Search

Acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) is rare in childhood and endoscopic sphincterotomy should be avoided in the child due to the risk of both early and late complications but, when necessary, the optimal timing between endoscopic procedure and cholecystectomy is still uncertain. A nine years old child with acute biliary pancreatitis underwent successful laparo-endoscopic "Rendez-Vous" procedure in which endoscopic drainage of the common bile duct and laparoscopic cholecystectomy were performed simultaneously. This is the first case reported of laparo-endoscopic Rendez-Vous in a child. The excellent outcome of this patient and the review of the literature concerning other available options for the treatment of such cases suggest that this procedure offers great advantages, especially in children, of reducing the required number of treatments, the risk of ineffectiveness, the number of anaesthesia, the length of hospital stay and the risk of iatrogenic morbidity.

Different approaches are available for the treatment of combined cholecystocholedocholithiasis including totally laparoscopic (TL) treatment, simultaneous laparoendoscopic treatment, and sequential treatments (ST) combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with cholecystectomy. This review aimed to clarify the issue of the simultaneous laparoendoscopic rendezvous (RV). A careful analysis of papers was performed to determine the results, technical differences, limits, disadvantages, and advantages of RV compared with other options. Data were collected from 27 papers concerning 795 patients. The overall effectiveness of RV was 92.3%. The morbidity rate was 5.1%, and the mortality rate was 0.37%. Almost all the authors were satisfied with the procedure. The authors’ comparison to ST and TL showed that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages mostly related to logistical problems. There is confusion concerning the definitions and techniques of RV due to differences in combining surgical and endoscopic steps of the procedure. The results are at least comparable with those of the other available approaches. The effectiveness of RV is greater with reciprocal implementation of surgical and endoscopic procedures. The morbidity and the risk of iatrogenic damage seem lower than with ERCP-ES and the risk of residual stones lower than with TL treatment. The RV procedure is safe and can sometimes be the preferable option, but collaboration between surgeon and endoscopist is mandatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]