• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Common Bile Duct Exploration using Intraoperative Cholangiogram Remains a Feasible Modality for treating choledocholelithiasis

Common Bile Duct Exploration using Intraoperative Cholangiogram Remains a Feasible Modality for treating choledocholelithiasis

Leslie S Anewenah, MD1, Mohammed Asif, MD1, Andrea Zaw, MD1, Carissa Jeannette2, Urhum Khaliq2, Joseph Glowacki2, Shivani Shah2, Prashanth Ramachandra, MD1, Piotr Krecioch, MD1, Mohammad Khan, MD1. 1Mercy Catholic Medical Center, 2Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine

Background: The widely accepted modalities for the management of choledocholelithiasis (CC) are: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with cholecystectomy (Cty) and common bile duct exploration (CBDE) with cholecystectomy. Since the emergence of ERCP in the late 1970s, there has been an increasing use of ERCP in conjunction with Cty in the management of CC. The result is a new generation of general surgeons with little to no exposure in CBDE techniques.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who presented with CC based on the treatment modality: ERCP-Cty or CBDE-Cty.

Methods: After obtaining approval from our institutional review board, a retrospective review was conducted on all patients who presented with CC from June of 2012 to May 2016. The data obtained include gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, procedure time, length of stay (LOS) and complications within 30 days of surgery. The CBDE technique used in this series was an intraoperative cholangiogram. Independent T and Chi-square tests were performed using IBM® SPSS® 24 software.

Results: A total of 114 patients presented with CC. Of this number, ERCP-Cty was performed in 82 (72%) patients and the remainder treated with CBDE-Cty. Median age was 55 years (20 to 90 years) with 82 (72%) being female. There was no statistical difference in the median age and gender of the patients in both groups (Age: p = 0.22 and Gender: p = 0.65). BMI range from 15.8 to 57.2 kg\m2 (median of 29.9 kg\m2) and no difference noted among the two treatment arms (p=0.68). The median procedure time for performing ERCP-Cty was 131 minutes (46-385) compare to 168 minutes (68 to 372) for CBDE-Cty (p = 0.076). When patient characteristics such as ASA, diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic hepatitis, chronic kidney disease, anti-platelet or anticoagulation therapy and complications were noted, there was no difference between the two modalities. (p = 0.80, 0.30, 0.74, 1.00, 1.00, 0.31, 1.00, 1.00). Mean LOS was 6.43 days (0-27) for ERCP-Cty and 5.69 days (0-29) for CBDE-Cty (p = 0.53).

Conclusion: In addition to patients who undergo CBDE-Cty requiring only 1 anesthesia session as opposed 2 anesthesia sessions with ERCP-Cty, CBDE-Cty cut the LOS by 0.74 days. Our data suggest that CBDE-Cty remains a feasible modality for treating CC and therefore, should be employed more.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 79235

Program Number: P630

Presentation Session: Poster (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Poster

111

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals