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

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • 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
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 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
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • 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
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and 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
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • 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
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparison of ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct exploration for the management of choledocholithiasis: an analysis of NSQIP

Comparison of ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct exploration for the management of choledocholithiasis: an analysis of NSQIP

Victor Vakayil, MD, MS1, Samuel T Klinker, BS1, Megan L Sulciner, BS1, Reema Mallick, MD2, Stuart Amateau, MD, PhD1, Guru Trikudanathan, MD1, Martin Freeman, MD1, James Harmon, MD, PhD1. 1University of Minnesota, 2University of Pittsburgh,

BACKGROUND: Up to 18% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC) for cholelithiasis have concurrent choledocholithiasis. While the majority of common bile duct stones pass spontaneously, larger stones require definitive removal to prevent significant morbidity. LC is recognized as the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstones disease, however, the optimal choice for the extraction of biliary duct calculi remains unaddressed. Current favor lies with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), with the timing of the procedure being an active area of research. As the technical skill set for laparoscopy increases, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) remains an alternative to ERCP.

METHODS: We utilized the American College of Surgeons,  National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database to retrospectively analyze postoperative outcomes for all patients undergoing LC for cholelithiasis with presumed choledocholithiasis from 2012 to 2016.  Using ICD-9/10 and CPT codes we stratified patients into two cohorts; those being managed with intraoperative ERCP (i-ERCP) or LCBDE. Outcomes were measured using the Clavien-Dindo grading of postoperative complications within 30 days of LC. All patients undergoing additional procedures, other than ERCP or LCBDE, in conjunction with LC were excluded.

RESULTS: A total of 1,331 patients undergoing LC, with either LCBDE (n=837, 63%) or i-ERCP (n=494, 37%) were identified. The majority of patients included were Caucasian and female, with no significant difference in demographics, preoperative comorbidities, preoperative labs, preoperative sepsis or ASA scores (with exception of preoperative diabetes, i-ERCP; 11.1%, N = 55, vs LCBE; 15.7%, N = 131; P = 0.022 – Table 1). Clavien-Dindo graded outcomes (Table 2) showed no significant differences for Grades I, II, III, IV or V showing the efficacy of both treatment modalities. Mortality rates (Grade V) were low for both i-ERCP (0.6%, N = 3) and LCBDE (1.1%, N=9). Reoperation rates were comparable between both groups ( i-ERCP: 1.9 %, N= 16 vs. LCBDE: 1.6%, N = 8,  P = 0.699).

CONCLUSION: Intraoperative ERCP and LCBDE result in comparably low postoperative morbidity and mortality. Institutions with skilled and readily available endoscopic facilities may favor i-ERCP due to ease of access and reduced operative time; however, LCBDE remains an appropriate surgical technique for the treatment of concurrent choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention remains unavailable.


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

Abstract ID: 95621

Program Number: S005

Presentation Session: Biliary

Presentation Type: Podium

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search