Management of Common Bile Duct (CBD) Stones at Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
|First Received Date ICMJE||July 25, 2005|
|Last Updated Date||September 7, 2006|
|Start Date ICMJE||March 2004|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||Safety of facilitated ERCP compared to conventional unfacilitated ERCP - as assessed by the incidence of pancreatitis post ERCP|
|Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||Safety of facilitated ERCP compared to conventional unfacilitated ERCP - as assessed by the incidence of pancreatitis post ERCP.|
|Change History||Complete list of historical versions of study NCT00124033 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site|
|Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
|Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Brief Title ICMJE||Management of Common Bile Duct (CBD) Stones at Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy|
|Official Title ICMJE||Management of CBD Stones at Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A NSW Collaborative Prospective Randomised Trial to Assess the Value of Transcystically Inserted CBD Stents to Facilitate Post-Operative ERCP|
This study is designed to assess whether a new technique called facilitated endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is or is not superior to conventional ERCP for removing stones found in the bile duct at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. ERCP is an endoscopic procedure used to facilitate the radiological examination and subsequent manipulation of the common bile duct (eg. opening it up, which is called sphincterotomy). Both facilitated and conventional ERCP are performed as a separate procedure after the initial gallbladder surgery. This is a comparative study of these two techniques in a randomised clinical trial.
The aim of this randomised clinical trial is to enable surgeons to decide whether placement of a plastic stent at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy will improve the success rate and safety of subsequent ERCP and sphincterotomy.
Symptomatic gallstone disease is common. In the year July 2001-2002, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed on 5,235 patients in NSW public hospitals. Up to 18% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstones may have concomitant common bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis). Twenty-five percent of bile duct stones are completely unsuspected. Therefore the optimal management of bile duct stones is a significant issue for all general surgeons who perform this very common operation. Yet, the management of these patients in the laparoscopic era remains contentious.
Prior to the laparoscopic era cholecystectomy patients with bile duct stones were managed surgically during open cholecystectomy (OC), with direct exploration of their common bile duct (choledochotomy). However, open surgical bile duct exploration waned in popularity and progressively stones were dealt with endoscopically, either pre or post cholecystectomy. As laparoscopic technology advances, simultaneous clearance of the bile duct at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is regaining popularity.
Some surgeons elect to remove bile duct stones at the index operation through the cystic duct. This approach has a success rate of between 75 and 90%. When there is failure to clear the bile duct transcystically, some surgeons proceed to a choledochotomy to clear the duct, while others close the cystic duct stump, leaving the stones in situ to be removed at a later date by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and sphincterotomy. The argument in favour of immediate choledochotomy is that the duct may be cleared in one sitting. The argument against it is that the morbidity of choledochotomy is considerable. The argument for a subsequent ERCP is that the morbidity of choledochotomy is avoided. The argument against subsequent ERCP is that there may be difficulty cannulating the common bile duct and that ERCP with sphincterotomy is associated with a significant morbidity, particularly pancreatitis.
An alternative approach taken by the majority of surgeons in NSW when confronted by common bile duct stones at laparoscopic cholecystectomy is to close the cystic duct stump in all patients, without exploring the duct transcystically. Stones are left in situ, to be removed at a later date endoscopically - by ERCP and sphincterotomy. The attendant risks of this approach are mentioned above.
Another approach is to facilitate the performance of post-operative ERCP and sphincterotomy by inserting a stent transcystically at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Facilitated ERCP has recently been reported in a prospective consecutive series from Nepean Hospital. Failure to access the common bile duct at first attempt was 1.2% in this series, which compares favourably with duct access failure rates - reported in the literature - of 5-12% without the facilitation of a stent. The incidence of pancreatitis, bleeding and duodenal perforation after facilitated ERCP was 0%, 0% and 0.6%, respectively. Two cases (1.2%) of cholangitis were also reported. Comparison to other series suggests that facilitated ERCP offers real advantages over the conventional unfacilitated ERCP for bile duct stone removal, which has a reported pancreatitis rate of 2–11% (and our own rate of 8%); a bleeding rate of 2-4 % and a duodenal perforation rate of 1-4%. The mortality rates of these ERCP techniques cannot be compared at this preliminary stage because of insufficient numbers in the Nepean series.
|Study Type ICMJE||Interventional|
|Study Phase||Not Provided|
|Study Design ICMJE||Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Educational/Counseling/Training
|Intervention ICMJE||Procedure: Transcystic Stenting (Facilitated ERCP)|
|Study Arm (s)||Not Provided|
|Publications *||Martin CJ, Cox MR, Vaccaro L. Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct stenting in the management of common bile duct stones. ANZ J Surg. 2002 Apr;72(4):258-64.|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
|Recruitment Status ICMJE||Terminated|
|Estimated Completion Date||December 2015|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Eligibility Criteria ICMJE||
|Ages||18 Years to 85 Years (Adult, Senior)|
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers||No|
|Contacts ICMJE||Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects|
|Listed Location Countries ICMJE||Australia|
|Removed Location Countries|
|NCT Number ICMJE||NCT00124033|
|Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE||04/001|
|Has Data Monitoring Committee||Not Provided|
|Plan to Share Data||Not Provided|
|IPD Description||Not Provided|
|Responsible Party||Not Provided|
|Study Sponsor ICMJE||South West Sydney Local Health District|
|Information Provided By||South West Sydney Local Health District|
|Verification Date||June 2005|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP