ESWL experience in the therapy of difficult bile duct stones

Safety and Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Difficult-to-retrieve Common Bile Duct Stones: A Ten-year Experience

Background and Objective

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for common bile duct (CBD) stones has been used in the past, but experience is limited. We report our experience of ESWL in the management of difficult CBD stones.

Methods

Patients with difficult-to-retrieve CBD stones were enrolled and underwent ESWL. Fluoroscopy is used to target the stones after injection of contrast via nasobiliary drain. CBD clearance was the main outcome of the study.

Results

Eighty-three patients were included (mean age 50.5 ± 14.5 years); these patients were mainly females (43; 51.8%). Large stones >15 mm were noted in 64 (77.1%), CBD stricture in 22 (26.5%) and incarcerated stone in 8 (9.6%) patients. Patients needed 2.1 ± 1.2 sessions of lithotripsy and 4266 ± 1881 shock waves per session. In 75 (90.3%) patients, the fragments were extracted endoscopically after ESWL, while spontaneous passage was observed in 8 (9.6%). Total CBD clearance was achieved in 67 (80.6%) patients, partial clearance in 5 (6%) and no response in 11 (13.2%). Failure of the treatment was observed in large stone with size ≥2 cm (P = 0.021), incarcerated stone (P = 0.020) and pre–endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cholangitis (P = 0.047).

Conclusion

ESWL is a noninvasive, safe and effective therapeutic alternative to electrohydraulic lithotripsy and surgical exploration for difficult biliary stones.

Advances of recurrent risk factors and management of choledocholithiasis

Gallstone disease is a common and frequently occurring disease in human, and it is the main disease among the digestive system diseases. The incidence of gallstone disease in western countries is about 5%-22%, and common bile duct stones (CBDS) accounts for 8%-20%. CBDS easily lead to biliary obstruction, secondary cholangitis, pancreatitis, and obstructive jaundice, even endanger life. Therefore, it needs timely treatment once diagnosed. The recurrence of choledocholithiasis after bile duct stones clearance involves complicated factors and cannot be completely elaborated by a single factor. The risk factors for recurrence of choledocholithiasis include bacteria, biliary structure, endoscopic and surgical treatment, and inflammation. The modalities for management of choledocholithiasis are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic or open common bile duct exploration, dissolving solutions, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous radiological interventions, electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy. We compare the different benefits between surgery and ERCP. And finally, we make a summary of the current strategy for reducing the recurrence of CBDS and future perspectives for CBDS management.

Clinical effects of FURL and PCNL with holmium laser for the treatment of kidney stones

In the present study, the clinical effects of flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (FURL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of kidney stones of ≤2 cm was studied. Seventy-two patients with kidney stones were randomly divided into the FURL group (n=39) under ureteroscope lithotripsy with holmium laser and PCNL group (n=33) under PCNL with holmium laser and compared their clinical effects. At 3 months after the operation, the stone removal rate of the FURL group was significantly higher than that of the PCNL group. The subgroup analysis revealed that the difference in the lower kidney calyx was more obvious (P<0.05) while the difference in the complex kidney stones was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The incidence of complications of the FURL group was significantly lower than that of the PCNL group (P<0.05). The operation time and recurrence rate of the FURL group were significantly less than that of the PCNL group (P<0.05). Differences regarding the creatinine and urea nitrogen levels before operation, and 3 and 7 days after the operation between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Additionally, 3 and 7 days after operation, the cystatin C levels of the FURL group were significantly higher than those of the PCNL group, and the KIM-1 levels were significantly lower than the PCNL group (P<0.05). In conclusion, compared with PCNL with holmium laser, FURL with holmium laser was more safe and effective in treating kidney stones ≤2 cm. Therefore, the method is worthy of wide application in clinic.

Using cholecystokinin to facilitate endoscopic clearance of large common bile duct stones

AIM: To evaluate the effect of cholecystokinin (CCK) during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the clearance of common bile duct (CBD) stones in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: Between January 2007 and September 2012, patients with large CBD stones who were treated with ESWL and ERCP were identified retrospectively. Patients were randomized in equal numbers to cholecystokinin (CCK) and no CCK groups. For each CCK case, a dose (3 ng/kg per min for 10 min) of sulfated octapeptide of CCK-8 was administered intravenously near the beginning of ESWL. ERCP was performed 4 h after a session of ESWL. The clearance rate of the CBD was assessed between the two groups.

