Mei Lan Cui1, Joon Hyun Cho, Tae Nyeun Kim. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, 317-1 Daemyung 5-dong, Nam-gu, Daegu 705-717, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there has been much debate over the fate of the gallbladder (GB) after endoscopic common bile duct (CBD) stone removal, subsequent cholecystectomy is generally recommended in patients with GB stones to prevent further biliary complications. The aims of this study were to assess the natural course of the patients with GB in situ after endoscopic CBD stone removal and to evaluate the necessity of prophylactic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Four hundred sixty-one patients who had undergone CBD stone removal at Yeungnam University Hospital between January 2000 and December 2004 were retrospectively analyzed, and 232 patients were ultimately enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 73 (range = 7-126) months in the cholecystectomy group and 66 (6-127) months in the GB in situ group (p = 0.168). Ten patients (14.7 %) in the cholecystectomy group and 31 patients (18.9 %) in the GB in situ group developed recurrent CBD stones (p = 0.295). The highest percentage of recurrent CBD stones in both groups was that for brown stones (80 and 80.6 %). In the GB in situ group, cumulative recurrence rates of CBD stones were not significantly different between patients with GB stones and without GB stones (15.9 vs. 20 %, p = 0.798). However, the incidence of acute cholecystitis was significantly higher in patients with GB stones compared to patients without GB stones (13.6 vs. 2.5 %, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic cholecystectomy seems to be unnecessary in patients without GB stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy. However, in patients with GB stones, elective cholecystectomy or close observation is recommended due to the higher risk of cholecystitis.
BACKGROUND: Although there has been much debate over the fate of the gallbladder (GB) after endoscopic common bile duct (CBD) stone removal, subsequent cholecystectomy is generally recommended in patients with GB stones to prevent further biliary complications. The aims of this study were to assess the natural course of the patients with GB in situ after endoscopic CBD stone removal and to evaluate the necessity of prophylactic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Four hundred sixty-one patients who had undergone CBD stone removal at Yeungnam University Hospital between January 2000 and December 2004 were retrospectively analyzed, and 232 patients were ultimately enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 73 (range = 7-126) months in the cholecystectomy group and 66 (6-127) months in the GB in situ group (p = 0.168). Ten patients (14.7 %) in the cholecystectomy group and 31 patients (18.9 %) in the GB in situ group developed recurrent CBD stones (p = 0.295). The highest percentage of recurrent CBD stones in both groups was that for brown stones (80 and 80.6 %). In the GB in situ group, cumulative recurrence rates of CBD stones were not significantly different between patients with GB stones and without GB stones (15.9 vs. 20 %, p = 0.798). However, the incidence of acute cholecystitis was significantly higher in patients with GB stones compared to patients without GB stones (13.6 vs. 2.5 %, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic cholecystectomy seems to be unnecessary in patients without GB stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy. However, in patients with GB stones, elective cholecystectomy or close observation is recommended due to the higher risk of cholecystitis.
Authors: M H Kim; B C Lim; S J Myung; S K Lee; H C Ohrr; Y T Kim; I H Roe; J H Kim; J B Chung; C D Kim; C S Shim; Y B Yun; Y I Min; U S Yang; J K Kang Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Djemila Boerma; Erik A J Rauws; Yolande C A Keulemans; Ignace M C Janssen; Clemens J M Bolwerk; Ron Timmer; Egge J Boerma; Huug Obertop; Kees Huibregtse; Dirk J Gouma Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-09-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Tanaka; S Takahata; H Konomi; H Matsunaga; K Yokohata; T Takeda; N Utsunomiya; S Ikeda Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: K H Lai; L F Lin; G H Lo; J S Cheng; R L Huang; C K Lin; J S Huang; P I Hsu; N J Peng; L P Ger Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Byung Kyu Park; Jeong Hun Seo; Han Ho Jeon; Jong Won Choi; Sun Young Won; Yong Suk Cho; Chun Kyon Lee; Haeyong Park; Dong Wook Kim Journal: J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 7.527