OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and efficacy of the laparoscopic intraoperative rendezvous technique for common bile duct stones (CBDS). DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy. PATIENTS: A total of 110 patients were enrolled in the study; 47 had biliary colic; 39, acute cholecystitis; 19, acute biliary pancreatitis; and 5, acute biliary pancreatitis with associated acute cholecystitis. INTERVENTIONS: In all patients, CBDS diagnosis was reached by intraoperative cholangiography. Intraoperative endoscopy with rendezvous performed during laparascopic cholecystectomy for confirmed CBDS; for such a procedure, a transcystic guide wire was positioned into the duodenum. Intraoperative endoscopy with rendezvous was performed for retrieved CBDS during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Laparoscopic rendezvous feasibility, morbidity, postprocedure pancreatitis, and mortality. RESULTS: The laparoscopic rendezvous proved to be feasible in 95.5% (105 of 110 patients). The rendezvous failed in 3 cases of successfully performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and a conversion of the laparoscopy was needed in 2 cases of successful rendezvous. Two major complications and 2 cases of bleeding were registered after sphincterotomy was successfully performed with rendezvous, and severe acute pancreatitis complicated a traditional sphincterotomy performed after a failed rendezvous. CONCLUSIONS: Rendezvous is a feasible option for treatment of CBDS; it allows one to perform only 1 stage of treatment, even in acute cases such as cholecystitis and pancreatitis. Positioning of the guide wire may allow reduced complications secondary to papilla cannulation but not those of the endoscopic sphincterotomy.

Treatment for retrieved common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the rendez-vous technique.

BORZELLINO, Giuseppe;RODELLA, LUCA;SALADINO, Edoardo;CATALANO, FILIPPO;CORDIANO, Claudio
2010

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and efficacy of the laparoscopic intraoperative rendezvous technique for common bile duct stones (CBDS). DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy. PATIENTS: A total of 110 patients were enrolled in the study; 47 had biliary colic; 39, acute cholecystitis; 19, acute biliary pancreatitis; and 5, acute biliary pancreatitis with associated acute cholecystitis. INTERVENTIONS: In all patients, CBDS diagnosis was reached by intraoperative cholangiography. Intraoperative endoscopy with rendezvous performed during laparascopic cholecystectomy for confirmed CBDS; for such a procedure, a transcystic guide wire was positioned into the duodenum. Intraoperative endoscopy with rendezvous was performed for retrieved CBDS during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Laparoscopic rendezvous feasibility, morbidity, postprocedure pancreatitis, and mortality. RESULTS: The laparoscopic rendezvous proved to be feasible in 95.5% (105 of 110 patients). The rendezvous failed in 3 cases of successfully performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and a conversion of the laparoscopy was needed in 2 cases of successful rendezvous. Two major complications and 2 cases of bleeding were registered after sphincterotomy was successfully performed with rendezvous, and severe acute pancreatitis complicated a traditional sphincterotomy performed after a failed rendezvous. CONCLUSIONS: Rendezvous is a feasible option for treatment of CBDS; it allows one to perform only 1 stage of treatment, even in acute cases such as cholecystitis and pancreatitis. Positioning of the guide wire may allow reduced complications secondary to papilla cannulation but not those of the endoscopic sphincterotomy.
Common bile duct stones; Cholecystectomy; Minimally invasive; Laparoscopy; Endoscopy.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/349096
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 22
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 20
social impact