RESULTS: A total of 148 consecutive cases (CCK group: 74, no CCK group: 74) were tallied. Overall there were 234 ESWLs and 228 ERCPs in the 148 cases. The use of CCK showed a significantly higher rate of successful stone removal in the first ESWL/ERCP procedure (71.6% vs 55.4%, P = 0.035), but resulted in similar outcomes in the second (42.8% vs 39.4%) and third (41.7% vs 40.0%) sessions, as well as total stone clearance (90.5% vs 83.8%). The use of mechanical lithotripsy was reduced in the CCK group (6.8% vs 17.6%, P = 0.023), and extremely large stone (≥ 30 mm) removal was higher in the CCK group (72.7% vs 41.7%, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION: CCK during ESWL can aid with the clearance of CBD stones in the first ESWL/ERCP session. Mechanical lithotripsy usage was reduced and the extremely large stone (≥ 30 mm) clearance rate can be raised.

Recent advances in endoscopic management of difficult bile duct stones

Endoscopic treatment is now recognized worldwide as the first-line treatment for bile duct stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with basket and/or balloon catheter is generally carried out for stone extraction. However, some stones are refractory to treatment under certain circumstances, necessitating additional/other therapeutic modalities. Large bile duct stones are typically treated by mechanical lithotripsy. However, if this fails, laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) is carried out under the guidance of conventional mother-baby cholangioscopy. More recently, direct cholangioscopy using an ultrathin gastroscope and the newly developed single-use cholangioscope system - the SpyGlass direct visualization system - are also used. In addition, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has also been used for stone fragmentation. Such fragmentation techniques are effective in cases with impacted stones, including Mirizzi syndrome. Most recently, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilationhas been introduced as an easy and effective technique for treating large and multiple stones. In cases of altered anatomy, it is often difficult to reach the papilla; in such cases, a percutaneous transhepatic approach, such as EHL or laser lithotripsy under percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy, can be a treatment option. Moreover, enteroscopy has recently been used to reach the papilla. Furthermore, an endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedure has been attempted most recently. In elderly patients and those with very poor general condition, biliary stenting only is sometimes carried out with or without giving subsequent dissolution agents.

Difficult bile duct stones

Bile duct stones are routinely removed at time of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) after biliary sphincterotomy with standard balloon or basket extraction techniques. However, in approximately 10% to 15% of patients, bile duct stones may be difficult to remove due to challenging access to the bile duct (periampullary diverticulum, Billroth II anatomy, Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy), large (> 15 mm in diameter) bile duct stones, intrahepatic stones, or impacted stones in the bile duct or cystic duct. The initial approach to the removal of the difficult bile duct stone is to ensure adequate biliary sphincter orifice diameter with extension of biliary sphincterotomy or balloon dilation of the orifice. Mechanical lithotripsy is a readily available adjunct to standard stone extraction techniques and should be available in all ERCP units. If stone extraction fails with these maneuvers, two or more bile duct stents should be inserted, and ursodiol added to aid in duct decompression, stone fragmentation, and stone dissolution. Follow-up ERCP attempts to remove the difficult bile duct stones may be performed locally if expertise is available or alternatively referred to a tertiary center for advanced extracorporeal or intracorporeal fragmentation (mother-baby laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy) techniques. Nearly all patients with bile duct stones can be treated endoscopically if advanced techniques are utilized. For the rare patient who fails despite these efforts, surgical bile duct exploration, percutaneous approach to the bile duct, or long-term bile duct stenting should be discussed with the patient and family to identify the most appropriate therapeutic option. A thoughtful approach to each patient with difficult bile duct stones and a healthy awareness of the operator/endoscopy unit limitations is necessary to ensure the best patient outcomes. Consultation with a dedicated tertiary ERCP specialty center may be necessary.

[Endoscopic treatment combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of difficult bile duct stones]

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in difficult bile duct stones resistant to endoscopic extraction.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

From January 1997 to February 2002, combined treatment with endoscopy and ESWL was used in 19 patients who had undergone unsuccessful endoscopic bile duct stone extraction after sphincterotomy. The procedure was carried out using analgesic and sedative drugs or deep sedation, prophylactic antibiotic therapy, and monitoring of vital signs. Bile duct stone localization was performed by contrast injection through nasobiliary drainage and fluoroscopy. After each ESWL session, lavage was performed through drainage and stone fragments were extracted endoscopically.

RESULTS

The 19 patients presented high surgical risk due to advanced aged and/or concomitant diseases. All presented jaundice and pain and nine (47.3%) presented associated cholangitis. Thirty ESWL sessions were performed (1.57 sessions per patient), with a mean of 2,120 shock waves per session. In 16 of the 19 patients (84.2%), combined treatment with ESWL and subsequent instrumental endoscopic extraction achieved complete clearance of the biliary tract. The treatment failed in 3 patients who were referred for surgical treatment. No early or late complications were observed, except in one patient who presented a self-limiting febrile syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic endoscopy combined with ESWL is safe and effective in patients with difficult bile duct stones. It represents a therapeutic alternative in patients at high surgical risk.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration are safe for older patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is a well-established treatment option in dedicated centers. However, few data are available on the results in elderly patients.

METHODS

The outcome after laparoscopic CBD exploration in elderly patients (age <70 years) was compared with that in a concurrent control group of younger patients (age, <70 years).

RESULTS

There were 77 elderly patients in group A and 207 younger patients in group B. American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) III and IV patients and prior abdominal operations were more frequent in group A (p <0.001). Two patients from each group underwent conversion to open surgery. There was no significant difference frequency of use between the transcystic and choledochotomy approaches, although the latter tended to be more frequent in the group A because of larger stones, (group A 53.4%; group B, 37.6%). Minor and major morbidity (group A, 12%; group B, 13.6%), rate of recurrent stones (group A, 1.3%; group B, 1.9%), and mortality (group A, 1.3%; group B, 0%) were not significantly different between the two groups. The single death in group A involved a patient with acute toxic cholangitis who underwent emergency surgery after multiple failed attempts at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterotomy performed elsewhere. No CBD stenosis was observed at follow-up assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective laparoscopic CBD exploration is safe and effective. It may become the standard of care in both elderly and younger patients.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration is gaining favor in the treatment of patients with gallstones and CBD stones. Our aim is to report our results with this procedure, focusing on the technical aspects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients with proven CBD stones undergo laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration, preferably, or a choledochotomy if the former is not feasible. According to CBD stone load and diameter, a biliary drainage tube is positioned for postoperative biliary decompression.

RESULTS

Among 284 patients who underwent laparoscopic CBD exploration, 4 (1.4%) were converted to open surgery. Transcystic CBD exploration was feasible in 163 cases (58.2%), but a choledochotomy was required in 117 (41.8%). Biliary drains were positioned in 204 patients (72.8%). Minor complications included hyperamylasemia (11; 3.9%) and minor subhepatic bile collection (7; 2.5%). Major complications were bile leakage (5; 1.8%), hemoperitoneum from cystic artery bleeding (2; 0.7%), subhepatic abscess (2; 0.7%), acute pancreatitis (1; 0.3%), and jejunal perforation (1; 0.3%). Retained CBD stones in 15 patients (5.3%) were removed through the biliary drainage sinus tract (8) or after endoscopy and sphincterotomy (6). In one patient, a small stone passed spontaneously (overall success rate 94.6%). Death from a cardiovascular complication was observed in one elderly high-risk patient (0.3%). Recurrent ductal stones in 5 patients (1.8%) were treated with ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy. One patient with re-recurrent ductal stones underwent hepaticojejunostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic CBD exploration during LC in unselected patients solves two problems during the same anesthesia with high success rates (94.6%), low minor (6.4%) and major (3.8%) morbidity rates, and a low mortality rate (0.3%). Standardization of the technique is mandatory to achieve high success rates.

Haemobilia

BACKGROUND

This review aims to establish whether increased use of invasive procedures and the trend toward conservative management of major trauma has resulted in an increased incidence of haemobilia.

METHOD

A Medline (http://igm.nlm.nih.gov/)-based search of the English language literature from January 1996 to December 1999 inclusive was performed using the keywords haemobilia, hemobilia, haematobilia and hematobilia. The presentation, aetiology, investigation, management and outcome of 222 cases were reviewed.

RESULTS

Two-thirds of cases were iatrogenic while accidental trauma accounted for 5 per cent. Haemobilia may be major, constituting life-threatening haemorrhage, or minor; it may present many weeks after the initial injury. Diagnosis is most commonly confirmed by angiography. Management is aimed at stopping bleeding and relieving biliary obstruction; 43 per cent of cases were managed conservatively and 36 per cent were managed by transarterial embolization (TAE). Surgery was indicated when laparotomy was performed for other reasons and for failed TAE. The mortality rate was 5 per cent.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of iatrogenic haemobilia has risen considerably, the bleeding is often minor and can be managed conservatively. When more urgent intervention is required, TAE is usually the treatment of choice. There is no evidence that the conservative management of accidental liver trauma increases the risk of haemobilia.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for clearance of bile duct stones resistant to endoscopic extraction

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic extraction of bile duct stones after sphincterotomy has a success rate of up to 95%. Failures occur in patients with extremely large stones, intrahepatic stones, and bile duct strictures. This study examined the efficacy and the safety of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in a large cohort of patients in whom routine endoscopic measures including mechanical lithotripsy had failed to extract bile duct stones.

METHODS

Out of 1587 consecutive patients, endoscopic stone extraction including mechanical lithotripsy was unsuccessful in 313 (20%). These 313 patients (64% women, median age, 73 years) underwent high-energy extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Stone targeting was performed fluoroscopically (99%) or by ultrasonography (1%).

RESULTS

Complete clearance of bile duct calculi was achieved in 281 (90%) patients. In 80% of the patients, the fragments were extracted endoscopically after shock-wave therapy; spontaneous passage was observed in 10%. For patients with complete clearance compared with those without there were no differences with regard to size or number of the stones, intrahepatic or extrahepatic stone location, presence or absence of bile duct strictures, or type of lithotripter. Cholangitis (n = 4) and acute cholecystitis (n = 1) were the rare adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with bile duct calculi that are difficult to extract endoscopically, high-energy extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy is a safe and effective therapy regardless of stone size, stone location, or the presence of bile duct stricture.

Comparing the treatment outcomes of endoscopic papillary dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones

To compare the clinical usefulness of endoscopic papillary dilation (EPD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for removal of bile duct stones, 110 patients with stones up to 15 mm in diameter and less than 10 in number were randomly treated with either EPD (55 patients) or EST (55 patients). The patients were followed up for a median period of 23 months and endoscopic manometry with the administration of morphine was carried out in 17 patients who were observed more than 12 months after the procedures to evaluate the post-procedure papillary function. Duct clearance was achieved in 51 EPD (92.7%) and 54 EST patients (98.1%, not significantly different). Forty EPD (78.4%) and 51 EST patients (94.4%) achieved duct clearance in the initial procedure (P=0.02). Early complications occurred in one EPD (2.0%) and in three EST patients (5.6%, P=0.62). Complications during the follow-up period occurred in two EPD and eight EST patients. Recurrence of bile duct stones was observed in two EPD and three EST patients (P=0.98). Acute cholecystitis was observed in one EPD and five EST patients (P=0.06) and among patients with gall-bladder stones in situ, the rate of acute cholecystitis after EPD was significantly lower than that after EST (P=0.03). Endoscopic manometry showed the existence of a choledochoduodenal pressure gradient only after EPD, while papillary contractile function was observed after both procedures. In conclusion, both EPD and EST are safe therapeutic modalities, although EPD is more clinically effective in decreasing the risk of acute cholecystitis in patients with gall-bladder stones in situ and in preserving post-procedure papillary function.