Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is routine MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) justified prior to cholecystectomy?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated routinely the bile ducts by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography (MRCP) prior to cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to analyze the rate of clinically inapparent common bile duct (CBD) stones, the predictive value of elevated liver enzymes for CBD stones, and the influence of the radiological results on the perioperative management.

Methods

In this prospective study, 465 patients were cholecystectomized within 18 months, mainly laparoscopically. Preoperative MRCP was performed in 454 patients.

Results

With MRCP screening, clinically silent CBD stones were found in 4%. Elevated liver enzymes have only a poor predictive value for the presence of CBD stones (positive predictive value, 21%; negative predictive value, 96%). Compared to the recent literature, the postoperative morbidity in this study was low (0 bile duct injury, 0.4% residual gallstones).

Conclusions

Although MRCP is diagnostically useful in the perioperative management in some cases, its routine use in the DRG-era may not be justified due to the costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peng WK et al (2005) Role of liver function tests in predicting common bile duct stones in acute calculous cholecystitis. Br J Surg 92(10):1241–1247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolnerhanssen BK et al (2005) [Twelve years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy]. Chirurg 76(3):263–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Peterli R et al (1998) [Postcholecystectomy complaints one year after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Results of a prospective study of 253 patients]. Chirurg 69(1):55–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peterli R et al (2000) Prevalence of postcholecystectomy symptoms: long-term outcome after open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 24(10):1232–1235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ke ZW et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with suspected common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2(4):576–580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mussack T et al (2002) [The value of magnetic resonance cholangiography for the expedient diagnosis of choledocholithiasis]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 127(15):786–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Urban M et al (2002) Efficacy of diagnosis of mechanical cholestasis by magnetic resonance cholangiography. World J Surg 26(3):353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Laokpessi A et al (2001) Value of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the preoperative diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol 96(8):2354–2359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Demartines N et al (2000) Evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the management of bile duct stones. Arch Surg 135(2):148–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu TH et al (1999) The efficacy of magnetic resonance cholangiography for the evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 178(6):480–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dwerryhouse SJ, Brown E, Vipond MN (1998) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography to detect common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 85(10):1364–1366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hallal AH et al (2005) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography accurately detects common bile duct stones in resolving gallstone pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 200(6):869–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boraschi P et al (2002) Detection of common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Evaluation with MR cholangiography. Acta Radiol 43(6):593–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Diagnosis and treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) (1998) Results of a consensus development conference. Scientific Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (E.A.E.S.). Surg Endosc 12(6):856–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koo KP, Traverso LW (1996) Do preoperative indicators predict the presence of common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Am J Surg 171(5):495–499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pavone P et al (1997) MR cholangiography (MRC) in the evaluation of CBD stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 11(10):982–985

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alponat A et al (1997) Predictive factors for synchronous common bile duct stones in patients with cholelithiasis. Surg Endosc 11(9):928–932

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ausch C et al (2005) Improving the safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the routine use of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiography. Surg Endosc 19(4):574–580

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menezes N et al (2000) Prospective analysis of a scoring system to predict choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg 87(9):1176–1181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jendresen MB et al (2002) Preoperative routine magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography before laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study. Eur J Surg 168(12):690–694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu TH et al (2001) Patient evaluation and management with selective use of magnetic resonance cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 234(1):33–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Collins C et al (2004) A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Ann Surg 239(1):28–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bose SM et al (2001) Evaluation of the predictors of choledocholithiasis: comparative analysis of clinical, biochemical, radiological, radionuclear, and intraoperative parameters. Surg Today 31(2):117–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Turner MA, Fulcher AS (2001) The cystic duct: normal anatomy and disease processes. Radiographics 21(1):3–22 questionnaire 288–294

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hirano Y et al (2006) Efficacy of multi-slice computed tomography cholangiography before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. ANZ J Surg 76(8):693–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Deziel DJ et al (1993) Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national survey of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases. Am J Surg 165(1):9–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fletcher DR et al (1999) Complications of cholecystectomy: risks of the laparoscopic approach and protective effects of operative cholangiography: a population-based study. Ann Surg 229(4):449–457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, St. Claraspital, Kleinriehenstrasse 30, CH-4016, Basel, Switzerland

    C. A. Nebiker, S. A. Baierlein, M. von Flüe, C. Ackermann & R. Peterli

  2. Institute of Radiology, St. Claraspital, Basel, Switzerland

    S. Beck

Authors
  1. C. A. Nebiker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. A. Baierlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. von Flüe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Ackermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Peterli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Peterli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nebiker, C.A., Baierlein, S.A., Beck, S. et al. Is routine MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) justified prior to cholecystectomy?. Langenbecks Arch Surg 394, 1005–1010 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-008-0447-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-008-0447-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation