Moving the needle for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: defining obstacles for the path forward

• Published in: Surgical endoscopy Vol. 38; no. 11; pp. 6753 - 6761
• Main Authors: Bosley, Maggie E., Cambronero, Gabriel E., Sanin, Gloria D., Wood, Elizabeth C., Neff, Lucas P., Santos, B. Fernando, Sudan, Ranjan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.11.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: 2024 SAGES Oral; Abdominal Surgery; Bile ducts; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods; Choledocholithiasis - surgery; Common Bile Duct - surgery; Gastroenterology; Gynecology; Hepatology; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of stay; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Needles; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data; Proctology; Surgeons; Surgery; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States; United States; United States > US; Cholecystectomy; Cholangiogram; Choledocholithiasis; Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration
• ISSN: 0930-2794; 1432-2218; 1432-2218
• DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11146-6

Introduction Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed very commonly but laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is performed infrequently. We aimed to determine the most significant barriers to performing LCBDE and to identify the highest yield interventions to facilitate adoption. Methods and procedures A national survey was designed by content experts, who regularly perform LCBDE. The survey was distributed by email to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma memberships. Non-U.S. surgeon responses were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. Results Seven hundred twenty six practicing surgeons responded to the survey, 543 of which were US surgeons who perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Only 27% of respondents preferred to manage choledocholithiasis with LCBDE. Their technique of choice was choledochoscopy (70%). Despite this, 36% of surgeons did not have access to a choledochoscope or were unsure if they did. Seventy percent of surgeons who performed LCBDE did not have supplies readily available in a central stocking location. Only 8.5% of surgeons agreed that routine LCBDE would impact their referral relationship with gastroenterology. About half the respondents (47%) considered LCBDE worth the time, but only 25% knew about reimbursement for the procedure. Almost all (85%) of surgeons understood that LCBDE results in shorter length of stay compared to ERCP. Conclusions Only a quarter of the surgeons performing cholecystectomy perform LCBDE. Multiple barriers contribute to low LCBDE utilization. Increasing availability of appropriate equipment, a dedicated supply cart, and teaching fluoroscopic LCBDE interventions may address limitations and increase adoption. These efforts may also increase efficiency, minimizing perceived time and skill restraints. Although many surgeons understand LCBDE decreases length of stay, they are unaware of surgeon-specific LCBDE financial benefits. Systematically addressing these barriers may increase LCBDE adoption, improve patient care, and decrease healthcare costs.