Decision analysis of minimally invasive management options for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis

被引:11
作者
Bradley, Alison [1 ]
Sami, Sharukh [1 ]
Hemadasa, Niroshini [1 ]
Macleod, Anne [1 ]
Brown, Leo R. [1 ]
Apollos, Jeyakumar [1 ]
机构
[1] Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirm, Dept Gen Surg, Cargenbridge DG2 8RX, Dumfries, Scotland
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2020年 / 34卷 / 12期
关键词
Cholecysto-choledocholithiasis; ERCP; Gallstones; COMMON BILE-DUCT; INTRAOPERATIVE ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY; PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; SINGLE-STAGE MANAGEMENT; CONCOMITANT GALLBLADDER STONES; LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY; GALLSTONE DISEASE; 2-STAGE MANAGEMENT; PREOPERATIVE ERCP; COMPARING; 2-STAGE;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-020-07816-w
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is controversial with the risks and benefits of one versus two-stage approaches debated. This study aims to perform decision analysis of minimally invasive laparo-endoscopic approaches. Methods An advanced decision tree was constructed to compare pre, intra and post-operative ERCP and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in terms of primary ductal clearance and significant complications for patients intended to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomised controlled trials following a comprehensive literature search. Model uncertainties were extensively tested through deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. Utility outcomes were 1 and 0.5 for successful primary clearance without and with complications, respectively, and 0 for failure of primary clearance of the duct. Results Twenty-one studies (n = 2697) were included in the analysis. At base case analysis, a laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach had the highest utility output (0.90; no complication probability: 0.87/complication probability 0.06). Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration was ranked second with a utility output 0.87 (no complication probability: 0.82/complication probability 0.10). Pre-operative ERCP utility score was 0.84 (no complication probability: 0.78/ complication probability 0.11) and post-operative ERCP utility score was 0.78 (no complication probability: 0.71/complication probability 0.13). Monte Carlo analysis showed that laparo-endoscopic rendezvous and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration had an equal mean utility output of 0.57 (standard deviation 0.36; variance 0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.00-0.99 versus standard deviation 0.34; variance 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.98). Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous had a superior treatment selection frequency of 39.93% followed by laparoscopic bile duct exploration (36.11%), pre-operative ERCP (20.67%) and post-operative ERCP (2.99%). Conclusion One-stage approach to the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis is superior to two-stage, in terms of primary clearance of the duct and risk of operative morbidity. Laparo-endoscopic rendezvous approach could offer marginal additional benefit but more high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed.
引用
收藏
页码:5211 / 5222
页数:12
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   Meta-analysis of one- vs. two-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of common bile duct stones [J].
Alexakis, Nicholas ;
Connor, Saxon .
HPB, 2012, 14 (04) :254-+
[2]   Risk factors for recurrent bile duct stones after endoscopic papillotomy [J].
Ando, T ;
Tsuyuguchi, T ;
Okugawa, T ;
Saito, M ;
Ishihara, T ;
Yamaguchi, T ;
Saisho, H .
GUT, 2003, 52 (01) :116-121
[3]   A prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage versus single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and common bile duct stones [J].
Bansal, Virinder K. ;
Misra, Mahesh C. ;
Garg, Pramod ;
Prabhu, Manik .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2010, 24 (08) :1986-1989
[4]   Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones: a randomized controlled trial [J].
Bansal, Virinder Kumar ;
Misra, Mahesh C. ;
Rajan, Karthik ;
Kilambi, Ragini ;
Kumar, Subodh ;
Krishna, Asuri ;
Kumar, Atin ;
Pandav, Chandrakant S. ;
Subramaniam, Rajeshwari ;
Arora, M. K. ;
Garg, Pramod Kumar .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2014, 28 (03) :875-885
[5]   Endoscopic versus laparoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized controlled trial [J].
Barreras Gonzalez, Javier Ernesto ;
Torres Pena, Rafael ;
Ruiz Torres, Julian ;
Martinez Alfonso, Miguel Angel ;
Brizuela Quintanilla, Raul ;
Morera Perez, Maricela .
ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN, 2016, 4 (11) :E1188-E1193
[6]   Outcome and management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography perforations: A community perspective [J].
Bray, Mallory S. ;
Borgert, Andrew J. ;
Folkers, Milan E. ;
Kothari, Shanu N. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 214 (01) :69-73
[7]   Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ [J].
Clayton, E. S. J. ;
Connor, S. ;
Alexakis, N. ;
Leandros, E. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2006, 93 (10) :1185-1191
[8]   EAES multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi [J].
Cuschieri, A ;
Lezoche, E ;
Morino, M ;
Croce, E ;
Lacy, A ;
Toouli, J ;
Faggioni, A ;
Ribeiro, VM ;
Jakimowicz, J ;
Visa, J ;
Hanna, GB .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY-ULTRASOUND AND INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 1999, 13 (10) :952-957
[9]   Single-Stage vs. Two-Stage Management for Concomitant Gallstones and Common Bile Duct stones: A Prospective Randomized Trial with Long-Term Follow-up [J].
Ding, Guoqian ;
Cai, Wang ;
Qin, Mingfang .
JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2014, 18 (05) :947-951
[10]   Laparoscopic Exploration versus Intraoperative Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Common Bile Duct Stones: A Prospective Randomized Trial [J].
ElGeidie, Ahmed A. ;
ElShobary, Mohamed M. ;
Naeenn, Yussef M. .
DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 28 (5-6) :424-431