Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, the optimal technique for extracting common bile duct stones remains unclear. Recent studies have noted improved outcomes with single-stage techniques, such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); however only few studies have directly compared those two single-stage techniques. OBJECTIVES: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we retrospectively analyzed the postoperative outcomes of all patients who underwent single-stage LC for choledocholithiasis from 2005 to 2017. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, we stratified patients into two cohorts: those who underwent iERCP and LCBDE. Applying univariate techniques, we evaluated baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes for both cohorts. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality; our secondary outcomes included rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Of the 1814 single-stage LC patients during our 13-year study period, 1185 (65.3%) underwent LCBDE; 629 (34.6%) underwent iERCP. Our univariate analysis showed that the two cohorts were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics, including demographics, preoperative comorbidities, laboratory values, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. 30-day postoperative morbidity (including infectious and noninfectious complications) and overall mortality between groups were low and comparable. The mean operative time was slightly longer with LCBDE (125.1 ± 62.0 min) than iERCP (113.5 ± 65.2 min; P < 0.001), however the mean hospital length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate were similar. CONCLUSION: We found that both iERCP and LCBDE resulted in low, comparable rates of morbidity and mortality. Centers with readily available endoscopic expertise might favor iERCP for its ease of access and shorter operative time. However, LCBDE remains an appropriate technique for patients with choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention is unavailable.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been becoming more and more popular in patients with symptomatic choledocholithiasis. However, the safety and effectiveness of LCBDE in elderly patients with choledocholithiasis is still uncertain. This meta-analysis is aimed to appraise the safety and feasibility of LCBDE for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies comparing elderly patients and younger patients who underwent LCBDE for common bile duct stone were reviewed and collected from the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were stone clearance rate, overall complication rate, and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were operative time, conversion rate, pulmonary complication, bile leakage, reoperation, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate. RESULTS: Nine studies, including two prospective studies and seven retrospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 2004 patients in this meta-analysis, including 693 elderly patients and 1311 younger patients. There was no statistically significant difference between elderly patients and younger patients regarding stone clearance rate (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.42-1.26; p = 0.25), overall complication rate (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.94-1.82; p = 0.12), and mortality rate (OR 2.80; 95% CI 0.82-9.53; p = 0.10). Similarly, the operative time, conversion rate, bile leakage, reoperation, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate showed no significant difference between two groups (p > 0.05). While elderly patients showed high risk for pulmonary complication (OR 4.41; 95% CI 1.78-10.93; p = 0.001) compared with younger patients. CONCLUSION: Although there is associated with higher pulmonary complication, LCBDE is still considered as a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis.

Balloons larger than 15 mm can increase the risk of adverse events following endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been widely used to facilitate the removal of difficult common bile duct stones, however, the outcomes have not yet been investigated in terms of the diameter of the balloon used. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between EPLBD using smaller (12-15 mm, S-EPLBD) and larger balloons (> 15 mm, L-EPLBD). METHODS: Six hundred seventy-two patients who underwent EPLBD with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stone removal were enrolled from May 2004 to August 2014 at four tertiary referral centers in Korea. The outcomes, including the initial success rate, the success rate without endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, the overall success rate, and adverse events between S-EPLBD and L-EPLBD groups, were retrospectively compared. RESULTS: The initial success rate, the success rate without mechanical lithotripsy, the overall success rate, and the overall adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of severe-to-fatal adverse events was higher in the L-EPBLD group than in the S-EPLBD group (1.6% vs 0.0%, 0.020). One case of severe bleeding and two cases of fatal perforation occurred only in the L-EPLBD group. In the multivariate analysis, the use of a > 15-mm balloon was the only significant risk factor for severe-to-fatal adverse events (>0.005, 23.8 [adjusted odds ratio], 2.6-214.4 [95% confidence interval]). CONCLUSIONS: L-EPLBD is significantly related to severe-to-fatal adverse events compared with S-EPLBD for common bile duct stone removal.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is safe for management of choledocholithiasis in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is one of the minimally invasive options for choledocholithiasis. Primary closure of the common bile duct (CBD) upon completion of laparoscopic choledochotomy is safe in selected patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of primary closure of CBD after LCBDE in patients aged 70 years or older. METHODS: A total of 116 patients (51 males and 65 females) who suffered from choledocholithiasis and underwent primary closure of the CBD (without T-tube drainage) after LCBDE from January 2003 to December 2017 were recruited. They were classified into two groups according to age: group A (≥70 years, n = 56), and group B (<70 years, n = 60). The preoperative characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 172.02 min for group A and 169.92 min for group B (P = 0.853). The mean hospital stay was 7.40 days for group A and 5.38 days for group B (P < 0.001). Bile leakage occurred in two patients in group A and one in group B (3.57% vs 1.67%, P = 0.952). There were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative complications and mortality between the two groups. At median follow-up time of 60 months, stone recurrence was detected in one patient in group A and two in group B (1.79% vs 3.33%, P = 1.000). Stenosis of CBD was not observed in group A and slight stenosis in one patient in group B (0 vs 1.67%, P = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Primary closure of the CBD upon completion of laparoscopic choledochotomy is safe and feasible in elderly patients ≥70 years old.

