Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).
To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones.
We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions.
The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL ).
We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions.
IPGRP-2022CN170.

Current guidelines for treating asymptomatic common bile duct stones (CBDS) recommend stone removal, with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) being the first treatment choice. When deciding on ERCP treatment for asymptomatic CBDS, the risk of ERCP-related complications and outcome of natural history of asymptomatic CBDS should be compared. The incidence rate of ERCP-related complications, particularly of post-ERCP pancreatitis for asymptomatic CBDS, was reportedly higher than that of symptomatic CBDS, increasing the risk of ERCP-related complications for asymptomatic CBDS compared with that previously reported for biliopancreatic diseases. Although studies have reported short- to middle-term outcomes of natural history of asymptomatic CBDS, its long-term natural history is not well known. Till date, there are no prospective studies that determined whether ERCP has a better outcome than no treatment in patients with asymptomatic CBDS or not. No randomized controlled trial has evaluated the risk of early and late ERCP-related complications vs the risk of biliary complications in the wait-and-see approach, suggesting that a change is needed in our perspective on endoscopic treatment for asymptomatic CBDS. Further studies examining long-term complication risks of ERCP and wait-and-see groups for asymptomatic CBDS are warranted to discuss whether routine endoscopic treatment for asymptomatic CBDS is justified or not.

暂无摘要。

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

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines include an algorithm for predicting choledocholithiasis. Presence of any very strong predictor or both strong predictors confers a high (>50%) probability of choledocholithiasis. Absence of predictors confers low risk (<10%) of choledocholithiasis. Other combinations have an intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis.
OBJECTIVE: Determine accuracy of the proposed algorithm in predicting choledocholithiasis.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies performed for suspected choledocholithiasis in 3 years in a Tertiary care hospital and a community hospital serviced by The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Division of Gastroenterology. Application of the guidelines, and comparing results to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography findings.
RESULTS: A total of 1080 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies were performed; 521 for choledocholithiasis. Most patients were Hispanic and female. Univariate analysis: presence of any very strong predictor and both strong predictors had an OR for choledocholithiasis of 3.30 and 2.36 respectively. Multivariate analysis: odds of choledocholithiasis with any very strong predictor was 2.87, and both strong predictors 3.24. Choledocholithiasis was present in 71.5%, and 41% of patients with high, and intermediate risk respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the utility of clinical predictors for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. All of the very strong predictors and one of the strong predictors increased the odds of choledocholithiasis. Patients with high risk for choledocholithiasis had a probability of 79% of choledocholithiasis. Sensitivity and specificity of current predictors are too low to obviate the possible need of non-invasive tests to confirm or exclude choledocholithiasis in all risk groups.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Twenty-three of 229 symptomatic patients undergoing cholecystlithotripsy underwent surgical intervention: 22 of the patients had cholecystectomy performed (five also undergoing choledochotomy) and one patient had a cholecystostomy. Of these 23 patients, five were lithotripsy failures, five developed acute pancreatitis, one had acute cholecystitis, and one had cholangitis. One patient had her gallbladder removed incidentally at the time of surgery for a bleeding gastric ulcer. Ten patients underwent surgery for recurrent biliary pain, probably related to fragment passage via the cystic duct. We suggest that up to 16 of these 23 patients did not necessarily require cholecystectomy, i.e. five patients with pancreatitis, one patient with cholangitis and ten patients with recurrent biliary colic. Conservative and/or endoscopic management may be successful in the first instance to allow further treatment with lithotripsy in the majority of patients. If, however, the expertise to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy is not available or the patient declines further lithotripsy, then resort to surgery may be necessary. We propose that it is the responsibility of the management team in charge of the lithotripsy unit to inform both the patient and the referring clinicians of the possible side-effects and outcome of treatment in an attempt to avoid unnecessary surgical procedures.

The majority of patients with bile duct cancer have small focal adenocarcinomas localized to the upper, middle, or lower third of the bile duct. In contrast, a small subgroup of patients have been identified with bile duct tumors that are diffuse, involving multiple segments of the extrahepatic biliary tract. Among 186 patients with documented bile duct cancer treated at the UCLA Medical Center between 1954 and 1988, 13 patients (7%) had diffuse lesions. Patients with diffuse tumors had markedly poorer survival rates than did those with focal lesions. As diffuse tumors are not amenable to resection, surgical management consists primarily of establishing suitable biliary drainage. All patients with bile duct cancer should undergo careful intraoperative evaluation to exclude a diffuse lesion before tumor resection.