3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prophylactic Biliary Stenting Before Cholecystectomy in Patients With Gallstones and Common Bile Duct Stones

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The usefulness of prophylactic biliary stenting for patients with common bile duct stones (CBDS) and gallstones (GS) to prevent recurrent biliary events after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and CBDS extraction before elective cholecystectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of recurrent CBDS around the perioperative period and clarify its risk factors.

          Methods

          The clinical data of all patients who received prophylactic biliary stenting after EST for CBDS and later underwent cholecystectomy for GS followed by stent extraction in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The numbers of residual CBDS at the end first and second endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) studies were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a logistic regression model to determine risk factors for recurrent CBDS in the perioperative period.

          Results

          Forty-two consecutive patients received prophylactic biliary stenting and subsequent cholecystectomy for GS. Three of these patients were excluded from this study because the number of residual stones was not confirmed. The median maximum CBDS diameter at second ERC was 0 mm (range, 0 - 10 mm); six patients had multiple CBDS (≥ 5). The number of CBDS at second ERC was increased in comparison to that at the first ERC in 15 patients (38.4%), and was unchanged or decreased in 24 patients. The median minimum cystic duct diameter was 4 mm (range, 1 - 8 mm). The median interval between first ERC and operation was 26 days (range, 2 - 131 days). The median interval between operation and second ERC was 41 days (range, 26 - 96 days). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was performed in 38 patients, one of whom was converted from LC to open cholecystectomy. Postoperative complications (transient bacteremia) occurred in one patient. The cystic duct diameter was an independent risk factor for an increased number of CBDS at second ERC in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio 0.611 (95% confidence interval (0.398 - 0.939)), P = 0.03).

          Conclusion

          Recurrent CBDS around the perioperative period of cholecystectomy is not a rare complication after EST and the removal of CBDS with concomitant GS. Prophylactic biliary stenting is considered useful for preventing CBDS-associated complications, especially for patients in whom the cystic duct diameter is larger (≥ 5 mm).

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

          Main Recommendations ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines: – severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock – moderate, within 48 – 72 hours – mild, elective. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Wait-and-see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile-duct stones: a randomised trial.

              Patients who undergo endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile-duct stones, who have residual gallbladder stones, are referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, only 10% of patients who do not have this operation are reported to develop recurrent biliary symptoms. We aimed to assess whether a wait-and-see policy is justified. We did a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial in 120 patients (age 18-80 years) who underwent endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone extraction, with proven gallbladder stones. Patients were randomly allocated to wait and see (n=64) or laparoscopic cholecystectomy (56). Primary outcome was recurrence of at least one biliary event during 2-year follow-up, and secondary outcomes were complications of cholecystectomy and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. 12 patients were lost to follow-up immediately. Of 59 patients allocated to wait and see, 27 (47%) had recurrent biliary symptoms compared with one (2%) of 49 patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (relative risk 22.42, 95% CI 3.16-159.14, p<0.0001). 22 (81%) of 27 patients underwent cholecystectomy, mainly for biliary pain (n=13) or acute cholecystitis (7). Conversion rate to open surgery was 55% in patients allocated to wait and see who underwent cholecystectomy compared with 23% in those who were allocated laparoscopic cholecystectomy (p=0.0104). Morbidity was 32% versus 14% (p=0.1048), and median hospital stay was 9 versus 7 days. Quality of life returned to normal within 3 months after either treatment policy. A wait-and-see policy after endoscopic sphincterotomy in combined cholecystodocholithiasis cannot be recommended as standard treatment, since 47% of expectantly managed patients developed at least one recurrent biliary event and 37% needed cholecystectomy. No major biliary complications arose, but conversion rate was high.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gastroenterology Res
                Gastroenterology Res
                Elmer Press
                Gastroenterology Research
                Elmer Press
                1918-2805
                1918-2813
                August 2019
                25 August 2019
                : 12
                : 4
                : 191-197
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Gastroenterology, Kyoto Okamoto Memorial Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                [b ]Department of Surgery, Kyoto Okamoto Memorial Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                Author notes
                [c ]Corresponding Author: Hideaki Kawabata, Department of Gastroenterology, Kyoto Okamoto Memorial Hospital, 100 Nishinokuchi, Sayama, Kumiyama-cho, Kuze-gun, Kyoto 613-0034, Japan. Email: hkawabata@ 123456okamoto-hp.or.jp
                Article
                10.14740/gr1207
                6731041
                31523328
                43b08433-81ee-4c45-a5ed-90232c185d8c
                Copyright 2019, Kawabata et al.

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 July 2019
                : 13 August 2019
                Categories
                Original Article

                cbd stone,gallstone,biliary stent,endoscopic sphincterotomy,cholecystectomy

                Comments

                Comment on this article