Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Comparison of laparoscopic choledochotomy closure techniques

  • 126 Accesses

  • 32 Citations

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (CBDE) has traditionally been accompanied by T-tube drainage. However, other methods of choledochotomy closures have been reported. This study compared three laparoscopic methods of choledochotomy closure in a prospective, randomized fashion to determine which method should be the preferred technique

Methods

In this porcine model, 24 animals initially underwent laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) clipping to simulate an obstruction. Two days later, the animals underwent laparoscopic clip removal and simulated CBDE through a 1.5-cm choledochotomy. The animals were then randomized to one of three groups: primary choledochotomy closure (group I), antegrade CBD stenting with primary closure (group II), or T-tube placement (group III). To assess for CBD stenoses and leaks, the animals were killed 2 months postoperatively, at which time a cholangiogram was performed and the bile duct harvested. The ratio of proximal CBD to choledochotomy site was assessed radiographically and histologically.

Results

The operative time was significantly longer in group III (200±13 min, p<0.05) than in group I (141±17 min) and group II (154±16 min). The ratio of the proximal CBD diameter to the choledochotomy site diameter by cholangiogram was 2.1:1.0 in group I, to 1.2:1.0 in group II, and 1.1:1.0 in group III (p<0.01). The ratio of the proximal CBD intraluminal area to the choledochotomy site intraluminal area was 2.1:1.0 in group I compared to 1.1:1.0 in groups II and III (p<0.01). None of the animals developed jaundice or sepsis.

Conclusion

Significant stenoses were present at the choledochotomy site in the primary closure group, and T-tube placement resulted in prolonged operative times. We conclude that laparoscopic antegrade CBD stenting with primary closure of the choledochotomy site is the preferred technique after choledochotomy in an animal model. Further assessment in a clinical trial is warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Berci G, Morgenstern L (1994) Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones: a multi-institutional SAGES study. Surg Endosc 8: 1168–1175

  2. 2.

    Bernstein DE, Goldberg RI, Unger SW (1994) Common bile duct obstruction following T-tube placement at laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 40: 362–365

  3. 3.

    Cameron BH, O’Regan PJ, Anderson DL (1994) A pig model for advanced laparoscopic biliary procedures. Surg Endosc 8: 1423–1424

  4. 4.

    Collins PG (1967) Further experience with common bile duct suture without intraductal drainage following choledochotomy. Br J Surg 54: 854–856

  5. 5.

    Curet MJ, Pitcher DE, Martin DT, Zucker KA (1995) Laparoscopic antegrade sphinterotomy: a new technique for the management of complex choledocholithiasis. Ann Surg 221: 149–155

  6. 6.

    Dellinger EP, Steer M, Weinstein M, Kirshenbaum G (1982) Adverse reactions following T-tube removal. World J Surg 6: 610–615

  7. 7.

    DePaula AL, Hashiba K, Bafutto M, Machado C, Ferrari A, Machado MM (1998) Results of the routine use of a modified endoprosthesis to drain the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy. Surg Endosc 12: 933–935

  8. 8.

    DeRoover D, Vanderveken M, Gerard Y (1989) Choledochotomy: primary closure versus T-tube. A prospective trial. Acta Chir Belg 89: 320–324

  9. 9.

    Dorman JP, Franklin ME, Glass JL (1998) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration by choledochotomy. Surg Endosc 12: 926–928

  10. 10.

    Franklin ME, Pharand D, Rosenthal D (1994) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4: 119–124

  11. 11.

    Gersin KS, Fanelli RD (1998) Laparoscopic endobiliary stenting as an adjunct to common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 12: 301–304

  12. 12.

    Krauss H, Kern E (1967) Some current problems of biliary tract surgery: indications and technique of choledochotomy, intraoperative cholangiomanometry, primary closure of the common bile duct. Surgery 62: 983–987

  13. 13.

    Lange V, Rau HG, Schardey HM, Meyer G (1993) Laparoscopic stenting for protection of common bile duct sutures. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3: 466–469

  14. 14.

    Lygidakis NJ (1986) Hazards following T-tube removal after choledochotomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 163: 153–155

  15. 15.

    Martin IJ, Bailey IS, Rhodes M, O’Rourke N, Nathason L, Fielding G (1998) Towards T-tube free laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Ann Surg 228: 29–34

  16. 16.

    Sawyers JL, Herrington Jr JL, Edwards WH (1965) Primary closure of the common bile duct. Am J Surg 109: 107–112

  17. 17.

    Sheen-Chen SM, Chou FF (1990) Choledochotomy for biliary lithiasis: is routine T-tube drainage necessary? A prospective controlled trial. Acta Chir Scand 156: 387–390

  18. 18.

    Thors H, Gudjonsson H, Oddsson Einar, Cariglia N (1994) Endoscopic retrieval of a biliary T-tube remnant. Gastrointest Endosc 40: 241–242

  19. 19.

    Tsunoda T, Kusano T, Furukawa M, Eto T, Tsuchiya R (1991) Common bile duct exploration — primary closure of the duct with retrograde transhepatic biliary drainage. Jap J Surg 21: 162–166

  20. 20.

    Williams JAR, Treacy PJ, Sidey P, Worthley CS, Townsend NCW, Russell EAD (1994) Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage following exploration of the common bile duct. Aust N Z J Surg 64: 823–826

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to J. S. Wu.

Additional information

Online publication: 14 June 2002

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, J.S., Soper, N.J. Comparison of laparoscopic choledochotomy closure techniques. Surg Endosc 16, 1309–1313 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640080016

Download citation

Key words

  • Common bile duct exploration
  • Choledochotomy
  • T-tube
  • Laparoscopy
  • Gallbladder