Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tonnenkonkremente – Besonderheiten beim Hochbetagten

Giant bile duct stones in the elderly

  • Schwerpunkt
  • Published:
Der Gastroenterologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die endoskopische Sphinkterotomie und Steinextraktion gilt heute als Therapie der Wahl in der Behandlung von Gallengangkonkrementen. Durch den zusätzlichen Einsatz verschiedener Lithotripsieverfahren, insbesondere bei Tonnenkonkrementen, kann in bis zu 98% eine Steinfreiheit erreicht werden. Zu diesen Methoden gehören die extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotripsie, intraduktale Techniken (Laserlithotripsie, elektrohydraulische Lithotripsie) und perkutane Verfahren. Die endoskopische Therapie von Gallensteinen und Tonnenkonkrementen beim Hochbetagten ist sicher und geht im Vergleich zur Normalbevölkerung nicht mit einem erhöhten Komplikationsrisiko einher.

Abstract

Endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone extraction are established therapeutic procedures for common bile duct stones. Various nonsurgical techniques are available to increase the success rate, especially in patients with giant stones; these include mechanical lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, intraductal lithotripsy, and percutaneous transhepatic procedures. Endoscopic intervention in the treatment of symptomatic common bile stones in elderly patients and especially in cases of giant bile duct stones is also safe and is not associated with a higher complication rate compared with the normal population.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Adamek HE, Buttmann A, Wessbecher R et al. (1995) Clinical comparison of extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotrispy (EPL) and intracorporeal electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) in difficult bile duct stones. Dig Dis Sci 40: 1185–1192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Adamek HE, Maier M, Jakobs R et al. (1996) Managment of retained bile duct stones: a prospective open trial comparing extracorporeal and intarcorporeal lithotripsy. Gastrointest Endosc 44: 40–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergman J, Ranws E, Tijssen J et al. (1995) Biliary endoprostheses in elderly patients with endoscopically irretrievable common bile duct stones: report on 117 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 42: 195–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Binmoeller KF, Brückner M, Thonke F, Soehendra N (1993) Treatment of difficult bile duct stones using mechanical, electrohydraulic and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Endoscopy 25: 201–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Boerma D, Rauws EA, Keulemans YC et al. (2002) Wait-and-see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile-duct stones: a randomised trial. Lancet 360: 761–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Born P, Neuhaus H, Classen M (1995) Laser lithotripsy of refractory bile duct calculi after failure of extracorporeal shock wave treatment. Z Gastroenterol 33: 202–208

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Burns-Cox N, Campbell WB, Nimmen BA van et al. (1997) Surgical care and outcome for patients in their nineties. Br J Surg 84: 496–498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan AC, Ng EK, Chung SC et al. (1998) Common bile duct stones become smaller after endoscopic biliary stenting. Endoscopy 30: 356–359

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen MF, Jan YY (1990) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy. Br J Surg 77: 530–532

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Classen M, Hagenmueller F, Knyrim K, Frimberger E (1988) Giant bile duct stones – non-surgical treatment. Endoscopy 20: 21–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohello R, Bordas JM, Guevara MC et al. (1997) Mechanical lithotripsy during retrograde cholangiography in choledocholithiasis untreatable by conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastroenterol Hepatol 20: 124–127

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellis RD, Jenkins AP, Thompson RP, Ede RJ (2000) Clearance of refractory bile duct stones with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Gut 47: 728–731

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gilchrist AM, Ross B, Thomas WE (1997) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotrypsy for common bile duct stones. Br J Surg 84: 29–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltzke W (1996) Outcome of mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in an unselected series of 704 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 43: 473–476

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hinz K, Schulz HJ, Natho W, Brien G (1990) Extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotrypsie (ESWL) – ein neues Verfahren zur Behandlung der Choledocholithiasis. Gastroenterol J 50: 175–178

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jain SK, Stein R, Bhuva M, Goldberg MJ (2000) Pigtail stents: an alternitive in the treatment of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 52: 490–493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jakobs R, Adamek HE, Maier M et al. (1997) Fluoroscopically guided laser lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for retained bile duct stones: a prospective randomized study. Gut 40: 678–682

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lau JY, Leow CK, Fung TM et al. (2006) Cholecystectomy or gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy and bile duct stone removal in Chinese patients. Gastroenterology 130: 96–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee SK, Seo DW, Myung SJ et al. (2001) Percutaneous transheptic cholangioscopic treatment for hepatolithiasis: an evaluation of long-term results and risk factors for reccurence. Gastrointest Endosc 53: 318–323

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lomanto D, Fiocca F, Nardovino M et al. (1996) ESWL experience in the therapy of difficult bile duct stones. Dig Dis Sci 41: 2397–2403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Maxton DG, Tweedle DE, Martin DF (1995) Retained common bile duct stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy: temporary and longterm treatment with biliary stenting. Gut 36: 446–449

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mitchell RM, O’Connor F, Dickey W (2003) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe and effective in patients 90 years of age and older. J Clin Gastroenterol 36: 72–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neuhaus H, Zillinger C, Born P et al. (1998) Randomized study of intracorporeal laser lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for difficult bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 47: 327–334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Riemann JF, Seuberth K, Demling L (1983) Mechanical lithotripsy through the intact papilla of Vater. Endoscopy 15: 111–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodríguez-González FJ, Naranjo-Rodríguez A, Mata-Tapia I et al. (2003) ERCP in patients 90 years of age and older. Gastrointest Endosc 58: 220–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schneider MU, Matek W, Bauer R, Domschke W (1988) Mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in 209 patients – effect of technical advances. Endoscopy 20: 248–253

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Soehendra N, Seifert H, Thonke F et al. (1994) Endoskopische Techniken zur Therapie der Choledocholithiasis. Chirurg 65: 413–417

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y (2000) Endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones in patients 90 years of age and older. Gastrointest Endosc 52: 187–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Van der Velden JJ, Berger Y, Bonjer HJ et al. (2000) Percutaneous treatment of bile duct stones in patients treated unsuccessfully with endoscopic retrograde procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 51: 418–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Weickert U, Muhlen E, Janssen J et al. (1999) The holmium-YAG laser: a suitable instrument for stone fragmentation in choledocholithiasis. The assessment of the results of its use under babyscopic control. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 124: 514–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medizinische Klinik C, Klinikum der Stadt Ludwighafen gGmbH, Bremserstraße 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland

    D. Hartmann & J.F. Riemann

Authors
  1. D. Hartmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J.F. Riemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Hartmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartmann, D., Riemann, J. Tonnenkonkremente – Besonderheiten beim Hochbetagten. Gastroenterologe 3, 33–38 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11377-007-0129-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11377-007-0129-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation