These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Choledocholithiasis: endoscopic versus laparoscopic management.
    Author: Heili MJ, Wintz NK, Fowler DL.
    Journal: Am Surg; 1999 Feb; 65(2):135-8. PubMed ID: 9926747.
    Abstract:
    Choledocholithiasis is present in 6 to 10 per cent of patients who have cholelithiasis. In the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde sphincterotomy (ERCP/ERS) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LSCBDE) have been used to treat choledocholithiasis. The purpose of this study is to compare ERCP/ERS with LSCBDE. A retrospective review of 913 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy identified 61 patients who had ERCP/ERS or LSCBDE to treat choledocholithiasis at a community medical center between 1990 and 1996. Outcome parameters were hospital length of stay (LOS), hospital cost, and complications. The results were: ERCP (n=26; LOS, 5.0+/-3.6 days; cost, $11,823+/-$7,000; complications, 23.1%); LSCBDE (n=35; LOS, 3.4+/-2.4 days; cost, $9,100+/-$2,884; complications, 2.9%); and P value (LOS, 0.028; cost, 0.066; complications, 0.034). LSCBDE results in a significantly shorter LOS and significantly fewer complications, and is less costly than ERCP/ERS. LSCBDE, when feasible, should be considered the gold standard for the management of choledocholithiasis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]