Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2020; 11(02): 126-133
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713540
Original Article

Factors Associated with the Success Rate of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography with Standard Technique followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Management of Choledocholithiasis: A Single-Center Experience

Chayanon Konsue
1   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
,
Chalerm Eurboonyanun 
1   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
,
Somchai Ruangwannasak
1   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
,
Kulyada Eurboonyanun
2   Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
,
Tharatip Srisuk
1   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
,
Egapong Satitkarnmanee
1   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
,
Potchavit Aphinives
1   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
,
Anan Sripanuskul
1   Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Choledocholithiasis is the most common benign biliary disease. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been the first-line therapy in recent years, although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration has promising results. This retrospective study aimed to define the factors associated with biliary clearance by standard ERCP technique and conversion rate of LC.

Materials and Methods We retrospectively evaluated the records of 217 choledocholithiasis patients who had undergone ERCP with stone removal by the standard technique from 2010 to 2018. A failed ERCP was defined when the first ERCP session could not remove the stones . The number of patients who later underwent open cholecystectomy or LC was also recorded. Conversion was defined when LC had to be converted OC.

Statistical Analysis Student’s t-test was used for the comparison of continuous variables. Nominal variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Binary logistic regression was performed for multivariate analysis.

Results The rate of successful biliary clearance was 81.1%. Of the patients, 109 (50.2%) had difficult stones. Increasing age (p = 0.004), increasing number (p = 0.001), and increasing size of stone (p < 0.001) were the three significant factors that were associated with the failure of biliary clearance. The difficult stone group had a higher failure rate of ERCP and a higher conversion rate of LC compared with the easy stone group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.027, respectively).

Conclusions ERCP with the standard technique is a highly effective and safe management option for patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones. The difficult stone group was found to be an independent risk factor that affected the success rate of both ERCP and the following LC. Difficult stone criteria should be assessed to identify a patient who might benefit from laparoscopic CBD exploration.

Keywords

CBD stones - ERCP - choledocholithiasis - standard technique - difficult stones - endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography - laparoscopic cholecystectomy - conversion


Publication History

Article published online:
03 July 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • Reference

