Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Management of Gallstone Disease pp 307–326Cite as

Transcystic Stenting and Post-Operative ERCP for CBD Stones at Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1288 Accesses

Abstract

The clinical presentation and management of common bile duct stones or anticipated common bile duct stones is discussed in Chaps. 6, 7, 8 and 17. Briefly, unless a patient present with cholangitis or possibly persistent jaundice the better outcomes are associated with proceeding directly to a laparoscopic cholecystectomy with operative cholangiogram and either laparoscopic transcystic exploration (Chap. 20) or post-operative ERCP. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that pre-operative ERCP is associated with a higher morbidity than either post-operative ERCP or intra-operative laparoscopic exploration [1]. Furthermore, intraoperative ERCP has a poorer outcome compared to post-operative ERCP or laparoscopic operative exploration [1]. However, there is no apparent difference between laparoscopic transcystic exploration techniques or post-operative ERCP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  1. Nagaraja V, Eslick GD, Cox MR. Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive techniques for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21(12):896–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dias MM, Martin CJ, Cox MR. Pattern of management of common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era: a NSW survey. Aust N Z J Surg. 2002;72:181–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmitt CM, Baillie J, Cotton PB. ERCP following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a safe and effective way to manage common bile duct stones and complications. HBP Surg. 1995;8:187–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Szary NM, Al-Kawai FH. Complications of ERCP: how to avoid and manage them. Gastrol Hepatol. 2013;8:496–50.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, et al. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariant analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:80–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ratani RS, Mills TN, Ainley CC, Swain CP. Electrophysiological factors influencing endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:43–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multi-centre study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:525–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:383–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin CJ, Vaccaro L, Cox MR. Transcystic stenting for the management of common bile duct stones at laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aust NZ J Surg. 2002;72:258–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gersin KS, Fanelli RD. Laparoscopic endobiliary stenting as an adjunct to common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:301–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hong DF, Xim Y, Chen W. Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:424–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. El Geidie AA, El Shobary MM, Naeem Y. Laparoscopic exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones, a prospective randomised trial. Dig Surg. 2011;28:424–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis MP. Randomized trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet. 1998;351:159–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nathanson LK, O’Rourke NA, Martin IJ, et al. Post- operative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of selected bile duct calculi: a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242:188–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Andriullia L, Napolitano G, et al. Incidence rates of post ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1781–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multi-centre study. Gastrointest Endsoc. 1998;48:1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mascie T, Marian IA, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multi-centre study. M J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:417–23.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Knudson K, Raeburn CD, McIntyre RC, Shaw RJ, Chen YK, Brown WR, Stiegmann G. Management of duodenal and pancreaticobiliary perforations accocisted with periampullary endoscopic procedures. Am J Surg. 2008;196:975–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mao Z, Zhu Q, Wu W, Wang M, Li J, Lu A, Sun Y, Zheng M. Duodenal perforations after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: experience and management. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2008;5:691–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sarli L, Porrini C, Costi R, Regina G, Violi V, Ferro M, Roncoroni L. Operative treatment of periampullary retroperitoneal perforation complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Sugery. 2007;142:26–32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Sydney and Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    Michael R. Cox M.B.B.S., M.S., F.R.A.C.S.

Authors
  1. Michael R. Cox M.B.B.S., M.S., F.R.A.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Cox M.B.B.S., M.S., F.R.A.C.S. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Surgery, Nepean Clinical School University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Michael R. Cox

  2. Discipline of Surgery, The Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Guy D. Eslick

  3. Divisional Director of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Robert Padbury

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cox, M.R. (2018). Transcystic Stenting and Post-Operative ERCP for CBD Stones at Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. In: Cox, M., Eslick, G., Padbury, R. (eds) The Management of Gallstone Disease. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63884-3_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63884-3_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63882-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63884-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation