TY - JOUR
T1 - Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration after unsuccessful endoscopic stone removal
AU - Paik, Kwang Yeol
AU - Kim, Eung Kook
PY - 2013/2/1
Y1 - 2013/2/1
N2 - Background: When common bile duct (CBD) stone removal by endoscopy fails, stone removal is a mandatory procedure for the surgeon. However, it is unclear that the laparoscopic procedure is the alternative treatment in this setting. The purpose of this study is to investigate the result of laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) following unsuccessful CBD stone removal by endoscopy. Subjects and Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of 82 consecutive LCBDEs. Group 1 included patients who underwent secondary LCBDE after stone removal by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failed. Group 2 was defined when primary LCBDE was performed without ERCP. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: There were 44 patients in Group 1 and 38 patients in Group 2. There were no significant differences in demographics. Stone clearance was nearly complete in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups for operative time, hospital days, open conversion rate, recurrence rate, or complications. Conclusions: LCBDE is an acceptable alternative treatment when endoscopic CBD stone removal is impossible or incomplete.
AB - Background: When common bile duct (CBD) stone removal by endoscopy fails, stone removal is a mandatory procedure for the surgeon. However, it is unclear that the laparoscopic procedure is the alternative treatment in this setting. The purpose of this study is to investigate the result of laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) following unsuccessful CBD stone removal by endoscopy. Subjects and Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of 82 consecutive LCBDEs. Group 1 included patients who underwent secondary LCBDE after stone removal by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failed. Group 2 was defined when primary LCBDE was performed without ERCP. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: There were 44 patients in Group 1 and 38 patients in Group 2. There were no significant differences in demographics. Stone clearance was nearly complete in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups for operative time, hospital days, open conversion rate, recurrence rate, or complications. Conclusions: LCBDE is an acceptable alternative treatment when endoscopic CBD stone removal is impossible or incomplete.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873366433&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/lap.2012.0331
DO - 10.1089/lap.2012.0331
M3 - Article
C2 - 23327344
AN - SCOPUS:84873366433
SN - 1092-6429
VL - 23
SP - 137
EP - 140
JO - Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques - Part A
JF - Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques - Part A
IS - 2
ER -