Search

Background: Clinicians must choose a treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis without knowing whether common bile duct (CBD) stones are present. The purpose of this study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible CBD stones., Study Design: Our decision model included 5 treatment strategies: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) alone followed by expectant management; preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by LC; LC with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) ± common bile duct exploration (CBDE); LC followed by postoperative ERCP; and LC with IOC ± postoperative ERCP. The rates of successful completion of diagnostic testing and therapeutic intervention, test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity), morbidity, and mortality for all procedures are from current literature. Hospitalization costs and lengths of stay are from the 2006 National Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The probability of CBD stones was varied from 0% to 100% and the most cost-effective strategy was determined at each probability., Results: Across the CBD stone probability range of 4% to 100%, LC with IOC ± ERCP was the most cost-effective. If the probability was 0%, LC alone was the most cost-effective. Our model was sensitive to 1 health input: specificity of IOC, and 3 costs: cost of hospitalization for LC with CBDE, cost of hospitalization for LC without CBDE, and cost of LC with IOC., Conclusions: The most cost-effective treatment strategy for the majority of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is LC with routine IOC. If stones are detected, CBDE should be forgone and the patient referred for ERCP., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) has been advocated as a viable strategy to reduce common bile duct injury (CDI) during cholecystectomy. This is predicated, in part, on the low cost of IOC, making it a cost-effective preventive strategy. Using billed hospital charges as a proxy for costs, we sought to estimate costs associated with the performance of IOC., Methods: The 2001 National Inpatient Survey (NIS) database was assessed for IOC utilization and associated charges. Average charges for hospital admission where the primary procedure was laparoscopic cholecystectomy were compared for those associated with and without the performance of IOC., Results: Eighteen percent of cholecystectomies were performed in facilities that never perform IOC. Routine IOC (defined as >75% of cholecystectomies performed in any one hospital having a concomitant IOC) was performed in only 11% of hospitals. In the remaining 71% of hospitals, selective IOC was performed. IOCs were associated with US $706-739 in additional hospital charges when performed in conjunction with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We project a cost of US $371,356 to prevent a single bile duct injury by using routine cholangiography., Conclusion: We conclude that only a minority of hospitals performs cholecystectomies with routine IOC. Because of the significant amount of hospital charges attributable to IOC, routine IOC is not cost-effective as a preventative measure against bile duct injury during cholecystectomy.

Background: The detection of small and often asymptomatic gallbladder calculi within the bile duct at intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) frequently poses a management dilemma. Therefore, we set out to compare the outcomes and costs of two management strategies for small stones that remain in the bile duct after LC-routine postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) vs observation alone with "on-demand" ERCP., Methods: We studied 70 patients with bile duct stones among 922 consecutive patients who underwent LC between 1990 and 1997. Data were collected prospectively. Bile duct calculi were detected in 70 of 705 patients (9.9%) with successful IOC. Of these, 44 patients had large calculi (> or =5 mm in diameter) and were subjected to a laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. The remaining 26 patients had small calculi (<5 mm in diameter); four of them had undergone preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and duct clearance and were therefore excluded from analysis. Patients with small duct calculi were assigned, according to individual surgeon policy, to either routine postoperative ERCP (group A, n = 8) or observation (group B, n = 14). ERCP was reserved for those who become symptomatic. The two groups were comparable for age and sex distribution., Results: No complications developed during the follow-up period in patients assigned to observation, although four became symptomatic and underwent ERCP. In group A, ERCP demonstrated a clear biliary tree in four patients and bile duct calculi in three patients; it failed in one patient. In group B, ERCP demonstrated a clear bile duct in one patient and bile duct calculi in two patients; it also failed in one patient. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and duct clearance were achieved in all patients with demonstrable bile duct calculi at ERCP. There was no morbidity or mortality associated with ERCP. The overall hospital stay was significantly longer in group A than in group B (median 5 vs 1.5 days; p = 0.011); however, the number of outpatient clinic visits was significantly greater in group b (median 3 vs 5.5, p = 0.011). The mean hospital costs, including the costs of hospital stay, readmissions, ERCP, and follow-up, were significantly greater in group A than in group B (mean pound2669 vs pound1508, p = 0.008)., Conclusion: A "wait and see" policy of observation alone for patients with small bile duct calculi detected at IOC during LC appears to be safe, and it is more cost-effective than routine postoperative ERCP. ERCP should be reserved for post-LC patients who become symptomatic.

Seven hundred sixty-five patients were operated on in two hospitals in 1979 and 1980, 190 of whom were submitted to operative cholangiography, 41 to primary common duct exploration, and 534 to neither. The incidence of common duct stones was 4 percent in the minimal indications group, 21 percent in the moderate indications group, and 91 percent in the maximal indications group. Follow-up of 5 years revealed 1 recurrence in the minimal group subjected to cholangiography and none among the 534 in whom no cholangiogram was obtained. In the period from 1981 through 1985, eight patients returned with common duct stones, having had no common duct stones at the primary operation. In the same period, 1,722 of 2,533 patients were operated on without cholangiography. The ratio of recurrences to primary operations without cholangiography was 1:225 or 0.45 percent. From these findings, we conclude that on the basis of cost-effectiveness and insurance against subsequent disease and disability, cholangiography is only indicated in patients with moderate indications (minimal jaundice, moderately dilated common duct, pancreatitis, or an increased serum amylase level). Cholangiography is not indicated if there are no indications of obstruction of the common duct by stones (as a routine for small stones in the gallbladder, if the cystic duct is patent, or if there is an isolated increased serum alkaline phosphatase level). Cholangiography is also unnecessary, when the indications of common duct stones are maximal (deep jaundice, huge common duct, cholangitis, or palpable stone). In our geographic area, intraoperative cholangiography should be selected in 7 to 8 percent of patients.