TAVAC: choledochoscopy disposable scopes, and the single-stage vs. two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis

BackgroundPrevious studies have been published evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of clearing the common bile duct of stones using a single-stage approach (LCBDE + LC) versus a two-stage approach (ERCP followed by LC). These studies have demonstrated that a single-stage approach offers similar outcomes and morbidities as a two-stage approach, with the added benefit of a lower cost and shorter length of stays. However, it is significant we understand why LCBDE is not commonly performed currently and also the lapse in surgical trainee exposure and competence in LCBDE. This paper aims to address the lapse in surgical trainee exposure to LCBDE, evaluate the scopes currently available to perform LCBDE, and review current data evaluating the risks and benefits of single-stage versus two-stage approaches to.MethodsWe utilized PubMed to analyze all publications related to the various disposable scopes utilized to perform choledochoscopy. We also discuss the need for disposable scopes and how this new market niche is transforming the choledochoscopy space.ResultsWe analyzed the data related to single-stage and two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis. We noted an overall shorter length of stay and also decreased costs in favor of a single-stage approach.ConclusionA single-stage LCBDE is the most cost-effective treatment option for choledocholithiasis in patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing a cholecystectomy. In addition, single-stage approach is associated with shorter length of stay. Knowledge of the available choledochoscopes and tools available to surgeons to perform choledochoscopy is significant. The evidence does support the use of disposable choledochoscope from a cost and cross-contamination perspective. Additionally, efforts should be made to incorporate LCBDE into the teaching paradigm of surgical training programs.