Role of Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in the Management of Choledocholithiasis in High-risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with subsequent cholecystectomy is the standard of care for the management of patients with choledocholithiasis. There is conflicting evidence in terms of mortality reduction, prevention of complications specifically biliary pancreatitis and cholangitis with the use of early cholecystectomy particularly in high-risk surgical and elderly patients. AIMS: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the early cholecystectomy versus wait and watch strategy after ES. METHODS: We searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane database for randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 strategies in the management of choledocholithiasis after ES. Our primary outcome of interest was difference in mortality. We evaluated several secondary outcomes including difference in development of acute pancreatitis, biliary colic and cholecystitis, cholangitis and recurrent jaundice, nonbiliary adverse events, and length of hospital stay. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical variables and difference in means was calculated for continuous variables. These were pooled using random effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies with 916 patients (455 cholecystectomy group and 461 wait and watch group) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR with 95% confidence interval for mortality was 1.43 (0.93-2.18), I=9%. In the high-risk patient group, pooled RR was 1.39 (0.64-3.03) and in low-risk population pooled RR was 1.53 (0.79-2.96). Pooled RR for acute pancreatitis was 1.64 (0.46-5.81) with no heterogeneity. There was no difference in the rate of acute pancreatitis patients based on high-risk versus low-risk patients. Pooled RR for occurrence of biliary colic and cholecystitis during follow-up was 9.82 (4.27-22.59), I=0%. Pooled RR for cholangitis and recurrent jaundice was 2.16 (1.14-4.07), I=0%. However, there was no difference in the rate of cholangitis between the 2 groups in low-risk patients. Length of stay was shorter in the wait and watch group with a pooled mean difference was -2.70 (-4.71, -0.70) with substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no difference in mortality between the 2 strategies after ES, laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be recommended as it is associated with lower rates of subsequent recurrent cholecystitis, cholangitis, and biliary colic down the road even in high-risk surgical patients.

Comparison of late adverse events after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for common bile duct stones: A propensity score-based cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a standard procedure for the treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is emerging as an effective method to treat difficult CBDS, providing several advantages over ES without increasing early adverse events (AE). However, the late AE of EPLBD have not yet been well studied. The aim of the present study was to compare late AE after EPLBD versus ES for the treatment of CBDS using a propensity score-based cohort analysis. METHODS: Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce the possible bias in baseline characteristics between two treatment groups and formed the matched cohort including 240 patients. Primary endpoint was cumulative as well as estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates. Secondary outcome was the incidence of early AE. RESULTS: Cumulative late AE rates were 12.5% and 16.7% in the ELPBD and ES groups (P = 0.936) with a median follow-up period of 915.5 and 1544.5 days, respectively. Estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates were 8.4% and 13.1% in the EPLBD group and 5.0% and 15.0% in the ES group, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ≥two procedures were identified as independent risk factors for late AE. Overall early AE rate did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: In the present study, late AE rate after EPLBD showed no significant difference compared with that after ES, which had a relatively long follow-up period. Therefore, EPLBD could be used for the treatment of CBDS, if CBDS are considered difficult to treat. Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000027798.