  • 1 Prachayakul V, Aswakul P, Bhunthumkomol P. Deesomsak M Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with intermediate or high likelihood of choledocholithiasis: a retrospective study from one university-based endoscopy center. BMC Gastroenterol 2014; 14-165
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Frossard JL, Morel PM. Detection and management of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72 (04) 808-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lynn AP, Chong G, Thomson A. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of intraoperatively demonstrated choledocholithiasis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014; 96 (01) 45-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ödemiş B, Kuzu UB, Öztaş E. et al. Endoscopic management of the difficult bile duct stones: a single tertiary center experience. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016; 2016: 8749583
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McHenry L, Lehman G. Difficult bile duct stones. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2006; 9 (02) 123-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chan AC, Ng EK, Chung SC. et al. Common bile duct stones become smaller after endoscopic biliary stenting. Endoscopy 1998; 30 (04) 356-359
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37 (03) 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dasari BVM, Tan CJ, Gurusamy KS. et al. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (09) CD003327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Guan G, Sun C, Ren Y, Zhao Z, Ning S. Comparing a single-staged laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration versus a two-staged endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 2018; 164 (05) 1030-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Poulose BK, Arbogast PG, Holzman MD. National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores. Surg Endosc 2006; 20 (02) 186-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tao T, Zhang M, Zhang QJ. et al. Outcome of a session of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for problematic and large common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23 (27) 4950-4957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Phalanusitthepha C, Augkurawaranon C, Sriprayoon T, Hokierti C, Akaraviputh T. Outcomes of endoscopic sphincteroplasty using large balloon dilatation for difficult common bile duct stone removal: a single endoscopist experience. J Med Assoc Thai 2014; 97 (07) 699-704
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sauer BG, Cerefice M, Swartz DC. et al. Safety and efficacy of laser lithotripsy for complicated biliary stones using direct choledochoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58 (01) 253-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Millat B, Fingerhut A, Deleuze A. et al. Prospective evaluation in 121 consecutive unselected patients undergoing laparoscopic treatment of choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg 1995; 82 (09) 1266-1269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Buxbaum JL, Abbas Fehmi SM, Sultan S. et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89 (06) 1075-1105.e15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stefanidis G, Viazis N, Pleskow D. et al. Large balloon dilation vs. mechanical lithotripsy for the management of large bile duct stones: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106 (02) 278-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Angsuwatcharakon P, Kulpatcharapong S, Ridtitid W. et al. Digital cholangioscopy-guided laser versus mechanical lithotripsy for large bile duct stone removal after failed papillary large-balloon dilation: a randomized study. Endoscopy 2019; 51 (11) 1066-1073
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ang TL, Kwek ABE. Safety and efficacy of SpyGlass cholangiopancreatoscopy in routine clinical practice in a regional Singapore hospital. Singapore Med J 2019; 60 (10) 538-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 DI Mitri R, Pellicano R, Eusebi LH. et al. Single versus two-operator endoscopic biliary cannulation technique: a multicenter matched-case analysis. Minerva Chir 2017; 72 (04) 302-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Elfant AB, Bourke MJ, Alhalel R, Kortan PP, Haber GB. A prospective study of the safety of endoscopic therapy for choledocholithiasis in an outpatient population. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91 (08) 1499-1502
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Maple JT, Ikenberry SO, Anderson MA. et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in the management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74 (04) 731-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hochberger J, Bayer J, May A. et al. Laser lithotripsy of difficult bile duct stones: results in 60 patients using a rhodamine 6G dye laser with optical stone tissue detection system. Gut 1998; 43 (06) 823-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P. et al. BSG Audit of ERCP. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 2007; 56 (06) 821-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltzke W. Outcome of mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in an unselected series of 704 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 1996; 43 (09) 473-476
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rosa B, Moutinho Ribeiro P, Rebelo A, Pinto Correia A, Cotter J. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation after sphincterotomy for difficult choledocholithiasis: a case-controlled study. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 5 (05) 211-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Minami A, Hirose S, Nomoto T, Hayakawa S. Small sphincterotomy combined with papillary dilation with large balloon permits retrieval of large stones without mechanical lithotripsy. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13 (15) 2179-2182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lee TY, Cheon YK, Choe WH, Shim CS. Direct cholangioscopy-based holmium laser lithotripsy of difficult bile duct stones by using an ultrathin upper endoscope without a separate biliary irrigating catheter. Photomed Laser Surg 2012; 30 (01) 31-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Maydeo A, Kwek BEA, Bhandari S, Bapat M, Dhir V. Single-operator cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy in patients with difficult biliary and pancreatic ductal stones (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74 (06) 1308-1314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Talukdar R. Complications of ERCP. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30 (05) 793-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pungpapong S, Kongkam P, Rerknimitr R, Kullavanijaya P. Experience on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at tertiary referral center in Thailand: risks and complications. J Med Assoc Thai 2005; 88 (02) 238-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sakpal SV, Bindra SS, Chamberlain RS. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion rates two decades later. JSLS 2010; 14 (04) 476-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J. Predictive factors for conversion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 2002; 184 (03) 254-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Beliaev AM, Booth M. Late two-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with an increased risk of major bile duct injury. ANZ J Surg 2016; 86 (1-2) 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Krishnamohan N, Lo C, Date RS. Predicting the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography - subgroup analysis does not improve the prediction. J Minim Access Surg 2019; 15 (04) 360-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cinar H, Ozbalci GS, Tarim IA. et al. Factors affecting the conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cholelithiasis undergoing ERCP due to choledocholithiasis. Ann Ital Chir 2017; 88: 229-236
    PubMedGoogle Scholar