Mini-Invasive management of concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones : where is the evidence ( Review article).

BACKGROUND

The ideal mini-invasive management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) with concomitant gallbladder stones is debatable. This article aims to review the management of this condition during the last decade using the mini-invasive approach.

METHODS

A database research in Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Google Scholar during the period between January 2009 to December 2018 was performed. The keywords used were «ERCP», «common bile duct exploration», «endoscopic sphincterotomy», «laparoscopic surgery», «laparoscopic cholecystectomy», «choledocholithiasis», «common bile duct stones» «meta-analysis» and «randomized clinical trials».

RESULTS

There were 14 studies comparing mini-invasive procedures. There were nine meta-analysis, three reviews articles and two randomized clinical trials. We concluded to the absence of difference between the group laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with a laparoscopic exploration of CBD (LECBD) and LC with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in terms of mortality, morbidity, stones extraction success rate and duration of hospital stay. LC + ERCP is superior in terms of conversion and treatment cost. Concerning LC with a preoperative ERCP versus LC with postoperative ERCP, based on the literature data, no conclusions could be drawn. Concerning LC with LECBD versus LC with preoperative ERCP, we conclude to the absence of difference in terms of mortality, morbidity and conversion rate. Given the discordance of the results, in terms of successful extraction rate of stones, operating time and duration of hospital stay we cannot conclude to the superiority of one technique. Concerning LC with LECBD versus LC with postoperative ERCP, we conclude the absence of difference in terms of mortality, morbidity, the success rate of stones extraction, duration of hospital stays and conversion rate. Concerning LC with intraoperative ERCP versus LC with preoperative ERCP, we concluded to the absence of difference in terms of mortality, morbidity and rate of success stones extraction. The LC + intraoperative ERCP was superior in terms of hospital stay duration and conversion rate. Concerning one-stage versus two-stage treatment, we concluded to the absence of difference in terms of mortality, morbidity, the success rate of stone extraction, the conversion rate and the duration of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage or two-stages procedures are feasible and safe with equivalent efficacy. Surgeons must be aware of the different difficulties of these procedures and should be judicious in their use of different techniques.