Title:The best approach to treat concomitant gallstones andcommon bile duct stones. Is ERCP still needed?

Authors:Jesús García-Cano, Francisco Domper

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6226/2019Link: PubMed (Epub ahead of print)

Please cite this article as:García-Cano Jesús, Domper Francisco. The best approachto treat concomitant gallstones and common bile ductstones. Is ERCP still needed?. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2019.doi: 10.17235/reed.2019.6226/2019.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to ourcustomers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect thecontent, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Editorial 6226 solo inglés

The best approach to treat concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. Is

ERCP still needed?

Jesús García-Cano1 and Francisco Domper2

1Department of Digestive Diseases. Hospital Virgen de la Luz. Cuenca, Spain. 2

Department of Digestive Diseases. Hospital General Universitario. Ciudad Real, Spain

Common bile duct stones (CBDS), also called choledocholithiasis, and gallstones (GS) or

cholecystolithiasis coexist in about 15% of patients. Nowadays, a majority of surgeons

prefer having a clean common bile duct (CBD) before proceeding to laparoscopic

cholecystectomy (LC). Thus, a lot of scores to rule out CBDS in the presence of GS have

been developed. The easiest way to confirm or exclude CBDS is to perform a magnetic

resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) scan provided the patient has no

contraindications such as a pacemaker. When CBDS are present, an ERCP (endoscopic

retrograde cholangiopancreatography) procedure is usually performed to remove

choledocholithiasis.

ERCP was initially developed in 1974 to extract CBDS in patients without gallbladder

after cholecystectomy (1,2). This represented a major breakthrough since newly

developed CBDS after gallbladder removal required no repeat surgery to be extracted.

In this older era prior to LC patients with concomitant CBDS and GS were cured in a

single surgical procedure. At the time gallbladders were removed in “an open

manner”, that is, with a large abdominal incision, which provided a good surgical field

allowing to remove the gallblader with its stones, and to perform an intraoperative

cholangiogram. When CBDS were present, the CBD was opened and

choledocholithiasis removed. In addition, T-tubes, also called “Kehr tubes” in some

countries, were inserted to seal the CBD incision and to perform new cholangiograms

as well as biliary washouts to complete stone clearance.

With the advent of LC surgeons lost their “surgical field” and “surgical skills” to open

and explore the CBD. Now, ERCP remained nearly the only procedure available for

CBDS removal.

In this issue of The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology (Revista Española de

Enfermedades Digestivas) a new aspect is shown in the “race” between surgeons and

gatroenterologists to deal with CBDS. Our surgical colleagues have learnt to work

within the CBD during a LC procedure. The term designed for this “choledochal job” is

“exploration”. Therefore, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) refers

primarily to the ability to remove CBDS laparoscopically.

Zhou et al. (3) compared the single-stage procedure to remove both CBDS and GS

during LC with the two-stage procedure involving ERCP for CBDS extraction followed

by LC for gallbladder removal.

Before delving deeper into the scientific aspects of this article, such as its methods or

statistical analysis, an obvious bias may be seen just by looking at the authors’

affiliations. The first four authors are surgeons, and the fifth one is a

gastroenterologist. As was to be expected, no good times for ERCP here! And these

same authors also recognize that their results might be skewed when they write “As a

surgical department has been involved in the study, a certain bias may have occurred

in favor of LCBDE” (1). Now let’s analyze the study.

One hundred patients older than 80 years were divided into two groups –54

underwent LCBDE, therefore a single-stage procedure to remove both CBDS and the

gallbladder in just one operation. The remaining 46 patients had first an ERCP under

conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine, and on the next day underwent LC.

Results were worse in the ERCP-LC group as compared with the LCBDE arm of the

study. That is, 89% vs 100% for complete CBDS clearance, 10% vs 0% for procedural

complications, and 23.9% vs 3.7% for long-term complications. However, ERCP-LC was

superior to LCBDE in avoiding post-operative bile leaks (0% vs 11.1%).

Taking these results into account, it appears that ERCP adds failures and complications

to LC, but then offers protection against bile leaks after surgery. Interestingly, LCBDE

leaks resolved spontaneously without any special intervention. ERCP is usually the

first-choice procedure for bile leak management after LC (4).

ERCP defends itself despite its associated difficulties and adverse events. ERCP remains

the least invasive way to drain the CBD. In the study by Zhou et al. (1) a great number

of ERCP complications occurred due to sedation, which is a prerequisite for the

procedure but not the technique itself. Whether the duodenal perforation that caused

one patient to die was secondary to biliary sphincterotomy for CBDS extraction or to

attempts at deep CBD cannulation is not reported.

Furthermore, biliary sphincterotomy was the only method employed for stone

extraction. It is now well known that biliary sphincterotomy dilation increases success

rate for complete stone removal (5). In addition, the higher rate of recurrent

choledocholithiasis in the ERCP-LC group may also be attributable to incomplete CBDS

clearance because of absent sphincterotomy dilation (Fig. 1).

Zhou et al. (1) do not report stone size. Larger diameter CBDS are difficult to extract by

ERCP, a difficulty that presumably occurs during LCBDE as well. In the study we are

discussing stones, in the single-stage procedure, were removed using a retrieval basket

followed by repeated bile duct flushing. CBDS may have been larger in the ERCP-LC

group as compared to patients undergoing LCBDE since Lyu et al. (6) found just the

opposite, that is, that ERCP-LC was associated with a higher CBDS clearance rate and

less postoperative bile leakage. Negative aspects in the two-stage procedure in Lyu’s

study included a higher rate of pancreatits secondary to manipulation of the papilla of

Vater, and longer hospital stay.

Indeed, removal of both GS and CBDS using a minimally invasive surgical procedure is

a very attractive way to manage all kinds of biliary stones. This is the new approach to

the old open cholecystectomy and choledochotomy procedures. In the public

healthcare setting older patients undergoing ERCP for CBDS-related complications such

as jaundice, cholangitis or colicky biliary pain are commonly seen. After removal of

choledocholithiasis some of these patients are never referred for cholecystectomy,

and others are put on a “wait-and-see” follow-up scheme. Sousa et al. (7) found that in

elderly patients cholecystectomy after ERCP prevented the occurrence of further

biliary events, although a non-statistically significant difference in mortality was also

found.

In general, cholecystectomy should be performed after ERCP stone removal in patients

with concomitant gallstones. In a retrospective analysis of more than 4,500 patients

hospitalized with choledocholithiasis, Huang et al. (8) found that cholecystectomy was

not performed after ERCP in almost half of the cases. Although both early and delayed

cholecystectomy equally reduced the risk of subsequent recurrent biliary events,

patients were at a tenfold higher risk of recurrent biliary events while waiting for

delayed cholecystectomy when compared to those undergoing early cholecystectomy.

Therefore, delayed cholecystectomy is a cost-effective strategy that must be balanced

against the risk of loss to follow-up.

Peponis et al. (9) also favor LCBDE as single procedure since they found that

preoperative ERCP was associated with a threefold increase in the risk of surgical site

infection after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Therefore, it appears that any previous

endoscopic procedures should be avoided.

Also favoring LCBDE, Platt et al. (10) performed the procedure in 124 elderly patients

with different comorbidities and found it safe and effective, with outcomes being

similar to those of younger patients. Therefore, elderly patients with concomitant

gallstones and choledocholithiasis should be offered LCBDE as an alternative to ERCP.

LCBDE has emerged as a recommended option for the management of

choledocholithiasis.

We would like to summarize the comparison between LCBDE (single-stage) and ERCP-

LC (two-stage) in the treatment of patients with concomitant gallstones and CBDS

quoting the conclusions of a recent meta-analysis on the subject (11). In selected

patients LCBDE may be considered the preferred approach. However, the findings of

eleven randomized, controlled trials including a total of 1,338 patients (666 LCBDE vs

672 ERCP-LC) have to be carefully interpreted due to the presence of heterogeneity.

Furthermore, patient condition and operator experience should also be accounted for

when making treatment decisions.

However, apart from ERCP-LC and LCBDE, there are at least two additional minimally

invasive strategies for the treatment of CBDS in the presence of gallstones. Ricci et al.

(12) compared preoperative ERCP plus LC versus LC with LCDBE, versus LC plus

intraoperative ERCP, versus LC plus postoperative ERCP. In 20 trials involving 2,489

patients (and 2,489 procedures) they found that the combined LC and intraoperative

ERCP approach had the greatest odds to be the safest procedure, and appeared to be

the most successful one. LBCDE seemed to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis

because ERCP is avoided, but may be associated with a higher risk of biliary leakage.

What is the best approach for a specific patient? Look for availability and expertise.

From our point of view, small CBDS may be appropriately managed with LCBDE, but

large and complex stones will probably require ERCP (13).

Digestive Endoscopy and Surgery should continue to work together for the benefit of

patients. Besides searching for the most optimal management of CBDS, many other

fields deserve attention, including whether stent insertion or operation is the best

option to treat initial left-sided tumoral colonic obstruction. Collaboration and mutual

understanding may secure good results for our patients.

REFERENCES

1. Classen M, Demling L. Endoskopische Sphinkterotomie der papilla vateri und

Steinextraktion aus dem ductus choledochus. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1974;99:496-7.

DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1107790

2. Kawai K, Akasaka Y, Murakami K, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of

Vater. Gastrointest Endosc 1974;20:148-51. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(74)73914-1

3. Zhou Y, Zha WZ, Fan RG, et al. A two-stage versus single-stage procedure for the

management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis in elderly patients: a retrospectively

cohort study. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2019;111(3):xx-xx. DOI:

10.17235/reed.2018.5822/2018

4. Rainio M, Lindström O, Udd M, et al. Endoscopic therapy of biliary injury after

cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci 2018;63:474-80. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-017-4768-7

5. García-Cano J, Arana LT, Ayllón CJ, et al. Biliary sphincterotomy dilation for the

extraction of difficult common bile duct stones. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2009;101:541-5.

6. Lyu Y, Cheng Y, Li T, et al. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus

cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus

laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Surg

Endosc 2018 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-06613-w [Epub ahead of print].

7. Sousa M, Pinho R, Proença L, et al J. Choledocholithiasis in elderly patients with

gallbladder in situ - is ERCP sufficient? Scand J Gastroenterol 2018. DOI:

10.1080/00365521.2018.1524022 [Epub ahead of print].

8. Huang RJ, Barakat MT, Girotra M, et al. Practice Patterns for Cholecystectomy After

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Patients With

Choledocholithiasis. Gastroenterology 2017;153:762-71. DOI:

10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.048

9. Peponis T, Panda N, Eskesen TG, et al. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde

cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) is a risk factor for surgical site infections after

laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.09.033

[Epub ahead of print].

10. Platt TE, Smith K, Sinha S, et al. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration; a

preferential pathway for elderly patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2018;30:13-7. DOI:

10.1016/j.amsu.2018.03.044

11. Li ZQ, Sun JX, Li B, et al. Meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-staged

management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. J Minim Access

Surg 2019. DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_146_18 [Epub ahead of print].

12. Ricci C, Pagano N, Taffurelli G, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of 4

combinations of laparoscopic and intraoperative techniques for management of

gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi: A systematic review and network meta-

analysis. JAMA Surg 2018;153(7):e181167. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1167

13. García-Cano J, Reyes-Guevara AK, Martínez-Pérez T, et al. Fully covered self-

expanding metal stents in the management of difficult common bile duct stones. Rev

Esp Enferm Dig 2013;105:7-12.

Fig. 1. Large common bile duct stone removed after biliary sphincterotomy dilation.