Jorge Canena1,2,3, Luís Lopes4,5,6, João Fernandes4,7, Gonçalo Alexandrino1, Luís Lourenço1, Diogo Libânio4,8, David Horta1, Sílvia Giestas4, Jorge Reis1. 1. aDepartment of Gastroenterology, Professor Doutor Fernando Fonseca Hospital, Amadora, Portugal. 2. gCintesis - Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Porto, Portugal. 3. hDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nova Medical School-Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. bDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santa Luzia Hospital - Unidade Local de Saúde Alto Minho, Viana do Castelo, Portugal. 5. eLife and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. 6. fICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga/Guimarães, Portugal. 7. cGastroenterology Department, Centro Hospitalar Cova da Beira, Covilhã, Portugal. 8. dDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is the preferred strategy for the management of biliary and pancreatic duct stones. However, difficult stones occur, and electrohydraulic (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL) have emerged as treatment modalities for ductal clearance. Recently, single-operator cholangioscopy was introduced, permitting the routine use of these techniques. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy using LL or EHL in patients with difficult biliary or pancreatic stones. METHODS: This is a prospective clinical study - conducted at two affiliated university hospitals - of 17 consecutive patients with difficult biliary and pancreatic stones who underwent single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy using two techniques: holmium laser lithotripsy (HL) or bipolar EHL. We analyzed complete ductal clearance as well as the impact of the location and number of stones on clinical success and evaluated the efficacy of the two techniques used for cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy and procedural complications. RESULTS: Twelve patients (70.6%) had stones in the common bile duct/common hepatic duct, 2 patients (17.6%) had a stone in the cystic stump, and 3 patients (17.6%) had stones in the pancreas. Sixteen patients (94.1%) were successfully managed in 1 session, and 1 patient (5.9%) achieved ductal clearance after 3 sessions including EHL, LL, and mechanical lithotripsy. Eleven patients were successfully submitted to HL in 1 session using a single laser fiber. Six patients were treated with EHL: 4 patients achieved ductal clearance in 1 session with a single fiber, 1 patient obtained successful fragmentation in 1 session using two fibers, and 1 patient did not achieve ductal clearance after using two fibers and was successfully treated with a single laser fiber in a subsequent session. Complications were mild and were encountered in 6/17 patients (35.2%), including fever (n = 3), pain (n = 1), and mild pancreatitis (n = 1). Conclusions: Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy using LL or EHL in patients with difficult biliary or pancreatic stones is highly effective with transient and minimal complications. There is a clear need to further compare EHL and HL in order to assess their role in the success of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is the preferred strategy for the management of biliary and pancreatic duct stones. However, difficult stones occur, and electrohydraulic (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL) have emerged as treatment modalities for ductal clearance. Recently, single-operator cholangioscopy was introduced, permitting the routine use of these techniques. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy using LL or EHL in patients with difficult biliary or pancreatic stones. METHODS: This is a prospective clinical study - conducted at two affiliated university hospitals - of 17 consecutive patients with difficult biliary and pancreatic stones who underwent single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy using two techniques: holmium laser lithotripsy (HL) or bipolar EHL. We analyzed complete ductal clearance as well as the impact of the location and number of stones on clinical success and evaluated the efficacy of the two techniques used for cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy and procedural complications. RESULTS: Twelve patients (70.6%) had stones in the common bile duct/common hepatic duct, 2 patients (17.6%) had a stone in the cystic stump, and 3 patients (17.6%) had stones in the pancreas. Sixteen patients (94.1%) were successfully managed in 1 session, and 1 patient (5.9%) achieved ductal clearance after 3 sessions including EHL, LL, and mechanical lithotripsy. Eleven patients were successfully submitted to HL in 1 session using a single laser fiber. Six patients were treated with EHL: 4 patients achieved ductal clearance in 1 session with a single fiber, 1 patient obtained successful fragmentation in 1 session using two fibers, and 1 patient did not achieve ductal clearance after using two fibers and was successfully treated with a single laser fiber in a subsequent session. Complications were mild and were encountered in 6/17 patients (35.2%), including fever (n = 3), pain (n = 1), and mild pancreatitis (n = 1). Conclusions: Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy using LL or EHL in patients with difficult biliary or pancreatic stones is highly effective with transient and minimal complications. There is a clear need to further compare EHL and HL in order to assess their role in the success of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy.
Authors: P B Cotton; G Lehman; J Vennes; J E Geenen; R C Russell; W C Meyers; C Liguory; N Nickl Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1991 May-Jun Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Amrita Sethi; Yang K Chen; Gregory L Austin; William R Brown; Brian C Brauer; Norio N Fukami; Abdul H Khan; Raj J Shah Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sandeep N Patel; Laura Rosenkranz; Bennett Hooks; Paul R Tarnasky; Isaac Raijman; Douglas S Fishman; Bryan G Sauer; Michel Kahaleh Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Augustin R Attwell; Sandeep Patel; Michel Kahaleh; Isaac L Raijman; Roy Yen; Raj J Shah Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Wim Laleman; Kristof Verraes; Werner Van Steenbergen; David Cassiman; Frederik Nevens; Schalk Van der Merwe; Chris Verslype Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Gustavo Salgado-Garza; Pamela Hernandez-Arriaga; Mauricio Gonzalez-Urquijo; José Antonio Díaz-Elizondo; Eduardo Flores-Villalba; Javier Rojas-Méndez; Mario Rodarte-Shade Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2021-01-23
Authors: Syed M Saghir; Harmeet S Mashiana; Babu P Mohan; Banreet S Dhindsa; Amaninder Dhaliwal; Saurabh Chandan; Neil Bhogal; Ishfaq Bhat; Shailender Singh; Douglas G Adler Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 5.742