Management of common bile duct stones by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic sphincterotomy: Pre-, per- or postoperative sphincterotomy?

被引:12
|
作者
Meyer, C
Le, JVH
Rohr, S
Thiry, LC
Bourtoul, C
Duclos, B
Reimund, JM
Baumann, R
机构
[1] Hop Univ Strasbourg Hautepierre, Serv Chirurg Gen & Digest, Ctr Chirurg Viscerale Urgence & Transplantat, F-67098 Strasbourg, France
[2] Hop Univ Strasbourg Hautepierre, Serv Gastroenterol & Assistance Nutr, F-67098 Strasbourg, France
关键词
laparoscopic cholecystectomy; endoscopic sphincterotomy; common bile duct stones; lithiasis;
D O I
10.1159/000018690
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) by endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), ES being performed either pre-, per- or postoperatively. Methods: Between January 1990 and June 1997, 386 patients with a median age of 60 (range 18-92) years were treated for suspected or confirmed CBDS. The CBDS were uncomplicated in 264 cases (70%) but associated with a complication in 122 cases (30%), namely, cholangitis (69 cases) or acute pancreatitis (53 cases). ES combined with LC was carried out in 233 cases (60%): ES was preoperative (sequential treatment in two stages) in 197 cases (51%); peroperative in 30 cases (7%), or postoperative in 6 cases (2%). Laparoscopic extraction was performed in 58 cases (15%) and conventional surgery in 82 cases (21%). Results: With respect to sequential treatment, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography showed the presence of CBDS in 117 cases (60%) and preoperative ES allowed the release of the CBDS in 82% of these cases. The complication rate of sequential treatment was 8% (15 cases) after ES and 7% (13 cases) after LC, with 1 death (0.5%). A peroperative ES performed after LC enabled evacuation of the CBDS in 28 cases (93%) without any complications or mortality. Postoperative ES was successful in 100% of cases with residual lithiasis in 16% (1 case) and a complication rate of 16% (1 case). Conclusion: Along with conventional surgery and laparoscopic extraction, ES combined with LC represents an effective alternative in the management of CBDS. Since it can be performed peroperatively, it allows a one-stage, minimally invasive treatment of most uncomplicated CBDS.
引用
收藏
页码:26 / 31
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [22] Early complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones
    Imaizumi, Hiroshi
    Kida, Mitsuhiro
    Takezawa, Miyoko
    Kikuchi, Hidehiko
    Saigenji, Katsunori
    DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2007, 19 : S57 - S59
  • [23] RESULTS OF ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY IN COMMON BILE-DUCT STONES
    LIGUORY, C
    FOISSY, P
    MEDURI, B
    BUFFET, C
    INK, O
    ETIENNE, JP
    GASTROENTEROLOGIE CLINIQUE ET BIOLOGIQUE, 1985, 9 (01): : 51 - 55
  • [24] Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for management of common bile duct stones
    ElGeidie, Ahmed A.
    ElEbidy, Gamal K.
    Naeem, Yussef M.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2011, 25 (04): : 1230 - 1237
  • [25] Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones in younger patients
    Pedersen, FM
    Lassen, AT
    de Muckadell, OBS
    DANISH MEDICAL BULLETIN, 1998, 45 (05): : 533 - 535
  • [26] Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for management of common bile duct stones
    Manojkumar S. Nair
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2011, 25 : 2758 - 2758
  • [27] Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for management of common bile duct stones
    Ahmed A. ElGeidie
    Gamal K. ElEbidy
    Yussef M. Naeem
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2011, 25 : 1230 - 1237
  • [28] Current management of the gallbladder after endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones
    Keulemans, YCA
    Rauws, EAJ
    Huibregtse, K
    Gouma, DJ
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1997, 46 (06) : 514 - 519
  • [29] EARLY POSTOPERATIVE ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY FOR RETAINED COMMON DUCT STONES
    ASKEW, AR
    WARD, M
    COWEN, AE
    ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 1989, 71 (06) : 359 - 360