Suh Young Kim1, Sangjoon Lee2, Youngjong Cho3, Sung-Joon Park4, Hyoung Nam Lee5. 1. Department of Radiology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 38 Bangdong-gil, Sacheon-myeon, Gangneung-si, Gangwon-do, 25440, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Pohang St. Mary's Hospital, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Pohang-si, South Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 38 Bangdong-gil, Sacheon-myeon, Gangneung-si, Gangwon-do, 25440, South Korea. ohggamja@naver.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan-si, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate transcholecystic management of extrahepatic duct (EHD) stones using balloon ampulloplasty in patients who are poor candidates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and assess its efficacy and safety. METHODS: Forty-one patients who were unable to undergo ERCP or had failed ERCP with non-dilated intrahepatic ducts (IHD) between February 2019 and October 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. After clinical improvement with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), EHD stones were managed through cystic duct passage, guidewire unwinding, sheath insertion, and EHD stone removal using balloon ampulloplasty. If the transcholecystic route failed, a transhepatic approach was used according to the pre-existing cholangiogram obtained via PC. We evaluated the technical success rate and complications of each step. RESULTS: The technical success rate for the transcholecystic-only approach was 80.5%. The remaining cases were successfully managed with transhepatic conversion. Multiple stone removal sessions were required in 22% of the cases. One patient with combined IHD stones was initially converted to a transhepatic approach without any transcholecystic removal trial. The technical success rates for each step were as follows: cystic duct passage (38/40, 95%), guidewire unwinding (36/38, 94.7%), sheath insertion (36/36, 100%), and stone removal using balloon ampulloplasty (33/36, 91.7%). The overall clinical success was 97.6% (40/41) without major procedure-related complications. Thereafter, cholecystectomy was successfully performed in patients with concomitant gallstones (n = 20). No postprocedural complications occurred during the follow-up (1-70 days). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous EHD stone removal through transcholecystic and transhepatic routes after PC is effective and safe in poor candidates for PTBD or ERCP. KEY POINTS: • This study shows the safety and efficacy of extrahepatic duct (EHD) stones in patients who are poor candidates for initial percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. • The overall technical success for the transcholecystic-only approach was 80.5% (33/41). Including transhepatic conversions, it was 100% (41/41). Stone removal was successful in one session in 78% (32/41) of the patients and in multiple sessions in 28.1% (9/41) of the patients. • Balloon ampulloplasty with stone expulsion using an occlusion balloon catheter is also a safe and effective method for removing EHD stones.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate transcholecystic management of extrahepatic duct (EHD) stones using balloon ampulloplasty in patients who are poor candidates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and assess its efficacy and safety. METHODS: Forty-one patients who were unable to undergo ERCP or had failed ERCP with non-dilated intrahepatic ducts (IHD) between February 2019 and October 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. After clinical improvement with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), EHD stones were managed through cystic duct passage, guidewire unwinding, sheath insertion, and EHD stone removal using balloon ampulloplasty. If the transcholecystic route failed, a transhepatic approach was used according to the pre-existing cholangiogram obtained via PC. We evaluated the technical success rate and complications of each step. RESULTS: The technical success rate for the transcholecystic-only approach was 80.5%. The remaining cases were successfully managed with transhepatic conversion. Multiple stone removal sessions were required in 22% of the cases. One patient with combined IHD stones was initially converted to a transhepatic approach without any transcholecystic removal trial. The technical success rates for each step were as follows: cystic duct passage (38/40, 95%), guidewire unwinding (36/38, 94.7%), sheath insertion (36/36, 100%), and stone removal using balloon ampulloplasty (33/36, 91.7%). The overall clinical success was 97.6% (40/41) without major procedure-related complications. Thereafter, cholecystectomy was successfully performed in patients with concomitant gallstones (n = 20). No postprocedural complications occurred during the follow-up (1-70 days). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous EHD stone removal through transcholecystic and transhepatic routes after PC is effective and safe in poor candidates for PTBD or ERCP. KEY POINTS: • This study shows the safety and efficacy of extrahepatic duct (EHD) stones in patients who are poor candidates for initial percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. • The overall technical success for the transcholecystic-only approach was 80.5% (33/41). Including transhepatic conversions, it was 100% (41/41). Stone removal was successful in one session in 78% (32/41) of the patients and in multiple sessions in 28.1% (9/41) of the patients. • Balloon ampulloplasty with stone expulsion using an occlusion balloon catheter is also a safe and effective method for removing EHD stones.
Authors: Jens P Kühn; Alexandra Busemann; Markus M Lerch; Claus D Heidecke; Norbert Hosten; Ralf Puls Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Yong Sung Park; Ji Hyung Kim; Young Woo Choi; Tae Hee Lee; Cheol Mog Hwang; Young Jun Cho; Keum Won Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2005 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Federico Pedersoli; Anja Schröder; Markus Zimmermann; Maximilian Schulze-Hagen; Sebastian Keil; Tom Florian Ulmer; Ulf Peter Neumann; Christiane K Kuhl; Philipp Bruners; Peter Isfort Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 5.315