A Comparison Study of Choledocholithotomy with T-tube Drainage and Choledochoduodenostomy for Surgically Managing Choledocholithiasis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Surgery, Nalbari Medical College, Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences, Assam, India

2 Department of Surgery, Tezpur Medical College, Assam, India

Abstract

Background and aim: Though recent trends in the management of choledocholithiasis shifted to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Laparoscopy, the traditional methods of choledochotomy and T-tube drainage and choledochoduodenostomy (CDD) are still relevant. Residual or missed stones and cholangitis are the problems faced by surgeons following biliary surgery for CBD stones. We aim to compare the outcome of the two traditional methods.
Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, 47 patients with choledocholithiasis were included, out of which 19 patients whose CBD was dilated more than 12mm choledochoduodenostomy was performed, and in the remaining 28 patients, choledocholithotomy and T-tube drainage were performed, and their outcomes reviewed. Intra-operative findings, including any difficulty encountered and postoperative findings like any complications, duration of total hospital stay, and incidence of retained stones, were recorded.
Results: The patients with post-cholecystectomy status encountered considerable adhesions. The wound infection rate was 14.3% in the T-tube group and 10.5% in the CDD group. One patient with CDD had 400ml of bile in the drain, which subsided spontaneously. Another with T-tube drainage had a collection of around 300ml of bile following T-tube removal. Hospital stay in the T-tube drainage group was longer. In two cases of the T-tube group, there were retained stones, whereas in the CDD group, there were none.
Conclusions: Open surgical procedures for choledocholithiasis still have an important role to play. Both techniques are easy and safe to perform. Choledochoduodenostomy lowers the chances of retained and recurrent stones.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Canena J. Once upon a time a guideline was used for the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis: a fairy tale or a nightmare. GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology. 2018;25(1):6-9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481688.
[2] Hans S, Khalsa MS, Parneet, Gaurav S, Sahil M, Ashish S, et al.  Current Assessment of Choledochoduodenostomy in the Management of Choledocholithiasis. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences.2020;19(1):25-30. https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1901192530.
[3] Nassar AH, Ng HJ, Katbeh T, Cannings E. Conventional surgical management of bile duct stones: a service model and outcomes of 1318 laparoscopic explorations. Annals of Surgery. 2022;276(5):e493-501. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004680.
[4] Muhammedoğlu B, Pircanoğlu EM, Pişkin E, Sertkaya M, Özdedeoğlu M. Comparison of Choledochoduodenostomy and Simple Choledochotomy with T-Tube Drainage as Surgical Intervention For Choledocholithiasis. Surgical Chronicles. 2019;24(3):123-6.
[5] Ali MM, Helmy MZ, Gomaa E. Choledochoduodenostomy versus T-tube drainage in patients have stones in common bile duct with risk factors of post-operative missed stones. International Surgery Journal. 2019;6(12):4343-7. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20195391.
[6] Karim AA. Comparison of The Results of T–Tube Drainage Versus Choledochoduodenostomy after Open Common Bile Duct Exploration. Medical Journal of Babylon. 2010;7(1-2):264-73.
[7] Redwan AA, Omar MA. Common bile duct clearance of stones by open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and endoscopic approaches (comparative study). The Egyptian Journal of Surgery. 2017;36(1):76-87. https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-1121.199895.
[8] Kunal P, Koustuv K, Gupta N. A Comparative Study of Common Bile Duct Drainage by T-tube and Choledochoduodenostomy in Cases of Common Bile Duct Stones. J Indian Med Assoc. 2022;120(7):36-40.
[9] Annareddy DR, Thota A. Surgical management of choledocholithiasis: a single institutional experience. International Surgery Journal. 2022;9(2):336-44. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20220321.
[10] Malik AA, Rather SA, Bari SU, Wani KA. Long-term results of  choledochoduodenostomy in benign biliary obstruction. World journal of gastrointestinal surgery.2012;4(2):36-40. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v4.i2.36.
[11] Gupta BS. Choledochoduodenostomy: a study of 28 consecutive cases. Kathmandu University Medical Journal. 2003;2(3):193-7.
[12] Aydin MC, Özşay O, Karabulut K. Choledochoduodenostomy for failed endoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones. Both traditional and current method. Archives of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2022;7(2):29-32. https://doi.org/10.25000/acem.1101714.
[13] Asad S, Haj Z, Qureshi Z, Gul B, Ahmed S. Role of choledochoduodenostomy revisited in the era of minimal invasive procedures. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad. 2018;31(1):86-9.
[14] Leppard WM, Shary TM, Adams DB, Morgan KA. Choledochoduodenostomy: is it really so bad?. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery. 2011;15(5):754-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1465-2.
[15] Okamoto H, Miura K, Itakura J, Fujii H. Current assessment of choledochoduodenostomy: 130 consecutive series. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2017;99(7):545-9. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2017.0082.
[16] El Nakeeb A, Askr W, El Hanafy E, Atef E, Hamdy E, El Hemaly M, et al. Long term outcomes of choledochoduodenostomy for common bile duct stones in the era of laparoscopy and endoscopy. Hepato-gastroenterology. 2015;62(137):6-10.
[17] Abraham H, Thomas S, Srivastava A. Sump syndrome: a rare long-term complication of choledochoduodenostomy. Case Reports in Gastroenterology. 2017;11(2):428-33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000477335.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Dental and Medical Sciences
Volume 6, Issue 1
March 2024
Pages 7-10

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 February 2024
  • Revise Date: 04 March 2024
  • Accept Date: 08 March 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics