You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 136 No. 1, January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (13)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Surgery, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Management of Gallstone Cholangitis in the Era of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Ronnie Tung-Ping Poon, MD, FRCS(Ed); Chi-Leung Liu, MD, FRCS(Ed); Chung-Mau Lo, MS, FRCS(Ed), FRACS; Chi-Ming Lam, MD, MS, FRCS(Ed); Wai-Kei Yuen, MD, FRCS(Glasg), FRACS; Chun Yeung, MD, FRCS(Glasg); Sheung-Tat Fan, MD, FRCS(Ed), FACS; John Wong, PhD, FRACS, FACS

Arch Surg. 2001;136:11-16.

Hypothesis  The combined endoscopic and laparoscopic approach is safe and effective in managing gallstone cholangitis in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Design  Retrospective case series.

Setting  University teaching hospital.

Patients  One hundred eighty-four consecutive patients with gallstone cholangitis treated between January 1995 and December 1998.

Interventions  The main treatments were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) followed by interval LC. Open or laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (OCBDE or LCBDE) was used when ERCP or ES failed.

Main Outcome Measures  Success of various interventions, morbidity and mortality, and long-term incidence of recurrent biliary symptoms.

Results  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was successful in 175 patients (95%), with bile duct stones found in 147 (84%). Endoscopic stone clearance by ES was achieved in 132 patients (90%). Morbidity rate after ERCP or ES was 4.0% (n = 7), and overall mortality rate from cholangitis was 1.6% (n = 3). After bile duct stone clearance, 82 patients underwent LC with a conversion rate of 9.8% (n = 8) and a morbidity rate of 3.6% (n = 3). Eighteen patients underwent OCBDE with a morbidity rate of 33% (n = 6), and 3 underwent LCBDE with 1 conversion and no morbidity. There was no operative mortality. Seventy-eight patients were managed conservatively after endoscopic clearance of bile duct stones. Follow-up data were available in 101 patients with cholecystectomy and 73 patients with gallbladder in situ. During a median follow-up of 24 months, recurrent biliary symptoms occurred in 5.9% (n = 6) and 25% (n = 18), respectively (P = .001). In both groups, the most common recurrent symptom was cholangitis (n = 5 and n = 14, respectively). Gallbladder in situ (risk ratio, 4.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-12.50; P = .01) and small-size papillotomy (risk ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-8.10; P = .04) were significant risk factors for recurrent biliary symptoms.

Conclusions  Endoscopic sphincterotomy for biliary drainage and stone removal, followed by interval LC, is a safe and effective approach for managing gallstone cholangitis. Patients with gallbladder left in situ after ES have an increased risk of recurrent biliary symptoms. Laparoscopic cholescystectomy should be recommended after endoscopic management of cholangitis except in patients with prohibitive surgical risk.


From the Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong Medical Centre, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China.


RELATED ARTICLES

This Month in Archives of Surgery
Arch Surg. 2001;136(1):10.
FULL TEXT  

Archives of Surgery Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Surg. 2001;136(1):120-121.
FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Common Bile Duct Stones: Is Surgery Necessary?
Harris et al.
SURG INNOV 2005;12:187-194.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.