Choledocholithiasis without cholecystolithiasis, after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography follow-up without cholecystectomy
Abstract
Objective: The widespread use of imaging methods increases the diagnosis and incidence of cholelithiasis. In recent years, the management of patients with cholelithiasis has improved significantly owing to significant advances in the surgical and endoscopic intervention.
Materials and Methods: Between February 2015 and January 2018, the data of patients who underwent ERCP at our institution were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Forty-four patients included in the study were patients with choledocholithiasis without stones in the GB.
Results: The mean age of 52 subjects (group A) included in the study was 64.83 ± 17.06, of which 23 (44.2%) were <65 years old and 29 (55.8%) were ≥65 years old. Twenty-four (46.2%) women and twenty-eight (53.8%) men were included in the study. Malignancy was suspected in 6 (11.5%) patients and no suspicion of malignancy was confirmed after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP) procedure. In group A, 14 patients (26.9%) required a second ERCP, while in group B, the number of patients requiring a second ERCP was 163 (21.3%). The mean length of hospital stay in group A and group B patients was 5.29 ± 3.38 and 6.29 ± 5.39, respectively, and the average cost was 474 $ ± 286 $ and 564 $ ± 664 $, respectively, with no statistical difference between the groups.
Conclusions: In conclusion, we think that in patients with secondary or primary choledochal stones without gallstones and with functional GB might be following up without cholecystectomy after the stone is removed from the bile duct by ERCP
Keywords
Supporting Institution
Project Number
Thanks
References
- REFERENCES
- 1. Molvar C, Glaenzer B.Evaluation, Treatment, and Outcomes.Semin Intervent Radiol. 2016 Dec;33(4):268-276.
- 2. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL). Electronic address: easloffice@easloffice. eu, EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones.J Hepatol.2016;65(1):146–181.
- 3. R Costi, A Gnocchi, FDi Mario, and L Sarli. Diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis in the golden age of imaging, endoscopy and laparoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct 7; 20(37): 13382–13401.
- 4. James Y.W. Lau, Yuk Tong Lee, and Joseph Sung. Chapter 43. Choledocholithiasis, Section III—Approach to Clinical Problems. Press: 2015. p. 410-418. Available from: http://blog.utp.edu.co/cirugia/files/2011/07/coledocolitiasis-2015.pdf
- 5. Tan YY, Zhao G, Wang D, Wang JM, Tang JR, Ji ZL.A new strategy of minimally invasive surgery for cholecystolithiasis: calculi removal and gallbladder preservation.Dig Surg. 2013;30(4-6):466-71.
- 6. G Watanabe, M Hashimoto, M Matsuda, Evaluation of 'New classification of Japanese gallbladder stones (1986)' with chemical componential analysis, Tando, 2017, Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 205-213, Released June 07, 2017, Online ISSN 1883-6879, Print ISSN 0914-0077.
- 7. Gregory A. Bortoff, Michael Y. M. Chen et al. Gallbladder Stones: Imaging and Intervention. Vol. 20, No. 3 Published Online: May 1 2000https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.20.3.g00ma16751
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Health Care Administration
Journal Section
Research Article
Authors
Eyüp Pircanoğlu
This is me
0000-0002-9094-9935
Türkiye
Serkan Torun
0000-0003-3101-4934
Türkiye
Publication Date
March 11, 2021
Submission Date
April 4, 2020
Acceptance Date
October 23, 2020
Published in Issue
Year 2021 Volume: 13 Number: 1


