Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 2310236

100 consecutive common duct explorations without mortality.

Abstract

It has been suggested that the incidence of morbidity and mortality after common duct exploration no longer justifies its use in patients with a gallbladder in situ. Therefore endoscopic sphincterotomy has been advocated for removal of common duct stones before cholecystectomy in selected patients. The purpose of this study was to determine our current rate of retained common duct stones and the morbidity and mortality rates associated with common duct exploration. Charts of 100 consecutive patients who underwent cholecystectomy and common duct exploration from January 1982 through December 1986 were reviewed. Indications for duct exploration included jaundice, dilated common bile duct, gallstone pancreatitis, multiple small stones, and abnormal intraoperative cholangiogram. Common duct exploration was done by manual technique or choledochoscopy, as determined by the surgeon's preference. Only two patients required duodenotomy for extraction of difficult stones. There were no deaths in this series of consecutive common duct exploration. The total morbidity rate was 15.7%, which included a 5.3% incidence of retained common duct stones. There was a 7.4% major complication rate, including deep vein thrombosis, bleeding gastric ulcer, and pneumonia. The remaining complications were minor and did not prolong hospitalization. There was one wound infection and no postoperative pancreatitis. None of the complications were directly attributable to choledochotomy or duct exploration. All retained common duct stones were removed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or by angiographic basket and did not require reoperation. It is concluded that operative common duct exploration not requiring duodenotomy is safe and does not appreciably increase the incidence of complications after cholecystectomy. Endoscopic sphincterotomy continues to be the preferable alternative to operative common duct exploration for patients with retained common duct stones.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T N Pappas, T B Slimane, D C Brooks. 1990. 100 consecutive common duct explorations without mortality.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2310236/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Endoscopic stenting in benign pancreatic diseases.

The role of endoscopic therapy in the management of pancreatic diseases is continuously evolving; at present, most pathological conditions of the pancreas are successfully treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or both. Endoscopic placement of stents has played and still plays a major role in the treatment of chronic pancreatitis, pseudocysts, pancreas divisum, main pancreatic duct injuries, pancreatic fistulae, complications of acute pancreatitis, recurrent idiopathic pancreatitis and in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. These stents are currently routinely placed to reduce intraductal hypertension, bypass obstructing stones, restore lumen patency in cases with dominant, symptomatic strictures, seal main pancreatic duct disruption, drain pseudocysts or fluid collections, treat symptomatic major or minor papilla sphincter stenosis, and prevent procedure-induced acute pancreatitis. The present review aims at updating and discussing techniques, indications and results of endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement in acute and chronic inflammatory diseases of the pancreas.

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde↗

Optimizing choledocholithiasis management: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

HYPOTHESIS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is more cost-effective for managing incidental choledocholithiasis (CDL) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiogram (LC/IOC) than laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare ERCP with LCBDE. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the key contributors to cost-effectiveness between the 2 treatment options. SETTING: Costs were approached from the institutional perspective considering a typical patient undergoing LC/IOC at a large referral center. PATIENTS: The base case patient evaluated was a woman 18 years of age or older with symptomatic cholelithiasis and incidental CDL discovered at the time of LC/IOC. INTERVENTIONS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with drainage procedure performed after LC/IOC or LCBDE during LC/IOC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years gained, mean cost-effectiveness ratios, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, ERCP was the optimal treatment choice with a cost of $24 300 for 0.9 quality-adjusted life years gained compared with $28 400 and 0.88 quality-adjusted life years for LCBDE. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography remained the optimal strategy for CDL in multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis. If LCBDE were performed and the cost of a potential operative case lost was $3100 or less and the cost of ERCP hospitalization was $18 000 or more, then LCBDE became the preferred treatment for CDL. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was both less costly and more effective than LCBDE. Factors important to choosing the best strategy for CDL management included the cost of a potential case lost due to LCBDE performance and the cost of ERCP hospitalization.

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde↗