| Literature DB >> 28412956 |
Sandra de Sousa1, Olivier Tobler2, Pouya Iranmanesh2, Jean-Louis Frossard3,4, Philippe Morel2,4, Christian Toso2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent data have suggested that upfront cholecystectomy should be performed even in the presence of moderately abnormal liver function tests (LFTs). As a consequence, more common bile duct (CBD) stones are discovered on intra-operative cholangiogram. We assessed the presentation and management of such patients to refine their management plan.Entities:
Keywords: Filling defect on intra-operative cholangiogram; Same-stay cholecystectomy for acute gallstone-related disease; Suspected common bile duct stone; Trans-cystic drain
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28412956 PMCID: PMC5392997 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-017-0232-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Demographics and presentation comparing patients with or without a common bile duct stone image on cholangiogram
| Total ( | CBD stone ( | No CBD stone ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male, No. (%) | 175 (43.9%) | 16 (32%) | 159 (45.6%) | .07 |
| Female, No. (%) | 224 (56.1%) | 34 (68%) | 190 (54.4%) | ||
| Age (mean ± SD), years | 56 ± 19 | 47 ± 20 | 55 ± 18 | .01 | |
| BMI (mean ± SD), kg/m2 | 28 ± 6 | 29 ± 6 | 28 ± 5 | .58 | |
| Clinical presentation | Fever, No. (%) | 42 (10.5%) | 1 (2%) | 41 (11.7%) | .04 |
| RUQ pain on admission, No. (%) | 355 (89%) | 42 (84%) | 313 (89.7%) | .23 | |
| Associated cholecystitis, No. (%) | 325 (81.5%) | 33 (66%) | 292 (83.7%) | .003 | |
| Admission LFTs (mean ± SD) | ASAT, IU/L | 167 ± 184 | 67 ± 146 | .001 | |
| ALAT, IU/L | 166 ± 197 | 68 ± 121 | .001 | ||
| PA, IU/L | 123 ± 97 | 81 ± 48 | .005 | ||
| GGT, IU/L | 245 ± 276 | 94 ± 139 | .001 | ||
| Total Bilirubin, μmol/L | 26 ± 17 | 20 ± 12 | .01 | ||
| Conjugated Bilirubin, μmol/L | 18 ± 10 | 9 ± 7 | .002 | ||
| Abnormal admission LFTs | ASAT (11–42 IU/L), No. (%) | 162 (40.6%) | 36 (72%) | 126 (36.1%) | < .001 |
| ALAT (9–42 IU/L), No. (%) | 163 (40.9%) | 34 (68%) | 129 (37%) | < .001 | |
| PA (30–125 IU/L), No. (%) | 75 (18.8%) | 14 (28%) | 61 (17.5%) | .07 | |
| GGT (9–35 IU/L), No. (%) | 261 (65.4%) | 43 (86%) | 218 (62.5%) | .001 | |
| Total Bilirubin (7–25 μmol/L), No. (%) | 97 (24.3%) | 20 (40%) | 77 (22.1%) | .006 | |
| Conjugated Bilirubin (2–9 μmol/L), No. (%) | 319 (79.9%) | 45 (90%) | 274 (78.5%) | .06 |
BMI Body Mass Index, RUQ Right Upper Quadrant, CBD Common Bile Duct, LFTs Liver Function Tests, SD Standard Deviation, ASAT Aspartate Aminotransferase, ALAT Alanine Aminotransferase, PA Alkaline Phosphatase, GGT Gamma-glutamyl Transferase
Fig. 1Management of patients with a CBD stone image on intra-operative cholangiogram. CBD Common Bile Duct, LFTs Liver Function Tests, EUS Endoscopic Ultrasound, ERCP Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, MRCP Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography
Outcomes
| Total | CBD stone | No CBD stone |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | |||
| Conversion from LS to LT, No. (%) | 8 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 7 (2%) | .998 | |
| Laparotomy first, No. (%) | 3 (0.8%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (0.6%) | .275 | |
| LOS (mean ± SD), days | 6.9 ± 4 | 8.8 ± 4.7 | 6.6 ± 3.8 | .003 | |
| Complications (Dindo-Clavien classification) | Grade III, No | 21 | 4 | 17 | .35 |
| Grade IV, No | 7 | 2 | 5 | .2 |
LOS Length of Stay, SD Standard Deviation, LS Laparoscopy, LT Laparotomy
Comparison of patients with positive versus negative post-operative endoscopic ultrasound
| Positive EUS | Negative EUS |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |||
| LFTs before EUS | ASAT, IU/L | 119 ± 120 | 100 ± 87 | .62 |
| ALAT, IU/L | 151 ± 194 | 167 ± 117 | .79 | |
| PA, IU/L | 128 ± 89 | 86 ± 43 | .18 | |
| GGT, IU/L | 290 ± 265 | 260 ± 233 | .76 | |
| Total Bilirubin, μmol/L | 24 ± 15 | 33 ± 28 | .28 | |
| Conjugated Bilirubin, μmol/L | 21 ± 12 | 31 ± 21 | .34 | |
| Pancreatic tests before EUS | Lipase, IU/L | 26 ± 9 | 108 ± 192 | .3 |
| Intra-operative cholangiogram | Filling defect present, No. | 16 | 11 | .11 |
| absent, No. | 1 | 4 | ||
| Contrast in duodenum present, No. | 14 | 8 | .08 | |
| absent, No. | 3 | 7 | ||
| Delay between surgery and post-operative EUS, days | 1.8 ± 0.8 | 1.9 ± 1.4 | .81 | |
LFTs Liver Function Tests, EUS Endoscopic Ultrasound ASAT Aspartate Aminotransferase, ALAT Alanine Aminotransferase, PA Alkaline Phosphatase, GGT Gamma-glutamyl Transferase
Usefulness and safety of transcystic drainage in patients with an intra-operative suspicion of common bile duct stone
| Patients with transcystic drainage ( | Patients without transcystic drainage ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duodenal passage of contrast product during IOC | Difficult duodenal passage, No. | 2 (40%) | 4 (9%) | .04 |
| No duodenal passage, No. | 3 (60%) | 4 (9%) | .002 | |
| Delay between surgery and post-operative CBD assessment, days | 1 ± 0.4 | 2 ± 1.3 | .003 | |
| Length of stay (mean ± SD), days | 11 ± 8 | 9 ± 4 | .56 | |
| Length of transcystic drainage (mean ± SD), days | 39 ± 22 | 0 | ||
| Complications (Dindo-Clavien classification) | Grade I, No. | 0 | 7 | .34 |
| Grade II, No. | 0 | 3 | .55 | |
| Grade III, No. | 0 | 4 | .49 | |
| Grade IV, No. | 1 | 1 | .05 |
IOC Intra-operative Cholangiogram, CBD Common Bile Duct, SD Standard Deviation