Selective use of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Risk factors of open converted cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis after endoscopic removal of choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Open converted cholecystectomy could occur in patients who planned for laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic removal of choledocholithiasis.

AIM

To evaluate the risk factors associated with open converted cholecystectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy after endoscopic removal of choledocholithiasis were retrospectively reviewed. Factors predictive for conversion to open cholecystectomy were analyzed.

RESULTS

The rate of open converted cholecystectomy was 15.7 %. In multivariate analysis, cholecystitis (OR 1.908, 95 % CI 1.390-6.388, p = 0.005), mechanical lithotripsy (OR 6.129, 95 % CI 1.867-20.123, p < 0.005), and two or more choledocholithiases (OR 2.202, 95 % CI 1.097-4.420, p = 0.026) revealed significant risk factors for conversion to open cholecystectomy. Analyzing the risk factors for open converted cholecystectomy according to duration from endoscopic stone removal to cholecystectomy (within 2 weeks, between 2 and 6 weeks, and beyond 6 weeks), acute cholangitis (OR 3.374, 95 % CI 1.267-8.988, p = 0.015), cholecystitis (OR 3.127, 95 % CI 1.100-8.894, p = 0.033), and mechanical lithotripsy (OR 17.504, 95 % CI 3.548-86.355, p < 0.005) were related to open converted cholecystectomy in ≤2 weeks group.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who need cholecystectomy after endoscopic removal of choledocholithiasis, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography-related factors predictive for open converted cholecystectomy are helpful in planning the appropriate timing of surgery.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

Single session versus separate session endoscopic ultrasonography plus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with low to moderate risk for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a minimally invasive diagnostic tool for common bile duct stones (CBDS) and may be used to select patients for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). The aim of this trial is to compare, in patients with non-high-risk for CDBS, the clinical and economic impact of EUS plus ERC performed in a single endoscopic session versus EUS plus ERC in two separate sessions.

METHODS

During an 11-month period, all adult patients admitted to the emergency department with suspicion of CBDS were categorized into either high-risk or non-high-risk groups, on the basis of clinical, biochemical, or transabdominal ultrasound findings. Patients in the non-high-risk group were randomized to receive EUS plus ERC in one single or in two separate sessions.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were recruited and randomized. Forty patients underwent EUS plus ERC in a single session and 40 patients underwent EUS plus ERC in two separate sessions. Negative EUS examination for CBDS avoided unnecessary ERC to 33 patients. Out of 47 patients with positive EUS (25 from the single session group and 22 from the double session), ERC confirmed the presence of CBDS in 46 cases (EUS sensitivity 100% and specificity 98%). Average time of procedure and hospitalization were significantly shorter in the single session group compared to the two session group. The single session strategy was also less expensive.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasonography plus ERC with sphincterotomy and stone extraction performed during the same endoscopic session was safe and efficacious with a reduction of procedure time, hospitalization and costs.

Recurrent acute biliary pancreatitis: the protective role of cholecystectomy and endoscopic sphincterotomy

BACKGROUND

Recurrent attacks of acute biliary pancreatitis (RABP) are prevented by (laparoscopic) cholecystectomy. Since the introduction of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP), several series have described a similar reduction of RABP after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). This report discusses the different treatment options for preventing RABP including conservative treatment, cholecystectomy, ES, and combinations of these options as well as their respective timing.

METHODS

A search in PubMed for observational studies and clinical (comparative) trials published in the English language was performed on the subject of recurrent acute biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone complications after an initial attack of acute pancreatitis.

RESULT

Cholecystectomy and ES both are superior to conservative treatment in reducing the incidence of RABP. Cholecystectomy provides additional protection for gallstone-related complications and mortality. Observational studies indicate that cholecystectomy combined with ES is the most effective treatment for reducing the incidence of RABP attacks.

CONCLUSION

From the literature data it can be concluded that ES is as effective in reducing RABP as cholecystectomy but inferior in reducing mortality and overall morbidity. The combination of ES and cholecystectomy seems superior to either of the treatment methods alone. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing ES plus cholecystectomy with cholecystectomy alone is needed.

Laparo-endoscopic “Rendezvous” to treat cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: Effective, safe and simplifies the endoscopist’s work

AIM: To investigate our clinical experience with combined laparo-endoscopic Rendezvous (RV) for the treatment of patients affected by gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones and especially to study the never evaluated opinion of the endoscopist concerning the difficulty of the intraoperative endoscopic procedure during the RV in comparison with standard endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients affected by cholecystolithiasis and diagnosed or suspected CBD stones were treated with a standardized “tailored” RV. The relevant technical features, the feasibility, the effectiveness in stone clearance, the safety but also the simple evaluation of difficulty and agreement of the endoscopist were analyzed with a questionnaire.

RESULTS: The feasibility was 97.5% and the effectiveness 100% concerning CBD clearance and solution of coexisting problems at the papilla. Minor morbidity was 3.3%, the operating time was prolonged by a mean of 14 min, the mean hospital stay was 3.8 d and only one stone’s recurrence occurred. The endoscopist evaluated the procedure to be simpler than standard ERCP-ES in 81.2% of the cases.

CONCLUSION: Simultaneous RV carries high effectiveness and safety at least comparable to those reported for other options. The endoscopist is very often satisfied with this approach because of the minimization of some steps of the endoscopic procedure and avoidance of relevant iatrogenic risk factors. If the mandatory collaboration between surgeons and endoscopists is guaranteed, this approach can often be preferable for the patient, the surgeon, the endoscopist and the hospital.

Comparison of EUS and ERCP in the investigation with suspected biliary obstruction caused by choledocholithiasis: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

EUS may be used to reduce the need of diagnostic ERCP.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to investigate the benefits and safety of an EUS-guided versus an ERCP-guided approach in the management of suspected biliary obstructive diseases caused by choledocholithiasis, in whom a US study is not diagnostic.

DESIGN

A randomized study.

SETTING

A university medical unit.

PATIENTS

Patients with clinical, biochemical, or radiologic suspicion of biliary obstruction.

INTERVENTIONS

In the EUS group, therapeutic ERCP was performed at the same EUS session if a lesion was found. In the ERCP group, therapeutic treatment was carried out at the discretion of the endoscopist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The number of ERCPs avoided, procedure-related complications, and recurrent biliary symptoms on follow-up at 1 year.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were randomized to EUS and 32 to ERCP. Three patients (9.4%) had failed ERCPs, whereas all EUS procedures were successful. Nine (27.3%) patients in the EUS group were found to have biliary lesions that were all treated by ERCP. In the ERCP group, 7 (22%) patients had biliary lesions detected that were treated in the same session. More patients had serious complications (bleeding, acute pancreatitis, and umbilical abscess) in the ERCP group. One patient in each group had recurrent biliary symptoms during follow-up. With EUS used as a triage tool, diagnostic ERCP and its related complications could be spared in 49 (75.4%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients suspected to have biliary obstructive disease, EUS is a safe and accurate test to select patients for therapeutic ERCP.

Suspected choledocholithiasis: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography? A systematic review

There is a lack of consensus on the optimal noninvasive strategy for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis after a negative transabdominal ultrasound and/or computed tomography. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP) in patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones. A search, using the following terms 'MRCP', 'EUS' and 'Choledocholithiasis' in Pubmed and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, was performed. Abstract books and reference list of review articles, as well as relevant studies, were also searched to complete our EUS versus MRCP for choledocholithiasis comparison studies database. The analysis demonstrated that, with respect to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, there was no statistically significant difference between EUS and MRCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis. Our meta-analysis of prospective comparison of MRCP and EUS for the detection of choledocholithiasis yielded statistically similar diagnostic values for both techniques.

Endoscopic ultrasonography versus other diagnostic modalities in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis

Until recently, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of and therapy in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. However, the non-negligible complication rate of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP has led investigators to identify different noninvasive diagnostic modalities. Endoscopic ultrasonography has been proved to be of great sensitivity (up to 97%) in the diagnosis of even tiny stones that can be easily masked by contrast medium during ERCP, without any procedure-related complications and with a negative predictive value reaching 100%, meaning that it can accurately and safely identify patients with choledocholithiasis, thereby avoiding inappropriate instrumental exploration of the common bile duct.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

10% to 18% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct (CBD) stones. Treatment options for these stones include pre- or post-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or open or laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the management of CBD stones by four approaches: (1) ERCP versus open surgical bile duct clearance. (2) Pre-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (3) Post-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (4) ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance in patients with previous cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched key relevant electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant papers, and abstracts of relevant subspecialty meetings until November 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The quality of included trials was assessed by adequacy of allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Published and unpublished data relevant to 12 predefined outcome measures were used to conduct fixed- and random-effects models meta-analyses, with exploration of heterogeneity and use of sensitivity and subgroup analysis where required.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials randomised 1351 patients. Eight trials (n = 760) compared ERCP with open surgical clearance, three (n = 425) compared pre-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance, and two (n = 166) compared post-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance. There were no trials of ERCP versus laparoscopic clearance in patients without an intact gallbladder. Methodology was considered adequate in at least two of three assessable fields in ten trials. A significantly increased number of total procedures (including for complications) per patient was seen in the ERCP arms in all three comparisons with weighted mean differences of 0.62 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.09), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.96), and 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.24), respectively. ERCP was less successful than open surgery in CBD stone clearance (Peto OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.81 to 4.61) with a tendency towards higher mortality (risk difference 1%, 95% CI -1% to 4%). Laparoscopic CBD stone clearance was as efficient as pre- (Peto OR 1.00, CI 0.53 to 1.80) and post-operative ERCP (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.37 to 13.9) and with no significant difference in morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic trials universally reported shorter hospital stays in surgical arms. Insufficient data were reported for cost analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the era of open cholecystectomy, open bile duct surgery was superior to ERCP in achieving CBD stone clearance. In the laparoscopic era, data are close to excluding a significant difference between laparoscopic and ERCP clearance of CBD stones. The use of ERCP necessitates increased number of procedures per patient.

Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography

OBJECTIVES

New modalities, namely, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and helical computed-tomographic cholangiography (HCT-C), have been introduced recently for the detection of common bile duct (CBD) stones and shown improved detectability compared to conventional ultrasound or computed tomography. We conducted this study to compare the diagnostic ability of EUS, MRCP, and HCT-C in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients clinically suspected of having CBD stones were enrolled, excluding those with cholangitis or a definite history of choledocholithiasis. Each patient underwent EUS, MRCP, and HCT-C prior to endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP), the result of which served as the diagnostic gold standard.

RESULTS

CBD stones were detected in 24 (86%) of 28 patients by ERCP/IDUS. The sensitivity of EUS, MRCP, and HCT-C was 100%, 88%, and 88%, respectively. False negative cases for MRCP and HCT-C had a CBD stone smaller than 5mm in diameter. No serious complications occurred while one patient complained of itching in the eyelids after the infusion of contrast agent on HCT-C.

CONCLUSIONS

When examination can be scheduled, MRCP or HCT-C will be the first choice because they were less invasive than EUS. MRCP and HCT-C had similar detectability but the former may be preferable considering the possibility of allergic reaction in the latter. When MRCP is negative, EUS is recommended to check for small CBD stones.

The role of endosonography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis

Biliary endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), even if complex and difficult to interpret, can depict with great accuracy the normal anatomy and abnormalities of this region. In case of choledocholithiasis, EUS has the unique ability to directly visualize the cause of biliary obstruction and to evaluate and integrate ductal abnormalities. For these tasks EUS is superior to conventional ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and also to new imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance cholangiography. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the most significant EUS findings in choledocholithiasis together with the results of EUS in terms of diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. The role of EUS in the diagnosis of bile duct stones is therefore highlighted.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Management of Choledocholithiasis

Our objective was to review our community hospital experience with laparoscopic management of choledocholithiasis from 1991 to 1997. We performed a retrospective review of all case records of patients with choledocholithiasis managed surgically at St. Francis Hospital during the study period. Data regarding the history, presentation, investigations, operative details, and follow-up were recorded. Procedures were performed by multiple attending surgeons supervising surgical residents. All common bile duct explorations (CBDEs) were performed by a transcystic approach and followed routine cholangiography. In most cases, cystic duct dilatation over a guide wire was followed by transcystic CBDE with choledochoscopy. Stone extraction was accomplished through a combination of flushing, basket manipulation, fragmentation, retrieval, or advancement of stones through the ampulla. Data were analyzed using SPSS computer software, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. During the period of study there were 1053 laparoscopic cholecystectomies with and without cholangiography and 100 total CBDE performed. Of these, 54/100 had an attempt at laparoscopic CBDE. There were 39 females and 15 males, with a median age of 52 years (range 14–88). Presentation included acute cholecystitis or biliary colic (63%), gallstone pancreatitis (20%), and jaundice or cholangitis (17%). Successful laparoscopic stone removal was achieved in 36 of 54 (67%) cases. Eighteen of the remainder (33%) were converted to an open procedure. Size, number, position of stones, technical difficulties in accessing the common bile duct, and patient factors contributed to open conversion. The rate of successful laparoscopic CBDE improved for each individual surgeon from an average of 22 per cent in the first half of the study period (1991–1994) to 87 per cent in the second half (1995–1997). There was no operative mortality. Significant morbidity in the laparoscopic group included one retained stone and two cases of postoperative pancreatitis. There were three false negative preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography examinations. Multivariate analysis showed that experience of the individual surgeon was the only significant factor predicting successful laparoscopic CBDE. Low initial success rate in the early phase of the study period improved dramatically to reach an overall success rate of 87 per cent in the second half. Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones is possible in a community setting with a high success rate and minimal morbidity. It precludes excessive use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with its own set of complications but is associated with a significant learning curve. It is currently our preferred therapeutic approach for choledocholithiasis discovered pre- or intraoperatively.

Timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of choledocholithiasis

Although experience with laparoscopic approaches to common duct stones is increasing, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed either before or after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains the most common approach. Debate remains as to the best timing for ERCP in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Because clinical, laboratory, and radiological data are poor predictors of choledocholithiasis, many ERCPs done before LC give negative results. ERCP performed after LC with a positive intraoperative cholangiogram (i.o.p.) would eliminate many unnecessary preoperative endoscopic studies. This is a retrospective analysis of the treatment of choledocholithiasis with the combination of LC and ERCP. All patients included could have had ERCP preoperatively or postoperatively; therefore, those with cholangitis requiring emergent preoperative ERCP were excluded. Two groups of patients were compared: those who underwent ERCP followed by LC and those who underwent LC and IOC followed by ERCP. No significant differences were found with respect to age, gender, health status, clinical presentation, laboratory values (most liver functions, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, and serum amylase), surgery time, blood loss, ERCP time, time between treatment modalities, and days to regular diet. However, the preoperative ERCP group was found to have a longer hospital stay (6.7 days vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.003) and higher hospital cost ($9,406.39 vs. $12,816.23, p = 0.05). The preoperative ERCP group had two patients requiring two ERCPs to clear the common duct, one patient requiring conversion to open procedure because of failed LC, and four minor complications. The postoperative ERCP group had no failed LC, IOC, or postoperative ERCPs and one minor complication. The rate of false positive IOC was 6.7% and of negative preoperative ERCP, 43%. We conclude that in the absence of cholangitis requiring emergent endoscopic decompression, suspected choledocholithiasis can be successfully managed first with LC, ERCP being reserved for patients with a positive IOC. This eliminates many negative preoperative ERCPs.

The prediction of common bile duct stones using a neural network

BACKGROUND

The role of preoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) in the diagnosis and treatment of suspected common bile duct stones (CBDS) in the laparoscopic age is controversial. The preoperative diagnosis of CBDS by ERCP and the removal of CBDS by ES are advantageous because of technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Approximately 50% of preoperative ERCP examinations are normal, however. The noninvasive diagnosis of CBDS has assumed new importance, but it has proved to be an elusive goal. Neural networks are a form of artificial computer intelligence that have been used successfully to interpret ECGs and to diagnose myocardial infarcts. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a neural network could be trained to predict CBDS accurately in patients at high risk of having duct stones.

STUDY DESIGN

We trained a back-propagation neural network to predict the presence of CBDS. Retrospective data from patients who had a cholecystectomy and either a preoperative ERCP or intraoperative cholangiogram were used to build the network, and it was tested using unseen data.

RESULTS

One hundred forty patients were used to train the network, and 16 patients were used to test it. The trained network was able to predict CBDS in 100% of the patients in both the training and test sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening of high-risk patients for CBDS by neural network analysis is highly accurate. This promising new, noninvasive, and inexpensive technique can potentially decrease the need for preoperative ERCP by 50%, but additional prospective evaluation is indicated.

Choledocholithiasis and gallstone pancreatitis

Gallstones are commonly found within the main bile duct (MBD) of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Retained MBD stones are a common cause of obstructive symptoms and complications. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and sphincterotomy (ES) is the recommended modality for both the detection of such stones and their extraction. Recent trials of ERCP in conjunction with laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggest that it should be reserved for use post-operatively. Gallstones within the MBD are the most common single cause of acute pancreatitis. Initial treatment is supportive, although new agents designed to suppress the systemic inflammatory response are under development and have proved beneficial in clinical trials. Severe cases should be treated with systemic antibiotics and early removal of the obstructing stones by ERCP and ES. Prophylactic cholecystectomy is recommended to prevent further attacks of gallstone pancreatitis.

Abnormal common bile duct sonography. The best predictor of choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy

We conducted a prospective study to determine the most reliable indicator of common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. One hundred thirty-seven patients were referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography before laparoscopic cholecystectomy for suspected choledocholithiasis due to one or more of the following abnormalities: (a) altered liver function tests, (b) increased serum amylase levels, or (c) a dilated common bile duct (> 7 mm) with or without evidence of stones on sonography. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the likelihood of the presence or absence of morbidity were calculated for 25 different variables. Common bile duct stones were detected in 63 (46%) patients. Abnormal result of sonography of the common bile duct was the best predictor of choledocholithiasis (p < 0.0001). Abnormalities of the combined liver function tests were statistically significant predictors only when combined with abnormal sonographic results. Improving liver function tests before endoscopy had a significant negative predictive value (p = 0.01). Stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that abnormal ultrasound and the presence of common bile duct stones on ultrasound were significant (p = 0.009 and p = 0.049, respectively). Abnormal result of sonography of the common bile duct is the best predictor of choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy.