Surgery vs Endoscopy as Primary Treatment in Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Common Bile Duct StonesA Multicenter Randomized Trial
Open Access
- 1 July 1998
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of Surgery
- Vol. 133 (7) , 702-708
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.133.7.702
Abstract
WHEN choledocholithiasis is associated with acute pancreatitis, a recent trial has shown that endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) was not superior to conventional treatment, as regards overall mortality, mortality due to pancreatitis, and complications.1 In patients with severe pancreatitis, early ES (either 2 or 72 hours). In patients with severe cholangitis, endoscopic drainage is superior to surgery.4 In other types of symptomatic choledocholithiasis, ie, with jaundice, mild pancreatitis, mild cholangitis, or biliary colic with biochemical signs of cholestasis, 2 therapeutic options are presently available, namely, surgical treatment (ST) and endoscopic management (EM). The latter includes endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) associated with ES and the extraction of stones whenever found. At least 6 controlled trials5-10 have shown that immediate mortality was not significantly different, ranging from 0% to 4% in patients having ST and from 0% to 6% in patients having EM. Endoscopic management would be a valuable therapeutic alternative if the gallbladder could be left in situ.7-9 When the gallbladder is left in situ, however, 20%7 to 40%8,9 of patients will require a second operation for biliary complications in the months or years after EM. Two operative strategies have been proposed to avoid these risks, early routine cholecystectomy either during the same hospital admission5-7,10 or only when necessary.8,9 To choose the better of the 2 strategies, the rate and the risks of early additional procedures must be known. "Early additional procedures" are defined as those necessary to do because of the impossibility of performing the initial procedure, complications, and retained stones (including either repetition of the initial procedure or the necessity of another procedure). Additional procedures are associated with a second anesthesia and a second intervention, both representing extra costs and risks. For these reasons, it appeared necessary to compare the early results of ST and EM on an intention-to-treat basis in a multicenter trial controlled by randomization.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Early ERCP and Papillotomy Compared with Conservative Treatment for Acute Biliary PancreatitisNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- Prospective evaluation in 121 consecutive unselected patients undergoing laparoscopic treatment of choledocholithiasisBritish Journal of Surgery, 1995
- Reappraisal of safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones in the elderlyThe American Journal of Surgery, 1995
- Early Treatment of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis by Endoscopic PapillotomyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- Precholecystectomy endoscopic cholangiography and stone removal is not superior to cholecystectomy, cholangiography, and common duct explorationThe American Journal of Surgery, 1992
- CONTROLLED TRIAL OF URGENT ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY AND ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY VERSUS CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT FOR ACUTE PANCREATITIS DUE TO GALLSTONESThe Lancet, 1988