MANAGEMENT OF CHOLEDOCHOLITHIASIS IN PAKISTAN: A COMPARISON OF ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY AND LAPAROSCOPIC COMMON BILE DUCT EXPLORATION

I Amin; A Munir; ML Memon; SH Zahra; HMKN Cheema; H Niaz

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.348

Authors

I Amin Department of Surgical, Gujranwala Teaching Hospital, Gujranwala, Pakistan
A Munir Department of Surgical, Maroof International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
ML Memon Department of Surgical, Wah Medical College, POF Hospital Wah Cantt, Pakistan
SH Zahra Department of Surgical, DHQ Teaching Hospital Gujranwala, Pakistan
HMKN Cheema Department of Surgical, Gujranwala Teaching Hospital, Gujranwala, Pakistan
H Niaz Department of Surgical, DHQ Teaching Hospital Gujranwala, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.348

Keywords:

scopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, complications, Gallstones

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the management outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis in Pakistan, based on a sample size of 150 patients. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 150 patients diagnosed with choledocholithiasis who underwent either ERCP (n=75) or LCBDE (n=75) at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. Patient demographics, procedure-related variables, postoperative outcomes, and complications were collected and analyzed. Primary outcome measures included stone clearance rates, procedure-related complications, length of hospital stay, and cost-effectiveness. The study included 150 patients, with 75 in each group. The stone clearance rate was significantly higher in the LCBDE group (82.7%) compared to the ERCP group (68.0%). However, the ERCP group had a lower incidence of procedure-related complications (12.0%) than the LCBDE group (24.0%). The mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the ERCP group (4.2 days) compared to the LCBDE group (6.1 days). Cost analysis revealed that ERCP was more cost-effective than LCBDE. In managing choledocholithiasis, ERCP and LCBDE are effective treatment options in Pakistan. LCBDE demonstrated a higher stone clearance rate (82.7%), while ERCP had a lower incidence of procedure-related complications (12.0%) and a shorter length of hospital stay (4.2 days). In terms of cost-effectiveness, ERCP was found to be more favorable.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Li Q, Chen L, Liu S, Chen D. Comparison of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones After Cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2022 Sep;32(9):992-998. doi: 10.1089/lap.2021.0871. Epub 2022 Apr 1. PMID: 35363577.

Sorensen VJ, Buck JR, Chung S-K, Fath JJ, Horst HM, Obeid FN. Primary common bile duct closure following exploration: an effective alternative to routine biliary drainage. Am Surg 1994;60(6):451-4

Bektas H, Duzkoylu Y, Cakar E, et al.: Giant choledochal calculosis: surgical treatment. North Am J Med Sci. 2014, 6:536–39. 10.4103/1947-2714.143286

Bansal VK, Krishna A, Rajan K, et al.: Outcomes of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with concomitant gall stones and common bile duct stones: a prospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016, 26:985–91. 10.1089/lap.2016.0272

Ding G, Cai W, Qin M: Single-stage vs. two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014, 18:947–51. 10.1007/s11605-014-2467-7

Everhart JE, Yeh F, Lee ET, et al.: Prevalence of gallbladder disease in American Indian populations: findings from the Strong Heart Study. Hepatology. 2002, 35:1507–12. 10.1053/jhep.2002.33336

De Silva, Harendra, et al. "Outcomes following Common Bile Duct Exploration versus Endoscopic Stone Extraction before, during and after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Patients with Common Bile Duct Stones." HPB, vol. 24, no. 12, 2022, pp. 2125-2133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2022.08.014.

Ghazanfor R, Liaqat N, Changeez M, et al. (August 21, 2017) Choledocholithiasis: Treatment Options in a Tertiary Care Setup in Pakistan. Cureus 9(8): e1587. doi:10.7759/cureus.1587

Lyu Y, Cheng Y, Li T, Cheng B, Jin X. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019 Oct;33(10):3275-3286. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-06613-w. Epub 2018 Dec 3. PMID: 30511313.

Abdelmajid K, Houssem H, Rafik G, et al.: Open choldecho-enterostomy for common bile duct stones: Is it out of date in laparo-endoscopic era?. North Am J Med Sci. 2013, 5:288–92. 10.4103/1947-2714.110438

Yang J, Peng J, Chen W: Endoscopic biliary stenting for irretrievable common bile duct stones: Indications, advantages, disadvantages, and follow-up results. Surgeon. 2012, 10:211–17. 10.1016/j.surge.2012.04.003

Elmunzer BJ: Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Dig Endosc. 2017, (Epub ahead of print) :10.1111/den.12908

Costi R, Gnocchi A, Di Mario F, Sarli L: Diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis in the golden age of imaging, endoscopy and laparoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014, 20:13382–401. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i37.13382

Halawani HM, Tamim H, Khalifeh F, et al.: Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open common bile duct exploration: Analysis of the NSQIP database. J Am Coll Surg. 2017, 224:833-40. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.01.062

Zhu J, Li G, Du P, Zhou X, Xiao W, Li Y. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):997-1005. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08052-y. Epub 2020 Oct 6. PMID: 33025251.