Weekend Admission for Acute Cholangitis Does Not Adversely Impact Clinical or Endoscopic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute cholangitis (AC) requires prompt diagnosis and treatment for optimal management. AIMS: To examine whether a putative "weekend effect" impact outcomes of patients hospitalized for AC. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted with AC between 2009 and 2012. After excluding those not meeting Tokyo consensus criteria for AC, the cohort was categorized into weekend (Saturday-Sunday) and weekday (Monday-Friday) hospital admission and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) groups. Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS); secondary outcomes included ERC performance, organ failure, and mortality. Groups were compared with Chi-square and t tests; predictors of LOS were assessed with linear regression. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 181 patients (mean age 63.1 years, 62.4 % male). Choledocholithiasis was the most common etiology of AC (29.4 %). Fifty-two patients (28.7 %) were admitted on a weekend and 129 (71.3 %) on a weekday. One hundred forty-one patients (78 %) underwent ERC, of which 120 (85 %) were on a weekday. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, LOS, proportion undergoing ERC, time to ERC, organ failure, or mortality between weekend and weekday admission groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences between weekend and weekday ERC groups. In multivariate analyses, international normalized ratio (p < 0.01) and intensive care unit triage (p < 0.01) were independent predictors of LOS, whereas weekend admission (p = 0.23) and weekend ERC (p = 0.74) were not. CONCLUSIONS: Weekend admission and weekend ERC do not negatively impact outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute cholangitis at a tertiary care center. Further studies, particularly in centers with less weekend resources or staffing, are indicated.

Recurrence of biliary disease following non-operative management in elderly patients.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of symptomatic recurrence following initial non-operative management of gallstone disease in the elderly and to test possible predictors. METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective chart review of patients 65 years and older with an initial hospital visit (V1) for symptomatic gallstone disease, over a 4-year period. Patients with initial "non-operative" management were defined as those without surgery at V1 and without elective surgery at visit 2 (V2). Baseline characteristics included age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), diagnosis, and interventions (ERCP or cholecystostomy) at V1. Outcomes assessed over 1 year were as follows: recurrence (any ER/admission visit following V1), surgery, complications, and mortality. A survival analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model was performed to assess predictors of recurrence. RESULTS: There were 195 patients initially treated non-operatively at V1. Mean age was 78.3 ± 7.8 years, 45.6% were male, and the mean CCI was 2.1 ± 1.9. At V1, 54.4% had a diagnosis of biliary colic or cholecystitis, while 45.6% had a diagnosis of cholangitis, pancreatitis, or choledocholithiasis. 39.5% underwent ERCP or cholecystostomy. Excluding 10 patients who died at V1, 31.3% of patients had a recurrence over the study period. Among these, 43.5% had emergency surgery, 34.8% had complications, and 4.3% died. Median time to first recurrence was 2 months (range 6 days-4.8 months). Intervention at V1 was associated with a lower probability of recurrence (HR 0.3, CI [0.14-0.65]). CONCLUSION: One-third of elderly patients will develop a recurrence following non-operative management of symptomatic biliary disease. These recurrences are associated with significant rates of emergency surgery and morbidity. Percutaneous or endoscopic therapies may decrease the risk of recurrence.

Decreasing mortality from acute biliary diseases that require endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The management of acute biliary diseases often involves endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but it is not clear whether this technique reduces mortality. We investigated whether mortality from acute biliary diseases that require ERCP has been reduced over time and explored factors associated with mortality. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2008). We identified hospitalizations for choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and acute pancreatitis that involved ERCP. Multivariate analyses were used to determine the effects of time period, patient factors, hospital characteristics, features of the ERCP procedure, and types of cholecystectomies on mortality, length of stay, and costs. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2008 there were 166,438 admissions for acute biliary conditions that met the inclusion criteria, corresponding to more than 800,000 patients nationwide. During this interval, mortality decreased from 1.1% to 0.6% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-0.8), diagnostic ERCPs decreased from 28.8% to 10.0%, hospitals performing fewer than 100 ERCPs per year decreased from 38.4% to 26.9%, open cholecystectomies decreased from 12.4% to 5.8%, and unsuccessful ERCPs decreased from 6.3% to 3.2% (P < .0001 for all trends). Unsuccessful ERCP (aOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.2), open cholecystectomy (aOR, 3.4; 95% CI 2.7-4.3), cholangitis (aOR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.3), older age, having Medicare health insurance, and comorbidity were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality from acute biliary conditions requiring ERCP in the United States has decreased over time. Reductions in the rate of unsuccessful ERCPs and open cholecystectomies are associated with this trend.

[The possibilities of modern prophylaxis of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)].

The paper presents the results of the 1778 performed ERCP on patients with benign bile duct occlusion. Father was given evaluation of the effectiveness of using ksifokam, and usage of preventive and therapeutic stenting of the main pancreatic duct in 31 patients.

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.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is more difficult after a previous endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) followed by a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for patients with choledochocystolithiasis who are eligible for surgery. Previous studies have shown that LC after ES is associated with a high conversion rate. The aim of the present study was to assess the complexity of LC after ES compared with standard LC for symptomatic uncomplicated cholecystolithiasis. METHODS: The study population consisted of two patient cohorts: patients who had undergone a previous ERCP with ES for choledocholithiasis (PES) and patients with cholecystolithiasis who had no previous intervention prior to LC (NPES). RESULTS: The PES group consisted of 93 patients and the NPES group consisted of 83 consecutive patients. Patients in the PES group had higher risks for longer [more than 65 min, odds ratio (OR) = 4.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.79-9.91)] and more complex [higher than 6 points, on a 0-10 scale, OR 3.12 (95% CI 1.43-6.81)] surgery. The conversion rate in the PES and NPES group (6.5% versus 2.4%, respectively) and the complication rate (12.9% versus 9.6%, respectively) were not significantly different. DISCUSSION: A laparoscopic cholecystectomy after ES is lengthier and more difficult than in uncomplicated cholelithiasis and should therefore be performed by an experienced surgeon.

Predicting complicated choledocholithiasis.

INTRODUCTION: Management of choledocholithiasis and its complications is variable and often requires transfer to a specialty facility. This study links patient-specific characteristics with the outcome measure of complicated choledocholithiasis to identify high-risk patients who may require expedited treatment or transfer to a higher level of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a discharge diagnosis of choledocholithiasis (CDL) were identified from the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Patient characteristics were identified associated with the primary outcome measure of complicated choledocholithiasis (cCDL), defined as acute pancreatitis or cholangitis during the admission for CDL. Predictors of mortality were also evaluated. Analysis was performed using complex-sample univariate and adjusted analyses. RESULTS: We identified 123,990 discharges with a diagnosis of CDL. The overall incidence of CDL was 314 per 100,000 NIS discharges. Forty-one percent of CDL discharges were for cCDL (acute pancreatitis 31%, cholangitis 12%). Risk factors for cCDL included age (risk increased 0.8% per year), male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.2), alcohol abuse (OR 1.5, CI 1.3-1.8), diabetes (OR 1.1, CI 1.0-1.2), hypertension (OR 1.1, CI 1.0-1.2), obesity (OR 1.2, CI 1.1-1.3), nonelective admission (OR 2.3, CI 2.0-2.6), and Asian/Pacific Islander race/ethnicity (OR 1.2, CI 1.0-1.5). Patients with cCDL had increased odds of mortality (OR 1.5, CI 1.2-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Increased age, nonelective admission, and specific comorbid conditions are associated with cCDL, which has increased mortality. These factors can be used to identify patients needing timely access to treatment or transfer to a higher level of care.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of primary closure with those of T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library databases. Only randomized controlled trials comparing primary closure with T-tube drainage in LCBDE were considered eligible for this meta-analysis. The analyzed outcome variables included postoperative mortality, overall morbidity, biliary complication rate, biliary leak rate, reoperation, operating time, postoperative hospital stay, time to abdominal drain removal, and retained stone. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using ReviewerManager 5.1.2 software. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients (148 patients with primary closure and 147 patients with T-tube drainage) from three trials were identified and analyzed. No deaths occurred in any of the trials. Primary closure showed significantly better results in terms of morbidity (risk ratio (RR), 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30 to 0.88), biliary complication without a combination of retained stone (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.97), reoperation (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.87), operating time (mean difference (MD), -20.72; 95% CI, -29.59 to -11.85), postoperative hospital stay (MD, -3.24; 95% CI, -3.96 to -2.52), and time to abdominal drainage removal (MD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.86 to -0.04). Statistically significant differences were not found between the two methods in terms of biliary leak, biliary complication, and retained stones. CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis indicates that primary closure of the common bile duct is safer and more effective than T-tube drainage for LCBDE. Therefore, we do not recommend routine performance of T-tube drainage in LCBDE.

Predictive value and main determinants of abnormal features of intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The major issue with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) is whether its diagnostic accuracy for common bile duct (CBD) stones matches that of other diagnostic procedures, and thus, whether it will become a routine diagnostic procedure. The current study aimed to address the main determinants of CBD stone diagnosis in IOC among an Iranian population. METHODS: In a retrospective review database-based study conducted in Taleghani Hospital in Tehran between 2006 and 2008, baseline data and perioperative information of 2060 patients (male to female ratio 542:1518, mean age 53.7 years) who were candidates for cholecystectomy and underwent concomitant IOC for confirming CBD stones were reviewed. The predictive power of this procedure for diagnosis of abnormal biliary ducts with the focus on biliary stones was determined. RESULTS: Overall mortality and morbidity following cholecystectomy in the study population were 0.6% and 2.6%, respectively. Both early mortality and morbidity due to cholecystectomy were higher in male than female. The prevalence of CBD stones in IOC was 3.4% (5.2% in male and 2.8% in female, P=0.008). Among those without gallstones, 8.7% had CBD stones and only 3.1% had concomitant gallstones and CBD stones. The main predictors of stone appearance as an abnormal feature of IOC during cholecystectomy were: advanced age (OR=1.022, P=0.001), male gender (OR=1.498, P=0.050), history of abdominal surgery (OR=1.543, P=0.040) and preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (OR=5.400, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IOC is a safe and accurate method for the assessment of bile duct anatomy and stones. Therefore, the routine use of IOC within cholecystectomy seems reasonable and is recommended.

Biliary stenting in the management of large or multiple common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic biliary stenting with a plastic stent is often performed to prevent impaction of common bile duct (CBD) stones. The therapeutic effect of a plastic stent placement in terms of reduction in stone size and number has not been established. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to study the effect of biliary stenting as therapy for CBD stones. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Municipal hospital outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with large (> or = 20 mm) and/or multiple (> or = 3) stones had placement of a 7F double-pigtail plastic stent without stone extraction at the initial ERCP. Approximately 2 months later, stone removal was attempted. The number and size of CBD stones before and after stent placement, stone clearance, complications, and 180-day mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty patients were studied. Stent placement averaged 65 days (range, 50-82 days). The median number (interquartile range) of stones per patient fell after stent placement (4.0 [3.0] before vs. 2.0 [1.0] after; P < .0001). Characteristically, larger stones became smaller and small stones disappeared (ie, the median stone index decreased from 4.6 [3.0] to 2.0 [1.5]; P < .0001). Stone clearance at the second ERCP was achieved in 37 out of 40 patients (93%). Complications included cholangitis (13%) and pancreatitis (5%) after the second ERCP. No 180-day mortality occurred. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective, single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: Stent placement for 2 months was associated with large and/or multiple CBD stones becoming smaller and/or disappearing without any complications. Stenting followed by a wait period may assist in difficult CBD stone removal.

Long-term biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy restenosis: incidence, endoscopic management, and complications of retreatment.

