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. AIM: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
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. AIM: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Chung Yao Yu; Nitzan Roth; Niraj Jani; Jaehoon Cho; Jacques Van Dam; Rick Selby; James Buxbaum Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alejandro L Suarez; Nicolas T LaBarre; Peter B Cotton; K Mark Payne; Gregory A Coté; B Joseph Elmunzer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Megan A Adams; Amy E Hosmer; Erik J Wamsteker; Michelle A Anderson; Grace H Elta; Nisa M Kubiliun; Richard S Kwon; Cyrus R Piraka; James M Scheiman; Akbar K Waljee; Hero K Hussain; B Joseph Elmunzer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Christina J Sperna Weiland; Evelien C Verschoor; Alexander C Poen; Xavier J M N Smeets; Niels G Venneman; Abha Bhalla; Ben J M Witteman; Hester C Timmerhuis; Devica S Umans; Jeanin E van Hooft; Marco J Bruno; P Fockens; Robert C Verdonk; Joost P H Drenth; Erwin J M van Geenen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Mauro Ariel Capparelli; Pablo Damian D Alessandro; Horacio Alberto Questa; Victor Hugo Ayarzabal; Maria Marcela Bailez; Marcelo Eugenio Barrenechea Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Catarina Gouveia; Rui Loureiro; Rosa Ferreira; Alexandre Oliveira Ferreira; António Alberto Santos; Maria Pia Costa Santos; Carolina Palmela; Marília Cravo Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-09-15
Authors: Ausra Aleknaite; Gintaras Simutis; Juozas Stanaitis; Jonas Valantinas; Kestutis Strupas Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 4.623