The efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic versus two-stage endo-laparoscopic management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Medhat Anwar, Shaimaa Abdelaziz Abdelmoneim, Mahmoud Hamida, Mohamed Samir, Mohamed Abu Deeba, Magdy Hassan, Mohamed Hany, Bart Torensma, Mohamed Hefzy
{"title":"The efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic versus two-stage endo-laparoscopic management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.","authors":"Medhat Anwar, Shaimaa Abdelaziz Abdelmoneim, Mahmoud Hamida, Mohamed Samir, Mohamed Abu Deeba, Magdy Hassan, Mohamed Hany, Bart Torensma, Mohamed Hefzy","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-03094-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the past 20 years, one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has gained wide acceptance for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL). Despite this, the two-stage endo-laparoscopic approach, consisting of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by LC, remains the most commonly used strategy. This study aims to analyze the efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic management versus two-stage endo-laparoscopic management of CCL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 100 patients with CCL, with data collected retrospectively for those admitted between January 2018 and December 2020, and prospectively between January 2021 and June 2021 at the Surgical Department of the Medical Research Institute Hospital, University of Alexandria. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A, who underwent two-stage management (ERCP followed by LC), and Group B, who underwent one-stage management (LCBDE and LC). Outcomes compared included procedural success, duration, hospital stay, and cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our economic analysis, the one-stage laparoscopic strategy demonstrated substantially lower costs ($3,636) compared to the two-stage approach ($5,682), representing a savings of $2,046 per patient. Procedural failure and conversion to open surgery occurred in 4% of Group B patients (2 cases) compared to 8% of Group A patients (4 cases). The median duration of the one-stage procedure was longer at 155 min compared to 95 min for the two-stage procedure. Hospital stay was comparable, with a median of 3 days in both groups. Readmissions were rare, with no cases in the one-stage group and one case in the two-stage group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The one-stage laparoscopic approach for managing CBD stones and gallstones offers substantial cost savings compared to the two-stage approach ($2,046 per patient). This approach presents a viable option for healthcare systems that prioritize resource efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"325"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-03094-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Over the past 20 years, one-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has gained wide acceptance for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL). Despite this, the two-stage endo-laparoscopic approach, consisting of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by LC, remains the most commonly used strategy. This study aims to analyze the efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic management versus two-stage endo-laparoscopic management of CCL.

Methods: This study included 100 patients with CCL, with data collected retrospectively for those admitted between January 2018 and December 2020, and prospectively between January 2021 and June 2021 at the Surgical Department of the Medical Research Institute Hospital, University of Alexandria. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A, who underwent two-stage management (ERCP followed by LC), and Group B, who underwent one-stage management (LCBDE and LC). Outcomes compared included procedural success, duration, hospital stay, and cost.

Results: In our economic analysis, the one-stage laparoscopic strategy demonstrated substantially lower costs ($3,636) compared to the two-stage approach ($5,682), representing a savings of $2,046 per patient. Procedural failure and conversion to open surgery occurred in 4% of Group B patients (2 cases) compared to 8% of Group A patients (4 cases). The median duration of the one-stage procedure was longer at 155 min compared to 95 min for the two-stage procedure. Hospital stay was comparable, with a median of 3 days in both groups. Readmissions were rare, with no cases in the one-stage group and one case in the two-stage group.

Conclusions: The one-stage laparoscopic approach for managing CBD stones and gallstones offers substantial cost savings compared to the two-stage approach ($2,046 per patient). This approach presents a viable option for healthcare systems that prioritize resource efficiency.

一期腹腔镜与两期内镜下治疗胆囊胆总管结石的疗效比较。
背景:近20年来,一期腹腔镜胆总管探查(LCBDE)联合腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)治疗胆囊胆总管结石(CCL)已被广泛接受。尽管如此,两阶段腹腔镜内入路,包括内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)和LC,仍然是最常用的策略。本研究旨在分析一期腹腔镜治疗与二期腹腔镜治疗CCL的疗效。方法:本研究纳入了100例CCL患者,回顾性收集了2018年1月至2020年12月入院的患者的数据,前瞻性收集了2021年1月至2021年6月在亚历山大大学医学研究所医院外科住院的患者的数据。患者分为两组:A组为两期治疗(ERCP + LC), B组为一期治疗(LCBDE + LC)。比较的结果包括手术成功、持续时间、住院时间和费用。结果:在我们的经济分析中,与两阶段方法(5682美元)相比,一期腹腔镜策略的成本(3636美元)显着降低,代表每位患者节省2046美元。B组患者(2例)手术失败和转开手术发生率为4%,而A组患者(4例)为8%。一期手术的中位持续时间为155分钟,而两期手术的中位持续时间为95分钟。住院时间比较,两组的中位数为3天。再入院的病例很少,一期组无一例,两期组1例。结论:与两阶段方法相比,一期腹腔镜方法治疗CBD结石和胆结石可节省大量成本(每位患者2,046美元)。这种方法为优先考虑资源效率的医疗保健系统提供了一个可行的选择。
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
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信