Single-session laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP: a valid option for the management of choledocholithiasis

Reema Mallick, Kevin Rank, Carrie Ronstrom, Stuart K. Amateau, Mustafa Arain, Rajeev Attam, Martin L. Freeman, James V. Harmon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aims The option for performing ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for the management of choledocholithiasis in the same operative session is often overlooked. We compared the success, safety, and cost of ERCP and LC when performed in either a single session or in separate sessions. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a U.S. tertiary care hospital. We identified patients undergoing ERCP and LC between April 2011 and August 2014 in either a single operative session (n = 33) or in 2 separate sessions within a 30-day period (n = 80). Technical success, total anesthesia duration, operative time, length of hospitalization, cost of care, and morbidity and mortality were evaluated. Results Bile duct clearance was achieved in all patients at ERCP in the same-session cohort. The separate versus single-session groups, respectively, did not differ in terms of total procedure times (mean ± SD = 142 ± 64 vs 142 ± 58 min; t test, P =.98), anesthesia duration (251 ± 64 vs 225 ± 69 min; P =.06), or overall cost (49.3 ± 24.5 vs 42.3 ± 23.2 ×1000 USD; P =.167), but hospitalization was longer in the separate-sessions group (6.2 ± 3.3 vs 4.8 ± 2.6 days; P =.03). The rates of adverse events were similarly low (7% vs 2%, P =.70). Conclusions Performing single-session ERCP and LC is safe, effective, economically viable, and reduces hospital stay compared with performing ERCP and LC during separate sessions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)639-645
Number of pages7
JournalGastrointestinal endoscopy
Volume84
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Choledocholithiasis
Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Hospitalization
Anesthesia
Tertiary Healthcare
Operative Time
Bile Ducts
Tertiary Care Centers
Length of Stay
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Morbidity
Safety
Mortality

Cite this

Single-session laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP : a valid option for the management of choledocholithiasis. / Mallick, Reema; Rank, Kevin; Ronstrom, Carrie; Amateau, Stuart K.; Arain, Mustafa; Attam, Rajeev; Freeman, Martin L.; Harmon, James V.

In: Gastrointestinal endoscopy, Vol. 84, No. 4, 01.01.2016, p. 639-645.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4d6d078b25f14f1ba30fecffa2fb6cd4,
title = "Single-session laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP: a valid option for the management of choledocholithiasis",
abstract = "Background and Aims The option for performing ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for the management of choledocholithiasis in the same operative session is often overlooked. We compared the success, safety, and cost of ERCP and LC when performed in either a single session or in separate sessions. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a U.S. tertiary care hospital. We identified patients undergoing ERCP and LC between April 2011 and August 2014 in either a single operative session (n = 33) or in 2 separate sessions within a 30-day period (n = 80). Technical success, total anesthesia duration, operative time, length of hospitalization, cost of care, and morbidity and mortality were evaluated. Results Bile duct clearance was achieved in all patients at ERCP in the same-session cohort. The separate versus single-session groups, respectively, did not differ in terms of total procedure times (mean ± SD = 142 ± 64 vs 142 ± 58 min; t test, P =.98), anesthesia duration (251 ± 64 vs 225 ± 69 min; P =.06), or overall cost (49.3 ± 24.5 vs 42.3 ± 23.2 ×1000 USD; P =.167), but hospitalization was longer in the separate-sessions group (6.2 ± 3.3 vs 4.8 ± 2.6 days; P =.03). The rates of adverse events were similarly low (7{\%} vs 2{\%}, P =.70). Conclusions Performing single-session ERCP and LC is safe, effective, economically viable, and reduces hospital stay compared with performing ERCP and LC during separate sessions.",
author = "Reema Mallick and Kevin Rank and Carrie Ronstrom and Amateau, {Stuart K.} and Mustafa Arain and Rajeev Attam and Freeman, {Martin L.} and Harmon, {James V.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.050",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "639--645",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Single-session laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP

T2 - a valid option for the management of choledocholithiasis

AU - Mallick, Reema

AU - Rank, Kevin

AU - Ronstrom, Carrie

AU - Amateau, Stuart K.

AU - Arain, Mustafa

AU - Attam, Rajeev

AU - Freeman, Martin L.

AU - Harmon, James V.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background and Aims The option for performing ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for the management of choledocholithiasis in the same operative session is often overlooked. We compared the success, safety, and cost of ERCP and LC when performed in either a single session or in separate sessions. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a U.S. tertiary care hospital. We identified patients undergoing ERCP and LC between April 2011 and August 2014 in either a single operative session (n = 33) or in 2 separate sessions within a 30-day period (n = 80). Technical success, total anesthesia duration, operative time, length of hospitalization, cost of care, and morbidity and mortality were evaluated. Results Bile duct clearance was achieved in all patients at ERCP in the same-session cohort. The separate versus single-session groups, respectively, did not differ in terms of total procedure times (mean ± SD = 142 ± 64 vs 142 ± 58 min; t test, P =.98), anesthesia duration (251 ± 64 vs 225 ± 69 min; P =.06), or overall cost (49.3 ± 24.5 vs 42.3 ± 23.2 ×1000 USD; P =.167), but hospitalization was longer in the separate-sessions group (6.2 ± 3.3 vs 4.8 ± 2.6 days; P =.03). The rates of adverse events were similarly low (7% vs 2%, P =.70). Conclusions Performing single-session ERCP and LC is safe, effective, economically viable, and reduces hospital stay compared with performing ERCP and LC during separate sessions.

AB - Background and Aims The option for performing ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for the management of choledocholithiasis in the same operative session is often overlooked. We compared the success, safety, and cost of ERCP and LC when performed in either a single session or in separate sessions. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a U.S. tertiary care hospital. We identified patients undergoing ERCP and LC between April 2011 and August 2014 in either a single operative session (n = 33) or in 2 separate sessions within a 30-day period (n = 80). Technical success, total anesthesia duration, operative time, length of hospitalization, cost of care, and morbidity and mortality were evaluated. Results Bile duct clearance was achieved in all patients at ERCP in the same-session cohort. The separate versus single-session groups, respectively, did not differ in terms of total procedure times (mean ± SD = 142 ± 64 vs 142 ± 58 min; t test, P =.98), anesthesia duration (251 ± 64 vs 225 ± 69 min; P =.06), or overall cost (49.3 ± 24.5 vs 42.3 ± 23.2 ×1000 USD; P =.167), but hospitalization was longer in the separate-sessions group (6.2 ± 3.3 vs 4.8 ± 2.6 days; P =.03). The rates of adverse events were similarly low (7% vs 2%, P =.70). Conclusions Performing single-session ERCP and LC is safe, effective, economically viable, and reduces hospital stay compared with performing ERCP and LC during separate sessions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975698748&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975698748&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.050

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.050

M3 - Article

C2 - 26975235

AN - SCOPUS:84975698748

VL - 84

SP - 639

EP - 645

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -