Gallstones

The value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Rationale and objectives

To establish a diagnostic model based on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical characteristics for diagnosing extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA).

Materials and methods

From April 2014 to September 2021, consecutive patients with extrahepatic bile duct lesions who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI within 1 month before pathological examination were retrospectively enrolled. Two radiologists blinded to clinicopathological information independently evaluated MR images. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify significant clinicoradiological features associated with eCCA, which were subsequently incorporated into a diagnostic model. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, and decision curve.

Results

A total of 182 patients (mean age, 60.8 ± 10.0 years, 117 men) were included, 144 (79 %) of whom had pathologically confirmed eCCA. Diffusion restriction (odds ratio [OR], 8.32; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 2.88, 25.82; P < 0.001), indistinct outer margin (OR, 4.01; 95 % CI: 1.40, 11.84; P = 0.010), cholelithiasis (OR, 0.34; 95 % CI: 0.12, 1.00; P = 0.049), serum ln(carbohydrate antigen 125) (OR, 4.95; 95 % CI: 1.61, 18.55; P = 0.010), and serum ln(direct bilirubin) (OR, 1.82; 95 % CI: 1.29, 2.63; P < 0.001) were independently associated with eCCA. Incorporating the above 5 variables, a diagnostic model achieved an AUC of 0.912 (95 % CI: 0.859, 0.965), with well-fitted calibration curve (P = 0.815) and good clinical utility. Additionally, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the model were 83.33 %, 86.84 %, and 84.07 %, respectively.

Conclusion

The proposed model integrating two MRI features (i.e., indistinct outer margin and diffusion restriction) and three clinical characteristics (i.e., cholelithiasis, lnCA125 and lnDBIL) enabled accurate diagnosis of eCCA. This tool holds the potential to facilitate an early diagnosis and thereby allow timely treatment interventions and improved clinical outcomes for patients with eCCA.

Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials randomised 2338 patients. Most of the trials had high bias risk. There was no significant difference regarding mortality (risk difference 0,00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01). Meta-analysis of all trials suggests less overall complications in the laparoscopic group, but the high-quality trials show no significant difference ('allocation concealment' high-quality trials risk difference, random effects -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients have a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random effects -3 days, 95% CI -3.9 to -2.3) and convalescence (WMD, random effects -22.5 days, 95% CI -36.9 to -8.1) compared to open cholecystectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed in mortality, complications and operative time between laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay and a quicker convalescence compared with the classical open cholecystectomy. These results confirm the existing preference for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy over open cholecystectomy.

Small-incision versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Small-incision cholecystectomy is a less frequently used alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of small-incision versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (6 April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of small-incision or other kind of minimal incision cholecystectomy versus any kind of open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials randomised 571 patients. Bias risk was high in the included trials. No mortality was reported. The total complication proportions are respectively 9.9% and 9.3% in the small-incision and open group, which is not significantly different (risk difference all trials, random-effects 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.07). There are also no significant differences considering severe complications and bile duct injuries. However, small-incision cholecystectomy has a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference, random-effects -2.8 days (95% CI -4.9 to -0.6)) compared to open cholecystectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Small-incision and open cholecystectomy seem to be equivalent regarding risks of complications, but the latter method is associated with a significantly longer hospital stay. The quicker recovery of small-incision cholecystectomy compared with open cholecystectomy confirms the existing preference of this technique over open cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations. Open cholecystectomy has been the gold standard for over 100 years. Small-incision cholecystectomy is a less frequently used alternative. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in the 1980s.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched TheCochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (6 April 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), Web of Science (1988 to January 2004), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2004) for randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis comparing any kind of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus small-incision or other kind of minimal incision open cholecystectomy. No language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials randomised 2337 patients. Methodological quality was relatively high considering the four quality criteria. Total complications of laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy are high: 26.6% versus 22.9%. Total complications (risk difference, random-effects -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.05), hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD), random-effects -0.72 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.04), and convalescence were not significantly different. High-quality trials show a quicker operative time for small-incision cholecystectomy (WMD, high-quality trials 'blinding', random-effects 16.4 minutes, 95% CI 8.9 to 23.8) while low-quality trials show no significant difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy seem to be equivalent. No differences could be observed in mortality, complications, and postoperative recovery. Small-incision cholecystectomy has a significantly shorter operative time. Complications in elective cholecystectomy are prevalent.

Association of clinical and laboratory variables with ultrasound findings in right upper quadrant abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine how laboratory values and physical examination findings correlate with ultrasound findings in the setting of right upper quadrant pain.

METHODS

Patients undergoing emergent ultrasound for the evaluation of biliary disease between November 1999 and April 2000 were included. Physical examination findings, laboratory data, and ultrasound results were variables. Logistic regression was performed. Ultrasound diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, and normal biliary tract were end points. One hundred seventy-seven patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

Forty-two percent were diagnosed with acute cholecystitis, 30.5% with cholelithiasis, and 27.1% with normal biliary tract. Alkaline phosphatase, Murphy sign, white blood cell count, and total bilirubin were statistically significant predictors of acute cholecystitis. A Murphy sign was defined as arrest of inspiration with pressure over the right upper quadrant.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this study allow clinicians to apply objective significance to laboratory data and physical examination findings in patients with suspected gallstone disease. The data can be applied to create a predictive model.

Phantom gallbladders

The sensitivity of ultrasonography for detecting gallstones is high, but mishaps can occur. The three false positive cases we describe here illustrate problems which may be encountered in interpreting ultrasound images and in communication between the clinician, patient and ultrasonographer.