Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Laparacosopic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration in Concomitant Gallstone and Common Bile Duct Stone

Authors

  • Stefanus Satrio Ranty Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia/Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General National Hospital, Jakarta
  • Anggilia Stephanie Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia/Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General National Hospital, Jakarta
  • E Mudjaddid Division of Psychosomatic, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia/Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General National Hospital, Jakarta
  • Ari Fahrial Syam Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia/Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General National Hospital, Jakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24871/171201668-74

Keywords:

concomitant, gallstone, common bile duct stone, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparascopic with common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), stone clearance, mortality

Abstract

Aim: Cholecystolithiasis is frequently accompanied with choledocholithiasis, with the incidence ranged from 8-20%. The current management of concomitant cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis is varied, either Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) or LC followed by ERCP, or single-step procedure, i.e. LC with common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). This evidence-based case report (EBCR) will compare the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety between the ERCP+LC and LCBDE.

Method: The article search was done through PubMed, EBSCO, dan Cochrane at 1st December 2015 using keywords ERCP, LC, gallstone, common bile duct. Two meta-analyses and two randomized clinical trial were found and critical appraisal was done to all four articles.

Results: All four studies showed similar stone clearance for both procedures. One meta-analysis showed better clearance in single procedure (OR = 1,56; 95% CI: 1,05-2,33; p: 0,03; heterogeneity: I2 = 42%). Mortality and morbidity rate, complication, and the need of another procedure were no difference between single-step and two-step procedure. Length of stay and cost effectiveness were better in single-step procedure in all studies.

Conclusion: Single-step procedure may show better result in stone clearance, cost-effectiveness, and length of stay. However, this procedure may be limited, thus can only be done in health center with sufficient resources. ERCP followed by LC is still the preferred procedure, especially in patient with worse performance status and limited health center.

 

Downloads

Published

2016-05-01

How to Cite

Ranty, S. S., Stephanie, A., Mudjaddid, E., & Syam, A. F. (2016). Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy versus Laparacosopic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration in Concomitant Gallstone and Common Bile Duct Stone. The Indonesian Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Digestive Endoscopy, 17(1), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.24871/171201668-74

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 1 (2016): VOLUME 17, NUMBER 1, April 2016

Section

Case Reports

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).