BACKGROUND: Ampullary restenosis is a late complication of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy. Long-term data are limited regarding both the rate of restenosis and complications resulting from repeat therapy. AIMS: To determine the incidence of post sphincterotomy restenosis and the effectiveness of endoscopic therapy in the management of this entity. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical charts and the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) database to identify patients with ERCP and biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy during the period 1998-2002 at the University of Iowa Hospitals was conducted. All subjects were contacted by phone and asked about the recurrence of their pancreatobiliary symptoms after the first ERCP and whether they sought any medical treatment for these symptoms. The primary outcome was restenosis of the sphincterotomy site and the secondary outcome was complications of endoscopic treatment of sphincterotomy restenosis. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients underwent ERCP and biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy on an intact major papilla. Of these, n = 80 patients (54.7 +/- 19 years of age, 76% female) consented and enrolled in the study. Among these, n = 13 (16%) developed ampullary restenosis in 1-62 (median 16) months after the index ERCP. These 13 patients underwent a total of 24 ERCPs (range 1-4 for each patient) for repeat biliary sphincterotomy and biliary stenting, if needed. Repeat biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy was successful in 12/13 (92%) patients. Complications of repeat biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy were seen in three patients: mild pancreatitis (n = 1), severe bleeding (n = 1), and severe duodenal perforation (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term restenosis is an important sequella of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy. Repeat biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy is an effective treatment modality, but complications are not negligible.

Antimicrobial therapy of 3 days or less is sufficient after successful ERCP for acute cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for the duration of antimicrobial therapy in cholangitis after successful endoscopic biliary drainage vary. The aim of this study was to compare the occurrence of local infectious complications in patients with acute cholangitis treated with antibiotics for 3 days or less compared with 4 days or more. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicentre study in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients who received a successful biliary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography because of cholangitis due to common bile duct stones between 2012 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a local infectious complication within 3 months of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. Secondary outcomes included Clostridioides difficile infection, total length of hospital stay and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients with cholangitis were identified and 296 patients met all inclusion criteria. Therapy duration was ≤3 days in 137 patients (46.3%). During follow-up, 41 patients (13.9%) developed a local infectious complication. Occurrence of infectious complications did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.32). No patient developed Clostridioides difficile infection. Median hospital stay was 6 days (interquartile range 4-8 days) in the short antibiotic group compared with 7 days (interquartile range 5-9 days) in the long group (p = 0.03). Four (1.4%) patients died during follow-up, all were treated for ≥4 days (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial therapy of 3 days or less seems to be sufficient after successful biliary drainage in patients with acute cholangitis. Randomized trials should confirm our findings.

Outcomes of endoscopic sphincterotomy vs open choledochotomy for common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) is used increasingly widely because it is a minimally invasive procedure. However, some clinical practitioners argued that EST may be complicated by post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and accompanied by a higher recurrence of CBDS than open choledochotomy (OCT). Whether any differences in outcomes exist between these two approaches for treating CBDS has not been thoroughly elucidated to date. AIM: To compare the outcomes of EST vs OCT for the management of CBDS and to clarify the risk factors associated with stone recurrence. METHODS: Patients who underwent EST or OCT for CBDS between January 2010 and December 2012 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Follow-up data were obtained through telephone or by searching the medical records. Statistical analysis was carried out for 302 patients who had a follow-up period of at least 5 years or had a recurrence. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for clinical differences. A logistic regression model was used to identify potential risk factors for recurrence, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated for qualifying independent risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 302 patients undergoing successful EST (n = 168) or OCT (n = 134) were enrolled in the study and were followed for a median of 6.3 years. After propensity score matching, 176 patients remained, and all covariates were balanced. EST was associated with significantly shorter time to relieving biliary obstruction, anesthetic duration, procedure time, and hospital stay than OCT (P < 0.001). The number of complete stone clearance sessions increased significantly in the EST group (P = 0.009). The overall incidence of complications and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups. Recurrent CBDS occurred in 18.8% (33/176) of the patients overall, but no difference was found between the EST (20.5%, 18/88) and OCT (17.0%, 15/88) groups. Factors associated with CBDS recurrence included common bile duct (CBD) diameter > 15 mm (OR = 2.72; 95%CI: 1.26-5.87; P = 0.011), multiple CBDS (OR = 5.09; 95%CI: 2.58-10.07; P < 0.001), and distal CBD angle ≤ 145° (OR = 2.92; 95%CI: 1.54-5.55; P = 0.001). The prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95%CI: 0.76-0.87). CONCLUSION: EST is superior to OCT with regard to time to biliary obstruction relief, anesthetic duration, procedure time, and hospital stay and is not associated with an increased recurrence rate or mortality compared with OCT in the management of CBDS.