Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
April 1996

An Alternative Approach of Choledocholithotomy via Laparoscopic Choledochotomy

Author Affiliations

From the Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Veterans General Hospital—Taipei (Drs Huang, Wu, Chau, Jwo, Lui, and P'eng), and the College of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei (Drs Huang, Wu, Chau, Lui, and P'eng), Taiwan.

Arch Surg. 1996;131(4):407-411. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430160065012

Objective:  To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic choledocholithotomy via choledochotomy for the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

Design:  A prospective series of 1332 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomies, with a mean follow-up of 21.2 months.

Setting:  University-affiliated referral center. Patients: Forty-three patients (3%) with documented common bile duct stones from January 1991 to February 1995.

Interventions:  Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with choledochotomy and T tube drainage were performed in 40 patients. Postoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy after laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in three patients.

Main Outcome Measures:  Documented removal of common bile duct stones and procedure-related complications.

Results:  Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy via choledochotomy was successful in 35 (88%) of 40 patients in whom this procedure was attempted. The mean (±SD) operation time was 191.3±75.4 minutes, and the mean (±SD) length of postoperative stay was 10.4±2.7 days. Seven complications (18%) were recorded, including three major complications (8%) and two retained stones (5%).

Conclusions:  Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy via choledochotomy can be performed safely, without increasing the morbidity rate as compared with that of open choledocholithotomy. Thus, some of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are preserved.(Arch Surg. 1996;131:407-411)