8%(609人)。89.2%(849例)手术成功。那些不能用胆道镜插管胆囊管的患者,那些进展到胆道切开术的患者,那些手术时间延长的患者,以及那些有不良结果的患者被选为不希望的结果。年龄、较高的ASA、术前ERCP、术前已确定结石或手术中结石较大的患者与不良预后的较高发生率相关。结论:年龄较大、合并症较多的患者、术前行ERCP的患者、术前或术中发现有较大结石的患者,应促使正在发展LCBDE经验的外科医生考虑尽早退出手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信