Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conversion rate of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the treatment of choledocholithiasis: Does the time interval matter?

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Preceding endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) in patients with choledochocystolithiasis impedes laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and increases risk of conversion. We studied the influence of time interval between ERC and LC on the course of LC.

Methods

All patients treated for choledochocystolithiasis with ERC and LC during 1996–2001 were studied retrospectively, comparing the course of LC in three time interval groups; LC < 2, 2–6, and > 6 weeks after ERC. Primary outcomes: adhesions, bile duct injury, operating time, and conversion-rate.

Results

Eighty-three patients were studied (group 1, n = 23; group 2, n = 15; group 3, n = 45). Adhesions, operation time, and bile duct damage did not significantly differ between the groups. The conversion rate in group 2 is significantly higher compared to group 1 (p = 0.027, OR 11 (1.13–106.8))

Conclusions

A higher conversion rate of LC is found 2–6 weeks after ERC compared to LC within 2 weeks. However, further research is needed to gain more reliable data on whether this is caused by timing.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. O Alimoglu OV Ozkan M Sahin A Akcakaya R Eryilmaz G Bas (2003) ArticleTitleTiming of cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis: outcomes of cholecystectomy on first admission and after recurrent biliary pancreatitis World J Surg 27 256–259 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00268-002-6647-3 Occurrence Handle12607047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. D Boerma EA Rauws YC Keulemans IM Janssen CJ Bolwerk R Timmer EJ Boerma H Obertop K Huibregtse DJ Gouma (2002) ArticleTitleWait-and-see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile-duct stones: a randomised trial Lancet 360 761–765 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09896-3 Occurrence Handle12241833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. P Boraschi R Gigoni G Braccini M Lamacchia M Rossi F Falaschi (2002) ArticleTitleDetection of common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Evaluation with MR cholangiography Acta Radiol 43 593–598 Occurrence Handle10.1034/j.1600-0455.2002.430610.x Occurrence Handle12485257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. J Cervantes G Rojas (2001) ArticleTitleCholedocholithiasis: new approach to an old problem World J Surg 25 1270–1272 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00268-001-0108-2 Occurrence Handle11596888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. KK Chang LR Mo MP Yau RC Lin JY Kuo CC Tsai (1996) ArticleTitleEndoscopic sphincterotomy prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholelithiasis Hepatogastroenterology 43 203–206 Occurrence Handle8682464

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. QQ Contractor AK Karkaria TQ Contractor MK Dubian (2004) ArticleTitleImpact of magnetic resonance cholangiography on endoscopic therapy before and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy Indian J Gastroenterol 23 8–11 Occurrence Handle15106707

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. A Cuschieri (1996) ArticleTitleOf stones and bile ducts, single- vs two-stage management Surg Endosc 10 1124 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900262 Occurrence Handle8939826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. A Cuschieri E Lezoche M Morino E Croce A Lacy J Toouli A Faggioni VM Ribeiro J Jakimowicz J Visa GB Hanna (1999) ArticleTitleE.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi Surg Endosc 13 952–957 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649901145 Occurrence Handle10526025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. J Hill DP Martin DE Tweedle (1991) ArticleTitleRisks of leaving the gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones Br J Surg 78 554–557 Occurrence Handle2059804

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. ZW Ke CZ Zheng JH Li K Yin JD Hua (2003) ArticleTitleProspective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with suspected common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2 576–580 Occurrence Handle14627523

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. KH Lai LF Lin GH Lo JS Cheng RL Huang CK Lin JS Huang PI Hsu NJ Peng LP Ger (1999) ArticleTitleDoes cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy prevent the recurrence of biliary complications? Gastrointest Endosc 49 483–487 Occurrence Handle10202063

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. PB Lai KH Kwong KL Leung SP Kwok AC Chan SC Chung WY Lau (1998) ArticleTitleRandomized trial of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis Br J Surg 85 764–767 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00708.x Occurrence Handle9667702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. CL Liu E CS Lai CM Lo KM Chu ST Fan J Wong (1996) ArticleTitleCombined laparoscopic and endoscopic approach in patients with cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis Surgery 119 534–537 Occurrence Handle8619209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. TH Liu ET Consorti A Kawashima RD Ernst CT Black PH Greger SuffixJr. RP Fischer DW Mercer (1999) ArticleTitleThe efficacy of magnetic resonance cholangiography for the evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy Am J Surg 178 480–484 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00224-X Occurrence Handle10670857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. J Perissat K Huibregtse FB Keane RC Russell JP Neoptolemos (1994) ArticleTitleManagement of bile duct stones in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy Br J Surg 81 799–810 Occurrence Handle8044588

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. EH Phillips M Liberman BJ Carroll MJ Fallas RJ Rosenthal JR Hiatt (1995) ArticleTitleBile duct stones in the laparoscopic era Is preoperative sphincterotomy necessary? Arch Surg 130 880–885

    Google Scholar 

  17. F Prat NA Malak G Pelletier C Buffet J Fritsch AD Choury C Altman C Liguory JP Etienne (1996) ArticleTitleBiliary symptoms and complications more than 8 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis Gastroenterology 110 894–899 Occurrence Handle10.1053/gast.1996.v110.pm8608900 Occurrence Handle8608900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. M Rhodes L Sussman L Cohen MP Lewis (1998) ArticleTitleRandomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones Lancet 351 159–161 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09175-7 Occurrence Handle9449869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. L Sarli DR Iusco L Roncoroni (2003) ArticleTitlePreoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: 10-year experience World J Surg 27 180–186 Occurrence Handle12616433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. RM Soetikno H Monies DL Carr-Locke (1998) ArticleTitleEndoscopic management of choledocholithiasis J Clin Gastroenterol 27 296–305 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00004836-199812000-00004 Occurrence Handle9855257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. GV Stiegmann JS Goff A Mansour N Pearlman RM Reveille L Norton (1992) ArticleTitlePrecholecystectomy endoscopic cholangiography and stone removal is not superior to cholecystectomy, cholangiography, and common duct exploration Am J Surg 163 227–230 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0002-9610(92)90106-2 Occurrence Handle1739177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. CR Welbourn DE Beckly IA Eyre-Brook (1995) ArticleTitleEndoscopic sphincterotomy without cholecystectomy forgall stone pancreatitis Gut 37 119–120 Occurrence Handle7672659

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Dr. M.A. Boermeester, surgeon of the Academic Medical Centre, for statistical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1100, Amsterdam, DE, The Netherlands

    A. de. Vries

  2. OLVG Hospital, Oosterpark 9, 1090, Amsterdam, HM, The Netherlands

    S. C. Donkervoort

  3. Isala Clinics, Groot Wezenland 20, 8011, Zwolle, JW, The Netherlands

    A.A.W. van Geloven & E.G.J.M. Pierik

Authors
  1. A. de. Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. C. Donkervoort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A.A.W. van Geloven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E.G.J.M. Pierik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. de. Vries.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vries, A.d., Donkervoort, S.C., van Geloven, A. et al. Conversion rate of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the treatment of choledocholithiasis: Does the time interval matter?. Surg Endosc 19, 996–1001 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2206-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2206-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation