Is endoscopic sphincterotomy beneficial for the treatment of acute gallstone pancreatitis with small bile duct stone?

BACKGROUND: Acute gallstone pancreatitis occurs when a gallstone is impacted at the ampulla of Vater. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of small choledocholithiasis in these patients is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of expectant management with endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of small choledocholithiasis (≤5 mm) in patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 258 patients admitted for acute gallstone pancreatitis from January 2010 to December 2014, 174 patients with small choledocholithiasis were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with coexisting acute cholangitis and/or pancreatobiliary malignancy were excluded. They were divided into an endoscopic sphincterotomy group (n=64) and an expectant management group (n=110). Severity index and outcomes of pancreatitis, complications, and overall mortality were compared. RESULTS: Age and sex were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean Ranson, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-II, and bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis scores were not significantly different between the two groups. The computed tomography severity index score was significantly higher in the expectant management group than in the endoscopic sphincterotomy group (1.6±1.1 vs. 1.0±0.9, P<0.001). Duration of hospitalization, time for normalization of the white blood cell count, and time for oral feeding were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference between two groups in the incidence of development of pseudocyst or walled-off necrosis. In addition, no difference was observed in the rate of recurrence of acute pancreatitis and readmission because of recurrent choledocholithiasis. CONCLUSION: Expectant management seems to be effective for the treatment of patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis and size of bile duct stones equal to or less than 5 mm.

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.

[Antegrade approach for cholangiolithiasis complicated by mechanical jaundice]. / Vozmozhnosti antegradnogo dostupa v lechenii kholangiolitiaza, oslozhnennogo sindromom mekhanicheskoi zheltukhi.

AIM: To improve an efficiency of surgical treatment of patients with cholelithiasis complicated by obstructive jaundice through antegrade interventional approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 166 patients aged from 23 to 92 years with cholangiolithiasis complicated by mechanical jaundice were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group I (136) - retrograde endoscopic method, group II (30) - antegrade interventional approach. RESULTS: In the first group surgical efficacy was 79.4%. Morbidity and mortality were 13% and 2% respectively. In the second group these values were 96.7%, 10% and 3% respectively. CONCLUSION: Antegrade interventional approach for minimally invasive procedures is technically feasible, has the same effectiveness as the retrograde endoscopic method and also all advantages of minimally invasive techniques.

Cholecystectomy Reduces Recurrent Pancreatitis and Improves Survival After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether cholecystectomy can decrease the recurrent pancreatitis in the elderly patients who received endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and successful clearance of bile duct (BD) stones after gallstone-related acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We analyzed data from National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Elderly patients (age ≧70 years old) who had gallstone-related acute pancreatitis and underwent successful EST with BD stones clearance were eligible for enrollment. This nationwide, population-based, propensity score (PS)-matched cohort study involved two cohorts: (1) patients who underwent cholecystectomy after ERCP with BD stone clearance as study group and (2) those who adopted wait-and-see strategy (without cholecystectomy) after ERCP with BD stone clearance as control group. The primary and secondary endpoints were recurrent acute pancreatitis and all-cause mortality, respectively. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 670 elderly patients (male 291, female 379) with a mean age of 79.1 was enrolled for analysis after PS matching. The incidence rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis was 12.39 per 1000 person-years in the cholecystectomy cohort and 23.94 per 1000 person-years in the PS-matched control cohort. The risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis was significantly lower in the cholecystectomy cohort (HR, 0.56; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.91; P = 0.021). The HR for all-cause mortality among the cholecystectomy cohort was 0.75 (95 % CI, 0.59-0.95; P = 0.016) compared with the control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Cholecystectomy decreased the subsequent recurrent acute pancreatitis and the all-cause mortality in elderly patients with EST and clearance of BD stones after gallstone-related acute pancreatitis.

Tendencies and outcomes in endoscopic biliary sphincterotomies among people with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain, 2003-2013.

We aimed to compare incidence and outcomes for endoscopic biliary sphincterotomies in people with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Spain (2003-2013). We collected all cases of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomies using national hospital discharge data and evaluated annual incident rates stratified by T2DM status. We analyzed trends over time for in-hospital mortality (IHM) as the primary outcome and a composite of IHM or procedure-related complications (key secondary outcome). In multivariate analyses, we tested T2DM as an independent factor of IHM and IHM or complications. We identified 126,885 endoscopic biliary sphincterotomies (23,002 [18.1%] in T2DM people). Crude incidence rates of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomies were > 3-fold higher in people with vs without T2DM (85.5/105 vs 26.9/105 population, respectively). Annual incidence rates of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomies showed 11-year relative increments of 77.5% (from 60.0 to 106.5/105) in T2DM, and 53.7% (from 21.6 to 33.2/105) in non-T2DM people (p < 0.001). We found no significant changes in mortality trends over time for the populations with or without T2DM (p = 0.15 and p = 0.21, respectively). Rates of procedural pancreatitis decreased in people without T2DM (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, older age, higher comorbidity and endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy during urgent admission were associated with a higher IHM. T2DM was associated with a lower IHM after an endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (OR = 0.82 [0.74-0.92]). Time trend multivariate analyses 2003-2013 showed significant reductions in IHM over time only in people with T2DM (OR = 0.97 [0.94-1.00]). Further studies are needed to confirm a lower IHM for endoscopic biliary sphincterotomies in people with T2DM.

Predictors of re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding.

AIM: To predict the re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) bleeding. METHODS: Over a 15-year period, data from 161 patients with delayed post-ES bleeding were retrospectively collected from a single medical center. To identify risk factors for re-bleeding after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis, parameters before, during and after the procedure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were analyzed. These included age, gender, blood biochemistry, co-morbidities, endoscopic diagnosis, presence of peri-ampullary diverticulum, occurrence of immediate post-ES bleeding, use of needle knife precut sphincterotomy, severity of delayed bleeding, endoscopic features on delayed bleeding, and type of endoscopic therapy. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients (21.7%) had re-bleeding after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-ES bleeding. Univariate analysis revealed that malignant biliary stricture, serum bilirubin level of greater than 10 mg/dL, initial bleeding severity, and bleeding diathesis were significant predictors of re-bleeding. By multivariate analysis, serum bilirubin level of greater than 10 mg/dL and initial bleeding severity remained significant predictors. Re-bleeding was controlled by endoscopic therapy in a single (n = 23) or multiple (range, 2-7; n = 6) sessions in 29 of the 35 patients (82.9%). Four patients required transarterial embolization and one went for surgery. These five patients had severe bleeding when delayed post-ES bleeding occurred. One patient with decompensated liver cirrhosis died from re-bleeding. CONCLUSION: Re-bleeding occurs in approximately one-fifth of patients after initial successful endoscopic hemostasis for delayed post-ES bleeding. Severity of initial bleeding and serum bilirubin level of greater than 10 mg/dL are predictors of re-bleeding.

Repeat endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography after failed initial precut sphincterotomy for biliary cannulation.

AIM: To investigate the outcome of repeating endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) after initially failed precut sphincterotomy to achieve biliary cannulation. METHODS: In this retrospective study, consecutive ERCPs performed between January 2009 and September 2012 were included. Data from our endoscopy and radiology reporting databases were analysed for use of precut sphincterotomy, biliary access rate, repeat ERCP rate and complications. Patients with initially failed precut sphincterotomy were identified. RESULTS: From 1839 consecutive ERCPs, 187 (10%) patients underwent a precut sphincterotomy during the initial ERCP in attempts to cannulate a native papilla. The initial precut was successful in 79/187 (42%). ERCP was repeated in 89/108 (82%) of patients with failed initial precut sphincterotomy after a median interval of 4 d, leading to successful biliary cannulation in 69/89 (78%). In 5 patients a third ERCP was attempted (successful in 4 cases). Overall, repeat ERCP after failed precut at the index ERCP was successful in 73/89 patients (82%). Complications after precut-sphincterotomy were observed in 32/187 (17%) patients including pancreatitis (13%), retroperitoneal perforations (1%), biliary sepsis (0.5%) and haemorrhage (3%). CONCLUSION: The high success rate of biliary cannulation in a second attempt ERCP justifies repeating ERCP within 2-7 d after unsuccessful precut sphincterotomy before more invasive approaches should be considered.

