Difficult bile duct stones

  • Lee McHenry
  • Glen Lehman

Opinion statement

Bile duct stones are routinely removed at time of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) after biliary sphincterotomy with standard balloon or basket extraction techniques. However, in approximately 10% to 15% of patients, bile duct stones may be difficult to remove due to challenging access to the bile duct (periampullary diverticulum, Billroth II anatomy, Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy), large (> 15 mm in diameter) bile duct stones, intrahepatic stones, or impacted stones in the bile duct or cystic duct. The initial approach to the removal of the difficult bile duct stone is to ensure adequate biliary sphincter orifice diameter with extension of biliary sphincterotomy or balloon dilation of the orifice. Mechanical lithotripsy is a readily available adjunct to standard stone extraction techniques and should be available in all ERCP units. If stone extraction fails with these maneuvers, two or more bile duct stents should be inserted, and ursodiol added to aid in duct decompression, stone fragmentation, and stone dissolution. Follow-up ERCP attempts to remove the difficult bile duct stones may be performed locally if expertise is available or alternatively referred to a tertiary center for advanced extracorporeal or intracorporeal fragmentation (mother-baby laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy) techniques. Nearly all patients with bile duct stones can be treated endoscopically if advanced techniques are utilized. For the rare patient who fails despite these efforts, surgical bile duct exploration, percutaneous approach to the bile duct, or long-term bile duct stenting should be discussed with the patient and family to identify the most appropriate therapeutic option. A thoughtful approach to each patient with difficult bile duct stones and a healthy awareness of the operator/endoscopy unit limitations is necessary to ensure the best patient outcomes. Consultation with a dedicated tertiary ERCP specialty center may be necessary.


Bile Duct Common Bile Duct Stone Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Bile Duct Stone Laser Lithotripsy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Ko CW, Lee SP: Epidemiology and natural history of common bile duct stone and prediction of disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 56(Suppl 6):S165-S169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neuhaus H: Endoscopic and percutaneous treatment of difficult bile duct stones. Endoscopy 2003, 35:S31-S34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binmoeller KF, Schafer TW: Endoscopic management of bile duct stones. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001, 32:106–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van der Velden JJ, Berger MY, Bonjer HJ, et al.: Percutaneous treatment of bile duct stones in patients treated unsuccessfully with endoscopic retrograde procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 51(4 Pt 1):418–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sherman S, Hawes RH, Lehman GA: Management of bile duct stones. Semin Liver Dis 1990, 10:205–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lauri A, Horton RC, Davidson BR, et al.: Endoscopic extraction of bile duct stones: management related to stone size. Gut 1993, 34:1718–1721.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mathuna PM, White P, Clarke E, et al.: Endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty (papillary dilation) for bile duct stones: efficacy, safety, and follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 42:468–474. initial study of a large number of patients revealing that papillary orifice balloon dilation in patients with average size stones up to 20 mm in diameter was effective in the majority of patients and relatively safe.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baron TH, Harewood GC: Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:1455–1460. Wwll-performed meta-analysis of eight controlled trials showing that papillary balloon dilation is the preferred strategy in patients with coagulopathy but should be used with caution in all patients because the risk of pancreatitis is higher as compared with sphincterotomy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ersoz G, Tekesin O, Ozutemiz AO, Gunsar F: Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract. Gastrointest Endosc 2003, 57:156–159. Papillary balloon dilation up to 20 mm in diameter in combination with biliary sphincterotomy at the same setting may be effective in duct clearance of large bile duct stones, with modestly increased risk of bleeding and mild pancreatitis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergman JJ, van Berkel AM, Bruno MJ, et al.: A randomized trial of endoscopic balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones in patients with a prior Billroth II gastrectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 53:19–26. In a population of 34 Billroth II patients with bile duct stones, papillary orifice balloon dilation is safer and does not increase procedure time or the need for mechanical lithotripsy as compared with sphincterotomy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright BE, Cass OW, Freeman JL: ERCP in patients with long-limb Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy and intact papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 56:225–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ginsberg GG: ERCP topics. Endoscopy 2005, 37:1089–1093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zoepf T, Zoepf DS, Arnold JC, et al.: The relationship between juxtapapillary duodenal diverticula and disorders of the biliopancreatic system: analysis of 350 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:56–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christoforidis E, Goulimaris I, Kanellos I, et al.: The role of juxtapapillary duodenal diverticula in biliary stone disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 55:543–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katsinelos P, Galanis I, Pilpilidis I, et al.: The effect of indwelling endoprosthesis on stone size or fragmentation after long-term treatment with biliary stenting for large stones. Surg Endosc 2003, 17:1552–1555.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan AC, Ng EK, Chung SC, et al.: Common bile duct stones become smaller after endoscopic biliary stenting. Endoscopy 1998, 30:356–359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jain SK, Stein R, Bhuva M, Goldberg MJ: Pigtail stents: an alternative in the treatment of difficult bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 52:490–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Venu RP, et al.: Treatment of non-extractable common bile duct stones with combination ursodeoxycholic acid plus endoprostheses. Gastrointest Endosc 1993, 39:528–531.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergman JJ, Rauws EA, Tijssen JG, et al.: Biliary endoprostheses in elderly patients with endoscopically irretrievable common bile duct stones; report on 117 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 42:195–201. A report on the high (40%) complication rate in patients with unextractable bile duct stones treated with long-term bile duct stents that further supports the use of temporary bile duct stenting prior to definitive treatment of the bile duct stones with intracorporeal lithotripsy with or without ESWL or surgery.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cotton PB: Stents for stones: short-term good, longterm uncertain. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 42:272–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Binmoeller KF, Bruckner M, Thonke F, Soehendra N: Treatment of difficult bile duct stones using mechanical, electrohydraulic and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Endoscopy 1993, 25:201–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider MU, Matek W, Bauer R, Domschke W: Mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in 209 patients—effect of technical advances. Endoscopy 1988, 20:248–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltzke W: Outcome of mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in an unselected series of 704 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 1996, 43:473–476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garg PK, Tandon RK, Ahuja V, et al.: Predictors of unsuccessful mechanical lithotripsy and endoscopic clearance of large bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 59:601–605. A study of 87 patients with difficult bile duct stones requiring mechanical lithotripsy and the factors that would predict success of complete clearance of bile duct stones. Stones that were impacted and entrapped were the only significant predictors of failure. Size of stone, numbers of stones, bile duct diameter, and stone composition were not predictors of failure.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arya N, Nelles SE, Haber GB, et al.: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy in 111 patients: a safe and effective therapy for difficult bile duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:2330–2334. A 12-year review of a large series of patients undergoing electrohydraulic lithotripsy revealing a successful outcome with complete clearance of stones in 96% of patients, with acceptable morbidity and no mortality.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adamek HE, Maier M, Jacobs R, et al.: Management of retained bile duct stones: a prospective open trial comparing extracorporeal and intracorporeal lithotripsy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 44:40–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hui CK, Lai KC, Ng M, et al.: Retained common bile duct stones: a comparison between biliary stenting and complete clearance of stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003, 17:289–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leung JW, Chung SS: Electrohydraulic lithotripsy with peroral choledochoscopy. BMJ 1989, 299:595–598.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neuhaus H, Hoffmann W, Gottlieb K, Classen M: Endoscopic lithotripsy of bile duct stones using a new laser with automatic stone recognition. Gastrointest Endosc 1994, 40:708–715.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schreiber F, Gurakuqi GC, Trauner M: Endoscopic intracorporeal laser lithotripsy of difficult common bile duct stones with a stone-recognition pulsed dye laser system. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 42:416–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jakobs R, Adamek HE, Maier M, et al.: Fluoroscopically guided laser lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for retained bile duct stones: a prospective randomized study. Gut 1997, 40:678–682. This prospective, randomized trial comparing intra- and extracorporeal lithotripsy for large bile duct stones revealed a tendency toward a higher stone-free rate, fewer fragmentation sessions, and fewer number of ERCP required when intracorporeal laser lithotripsy was used as the first-line method.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sackmann M, Holl J, Sauter GH, et al.: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for clearance of bile duct stones resistant to endoscopic extraction. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 53:27–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kratzer W, Mason RA, Grammer S, et al.: Difficult bile duct stone recurrence after endoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Hepatogastroenterology 1998, 45:910–916.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    White DM, Correa RJ, Gibbons RP, et al.: Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for bile duct calculi. Am J Surg 1998, 175:10–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ellis RD, Jenkins AP, Thompson RP, Ede RJ: Clearance of refractory bile duct stones with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Gut 2000, 47:728–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lomanto D, Fiocca M, Nardovino E, et al.: ESWL experience in the therapy of difficult bile duct stones. Dig Dis Sci 1996, 41:2397–2403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harz C, Henkel TO, Kohrmann KU, et al.: Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and endoscopy: combined therapy for problematic bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 1991, 5:196–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neuhaus H, Zillinger C, Born P, et al.: Randomized study of intracorporeal laser lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for difficult bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 1998, 47:327–334. A randomized trial comparing two endoscopic modalities for the management of difficult bile duct stones. Intracorporeal laser lithotripsy was the clear winner in this prospective study, with higher efficacy and fewer sessions. With both ESWL and intracorporeal laser lithotripsy, morbidity was low and mortality was zero. Laser lithotripsy was also effective in patients failing ESWL.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chan CY, Liau KH, Ho CK, Chew SP: Mirizzi syndrome: a diagnostic and operative challenge. Surgeon 2003, 1:273–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Binmoeller KF, Thonke F, Soehendra N: Endoscopic treatment of Mirizzi’s syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc 1993, 39:532–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Benninger J, Rabendtein T, Farnbacher M, et al.: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of gallstones in cystic duct remnants and Mirizzi syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 60:454–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    England RE, Martin DF: Endoscopic management of Mirizzi’s syndrome. Gut 1997, 40:272–276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tsuyuguchi T, Saisho H, Ishihara T, et al.: Long term followup after treatment of Mirizzi syndrome by peroral cholangioscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 52:639–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee McHenry
    • 1
  • Glen Lehman
  1. 1.Indiana University Medical CenterIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations