BACKGROUND: Several therapeutic modalities have been proposed for the management of choledocholithiasis (CDL) following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), yet debate exists regarding the optimal management. The purpose of our study was to review the current literature to compare the efficacy of various techniques in the management of CDL post-RYGB. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted. Studies reporting on the management of CDL in patients post-RYGB and including at least 5 patients were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was successful stone clearance. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 3259 identified studies, 53 studies involving 857 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 54.4 years (SD 7.05), 78.8% were female (SD 13.6%), and the average BMI was 30.8 kg/m2 (SD 6.85). Procedures described included laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LAERCP), balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE), ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), EUS-guided intra-hepatic puncture with antegrade clearance (EGHAC), percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage (PTHBD), and rendezvous guidewire-associated (RGA) ERCP. High rates of successful stone clearance were observed with LAERCP (1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.00; p = 0.47), EDGE (0.97; 95% CI 0.9-1.00; p = 0.54), IGS ERCP (1.00; 95% CI 0.87-1.00), PTHBD (1.0; 95% CI 0.96-1.00), and LCBDE (0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.00, p < 0.001). Lower rates of stone clearance were observed with BAE (61.5%; 95%CI 44.3-76.3, p = 0.188) and EGHAC (74.0%; 95% CI 42.9-91.5, p = 0.124). Relative to EDGE, LAERCP had a longer procedure duration (133.1 vs. 67.4 min) but lower complication rates (12.8% vs. 24.3%). CONCLUSION: LAERCP and EDGE had high rates of success in the management of CDL post-RYGB. LAERCP had fewer complications but was associated with longer procedure times. BAE had lower success rates than both LAERCP and EDGE.
BACKGROUND: Several therapeutic modalities have been proposed for the management of choledocholithiasis (CDL) following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), yet debate exists regarding the optimal management. The purpose of our study was to review the current literature to compare the efficacy of various techniques in the management of CDL post-RYGB. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was conducted. Studies reporting on the management of CDL in patients post-RYGB and including at least 5 patients were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was successful stone clearance. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 3259 identified studies, 53 studies involving 857 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 54.4 years (SD 7.05), 78.8% were female (SD 13.6%), and the average BMI was 30.8 kg/m2 (SD 6.85). Procedures described included laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LAERCP), balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE), ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), EUS-guided intra-hepatic puncture with antegrade clearance (EGHAC), percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage (PTHBD), and rendezvous guidewire-associated (RGA) ERCP. High rates of successful stone clearance were observed with LAERCP (1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.00; p = 0.47), EDGE (0.97; 95% CI 0.9-1.00; p = 0.54), IGS ERCP (1.00; 95% CI 0.87-1.00), PTHBD (1.0; 95% CI 0.96-1.00), and LCBDE (0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.00, p < 0.001). Lower rates of stone clearance were observed with BAE (61.5%; 95%CI 44.3-76.3, p = 0.188) and EGHAC (74.0%; 95% CI 42.9-91.5, p = 0.124). Relative to EDGE, LAERCP had a longer procedure duration (133.1 vs. 67.4 min) but lower complication rates (12.8% vs. 24.3%). CONCLUSION: LAERCP and EDGE had high rates of success in the management of CDL post-RYGB. LAERCP had fewer complications but was associated with longer procedure times. BAE had lower success rates than both LAERCP and EDGE.
Authors: Katharina Herzog; Johan Berggren; Mahmoud Al Majdoub; Claudia Balderas Arroyo; Andreas Lindqvist; Jan Hedenbro; Leif Groop; Nils Wierup; Peter Spégel Journal: Diabetes Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Mohammed H Al-Temimi; Edwin G Kim; Bindupriya Chandrasekaran; Vanessa Franz; Charles N Trujillo; Asrai Mousa; Deron J Tessier; Samir D Johna; David A Santos Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Erik Bowman; Jacob Greenberg; Michael Garren; Nalini Guda; Brian Rajca; Mark Benson; Patrick Pfau; Anurag Soni; Andrew Walker; Deepak Gopal Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Alberto Machado da Ponte-Neto; Wanderley M Bernardo; Lara M de A Coutinho; Iatagan Rocha Josino; Vitor Ottoboni Brunaldi; Diogo T H Moura; Paulo Sakai; Rogério Kuga; Eduardo G H de Moura Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.129