Feasibility of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related procedures in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The opportunities of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related procedure for hemodialysis (HD) patients have been increasing recently. However, the complication rate of ERCPs in HD patients has not been evaluated sufficiently. We aimed to clarify the feasibility of ERCPs in HD patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 76 consecutive ERCPs for HD patients between January 2005 and December 2012 in one university hospital and three tertiary-care referral centers. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) was performed in 21 HD patients. We evaluated the incidence and risk factors for complications of all ERCPs and EST in HD patients. RESULTS: The incidence of pancreatitis, cholangitis, and cardiopulmonary complications for ERCPs in HD patients was 7.9% (6/76), 1.3% (1/76), and 1.3% (1/76), respectively. The mortality rate was 2.6% (2/76), and it occurred after acute pancreatitis in one patient and pneumonia in the other patient. The incidence of hemorrhage and pancreatitis with EST was 19% (4/21) and 4.8% (1/21), respectively. The duration of HD was significantly longer in the patients with hemorrhage after EST than without (19.5 vs 6 years; P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: ERCP is feasible in HD patients. However, EST is not advisable because of the high hemorrhage rate, particularly for patients with a long duration of HD.

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.

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on safety and efficacy of biliary drainage before surgery for obstructive jaundice.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) is beneficial to patients with obstructive jaundice. METHODS: Data from randomized clinical trials related to safety and effectiveness of PBD versus no PBD were extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk ratios, rate ratios or mean differences were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.), based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible. RESULTS: Six trials (four using percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and two using endoscopic sphincterotomy) including 520 patients with malignant or benign obstructive jaundice comparing PBD (265 patients) with no PBD (255) were included in this review. All trials had a high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in mortality (risk ratio 1.12, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 1.71; P = 0.60) between the two groups. Overall serious morbidity (grade III or IV, Clavien-Dindo classification) was higher in the PBD group (599 complications per 1000 patients) than in the direct surgery group (361 complications per 1000 patients) (rate ratio 1.66, 95 per cent c.i. 1.28 to 2.16; P < 0.001). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between the two groups: mean difference 4.87 (95 per cent c.i. -1.28 to 11.02) days (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: PBD in patients undergoing surgery for obstructive jaundice is associated with similar mortality but increased serious morbidity compared with no PBD. Therefore, PBD should not be used routinely.

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.

The safety and utility of pancreatic duct stents in the emergency ERCP of acute biliary pancreatitis but difficult sphincterotomy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility and safety of emergency ERCP and pancreatic duct (PD) stenting in acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) patients in whom biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy proved difficult, and to compare the clinical outcome of those patients having emergency ERCP without pancreatic stent. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and ninety-one consecutive patients with ABP were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to either the stent group (n=78) or the no-stent group (n=113). In the stent group, 3-5Fr,5-7cm-long pancreatic stent insertion was initially applied and removed endoscopically 1-2 weeks post-ER-CP. All patients were hospitalized for medical therapy and were followed-up. RESULTS: Mean age, initial symptom-to-ERCP times, Glasgow severity scores and peak amylase and CRP levels at initial presentation were not significantly different in the stent group vs. the no-stent group, and the selective biliary cannulation was achieved in 80% of the stent group and in 94% of the no-stent group (p=0.15). More importantly, the complication rate was significantly lower in the stent group (7.7% vs. 31.9%). There was no difference in mortality between the two groups statistically(1.3% vs. 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic duct stent-ing is a safe and effective procedure that may afford sufficient PD decompression to reverse the process of ABP, show better outcomes as compared to no-stent group. It is recommended to reduce the incidence of the complication in the emergency ERCP of ABP but difficult sphincterotomy. However, further prospective trials are needed.

Two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.

AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. METHODS: Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011, were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures, number of procedures per patient, length of hospital stay, total operative time, hospitalization charges, patient acceptance and quality of life scores. RESULTS: Seven eligible RCTs [five trials (n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); two trials (n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE], composed of 787 patients in total, were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios (RR) = -0.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.24 to 0.04, P = 0.17], postoperative morbidity (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 2.19, 95% CI: 0.33 to 14.67, P = 0.42), conversion to other procedures (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.70, P = 0.39), length of hospital stay (MD = 0.99, 95% CI: -1.59 to 3.57, P = 0.45), total operative time (MD = 12.14, 95% CI: -1.83 to 26.10, P = 0.09). Two-stage (LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage (LC + LCBDE) management. CONCLUSION: Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures. However, patient's condition, operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.

[Laparoscopic versus endoscopic primary management of choledocholithiasis. A retrospective case-control study]. / Primär laparoskopische, einzeitige versus endoskopische Therapie der Choledocholithiasis. Eine retrospektive Fall-Kontroll-Studie.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to present the long-term results of one-stage laparoscopic procedure for the management of common bile duct (CBD) lithiasis in comparison with the primary endoscopic approach via ERCP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed to determine the outcome of patients treated for CBD lithiasis (04/1997 - 11/2011). Data of patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing the two treatment modalities - laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC, group A, n = 101) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/S + LC, group B, n = 116) were matched according to their clinical characteristics. Patients of group A underwent either laparoscopic choledochotomy or transcystic exploration. The policy was to convert to open choledochotomy only after the sequential application of the two treatment modalities (laparoscopic/endoscopic procedure) had failed. RESULTS: No significant difference in morbidity was found between the groups (group A 8% versus group B 11.2%). Conversion to another procedure was mandatory in 12 out of 101 and 17 out of 116 patients of groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 7.8 years (range 1-12 years). Effective laparoscopic treatment of CBD stones (cholecystectomy and CBD clearance) was possible in 89 of the 101 patients in group A (88.1%) compared with 99 of the 116 patients in group B (85.4%) after the endoscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: This study showes that both - primary endoscopy and one-stage laparoscopic management of CBD lithiasis - are highly effective and safe with comparable results.

Early ERCP and biliary sphincterotomy with or without small-caliber pancreatic stent insertion in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis: better overall outcome with adequate pancreatic drainage.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the efficacy of pancreatic duct (PD) stenting following endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) compared with EST alone in reducing complication rate and improving overall outcome in acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP). METHODS: Between 1 January 2009 and 1 July 2010, 141 nonalcoholic patients with clinical, laboratory and imaging evidence of ABP were enrolled. Emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed within 72 h from the onset of pain. Seventy patients underwent successful ERCP, EST, and stone extraction (control group); 71 patients (PD stent group) had EST, stone extraction and small-caliber (5 Fr, 3-5 cm) pancreatic stent insertion. All patients were hospitalized for medical therapy and jejunal feeding and were followed up. RESULTS: The mean age, Glasgow score, symptom to ERCP time, mean amylase and CRP levels at initial presentation were not significantly different in the PD stent group compared to the control group: 60.6 vs. 64.3, 3.21 vs. 3.27, 34.4 vs. 40.2, 2446.9 vs. 2114.3, 121.1 vs. 152.4, respectively. Complications (admission to intensive care unit, pancreatic necrosis with septicemia, large (>6 cm) pseudocyst formation, need for surgical necrosectomy) were less frequent in the PD stent group resulting in a significantly lower overall complication rate (9.86% vs. 31.43%, p < 0.002). Mortality rates (0% vs. 4.28%) were comparable, reasonably low and without any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary small-caliber PD stent placement may offer sufficient drainage to reverse the process of ABP. Combined with EST the process results in a significantly less complication rate and better clinical outcome compared with EST alone during the early course of ABP.

Possible mortality reduction by endoscopic sphincterotomy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is widely used for young patients, but ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy in particular are reported to be associated with increased complication and mortality rates. This study aimed to calculate mortality and to identify risk factors for death within 90 days after ERCP for nonmalignant disease. METHODS: From the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry, the authors identified all individuals in Stockholm County who had undergone in-patient ERCP during 1990-2003. Among these individuals, they excluded those recorded in the Swedish Cancer Registry as having a diagnosis of malignancy in the liver, pancreas, or bile ducts. Cases, defined as patients who had died within 90 days after the procedure, were identified by cross-linkage to the causes of death registry. Control subjects were randomly sampled from the same cohort. The medical records were studied to discern risk factors for death after ERCP. RESULTS: The mortality rate was 1.6%. Advanced age, severe comorbidity, high complexity of the procedure, and occurrence of a complication were associated with death within 90 days, whereas a previous cholecystectomy or the simultaneous performance of an endoscopic sphincterotomy reduced the risk. CONCLUSIONS: Old age and comorbidity are the main risk factors for death after ERCP, but a complex procedure or the occurrence of a complication also seems to increase short-term mortality. The performance of a sphincterotomy may reduce the risk of death, possibly by facilitating adequate drainage. A previous cholecystectomy also may decrease the risk of death after ERCP.

Severe and fatal complications after ERCP: analysis of 2555 procedures in a single experienced center.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The majority of recent large series on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications have been multicenter studies reflecting varying degrees of experience and ERCP volume; major ERCP complications are associated with low case volume. The aim of this study was to report and analyze the frequency of severe and fatal complications associated with ERCP at a single specialized surgical high-volume referral center (Turku University Central Hospital). METHODS: All scheduled ERCP procedures (n = 2788) at our unit between January 1997 and December 2005 were included and the procedure-related severe and fatal complications were assessed by retrospective chart review. Complications were classified as severe or fatal according to standardized guidelines. RESULTS: The number of ERCP procedures performed was 2555, of which 71% were therapeutic and 29% were diagnostic. Seventeen (0.8%) severe complications were identified in 16 patients, of whom 15 underwent a therapeutic endoscopic procedure. Of the 17 severe complications, perforation constituted five cases (0.2%), pancreatitis occurred in five patients (0.2%), bleeding in five cases (0.2%), and two patients suffered from purulent cholangitis (0.1%). Procedure-related mortality was 0.08% (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: In our study the rate of severe or fatal complications of ERCP is low in experienced hands at a high-volume center, comparing favorably to corresponding complication rates of multicenter series, which further supports the importance of centralizing ERCP procedures in high-volume advanced centers.

[Precut Vater's papilla. Prospective evaluation of frequency of use, effectiveness, complication and mortality. Cooperative study in the northwest of the province of Buenos Aires]. / Precorte de papila de vater. Evaluación prospectiva de frecuencia de uso, eficacia, complicaciones y mortalidad. Estudio cooperativo del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.

INTRODUCTION: Precut papillotomy, has been considered a potentially dangerous procedure. In spite of this, numerous national and foreign referral centers have reported good results with the use of this technique that increases the cannulation rate and permits additional therapeutic procedures. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the procedure in terms of frequency of use, effectiveness, complications and mortality. PATIENT AND METHODS: Between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1999, 419 ERCP were performed in our centers. We used precut papillotomy in 51 patients. Inclusion criteria for precut papillotomy protocol were: 1 precut papillotomy indication. 1-1 failure to cannulate the papilla, 1-2 appropriate indication, 1-3 Expert endoscopist, 2 complete follow up, 3 informed consent. The experimental design of the study was prospective. When the patients entered into the protocol, they underwent a needle-knife sphincterotomy according to Huibregise's technique. The follow up was done during 30 days, with a clinical examination, laboratory test and ultrasonography all of them weekly, to determine the possible complications according to Cotton's criteria and the mortality. RESULTS: 4-1) Precut frequency: 51 patients (pts.) (12.1%). 4-2) Follow up: 49 pts. (96.1%) fulfilled the weekly controls; 2 pts. (3.9%) did not come for the controls. 4-3) Sex and Age: Women 29 pts. (56.9%). Age 62.5 +/- 1.74 years. Men: 22 pts. (43.1%) Age +/- 3.35 years. 4-4) INDICATIONS: Jaundice, diagnosis and treatment: 44 pts. (86.3%), post-cholecystectomy pain; 4 pts. (7.8%), and idiopathic abdominal pain: 3 pts. (5.9%). 4-5) Effectiveness: First attempt 35 pts. (71.4%), second attempt: 10 pts (20.4%). Definite effectiveness: 45 pts. (98.1%), failure: 4 pts. (8.1%). 4-6) Complementary treatment: in 43 pts. we performed the following procedures: papillotomy and stone extraction: 26 pts. (53%), papillotomy and prosthesis: 9 pts. (18.4%), Prosthesis: 8 pts. (16.3%, only pre-cut papillotomy: 6 pts. (12.2%). 4-7 Final diagnoses: Coledocholithiasis 41 pts. (83.6%); Malignant obstruction of biliary duct: 4 pts. (8.2%), Pancreatic Cancer: 1 pts. (2%); Ampullary Cancer 1 pts. (2%). Oddi sphyncter dysfunction: 1 pts. (2%). 4-8. COMPLICATIONS: Total 9 pts. (18.4%). mild Haemorrhage: 7 pts. (14.4%). Acute pancreatitis: 2 pts. (4%), mild: 1 pts. (2%), severe: 1 pts. (2%) 4-9-Mortality: not recorded. CONCLUSIONS: 5-1 Precut papillotomy is used by us with the same frequency native authors use it, but less than foreign authors. 5-2 Age, sex, indications, complementary treatment and final diagnoses are similar to those repo. 5-3 reported by other authors. 5-3- High rate of follow up. 5-4- High percentage of effectiveness which coincide with consulted studies. Precut papillotomy was the only therapy in 12.2% of the cases. 5-5 Low percentage of complications and, when present, of minor importance coinciding with other authors. 5-6 No mortality. 5-7 In our experience, precut papillotomy was a safe and effective technique to cannulate the papilla.