Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction of Which Patients with an Abnormal Intraoperative Cholangiogram Will Have a Confirmed Stone at ERCP

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Abnormal intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) findings are commonly evaluated using postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, abnormal IOC studies are associated with high false-positive rates. This study aimed to identify a subset of patients with abnormal IOC who would benefit from a postoperative ERCP.

Methods

This retrospective study investigated 68 patients with abnormal IOC at laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) who underwent postoperative ERCP at two tertiary referral centers over a 4-year period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of common bile duct (CBD) stones at postoperative ERCP. These predictors included: indication for LC, abnormal liver function tests, white blood cell count (WBC), amylase and lipase, abdominal ultrasound findings, and IOC findings [(1) non-passage of contrast into the duodenum, (2) single stone, (3) multiple stones, (4) dilated CBD, (5) non-visualization of the distal CBD, and (6) palpable CBD stones].

Results

For all 68 patients, ERCP was successful. ERCP showed CBD stones in 36 cases (52.9%), and normal results in 32 cases (47%). On univariate and multivariate analysis, none of the variables included in this study significantly predicted stones at postoperative ERCP.

Conclusions

Approximately one-half of patients with an abnormal IOC have a normal postoperative ERCP. None of the parameters evaluated in this retrospective study helped identify patients who merit further evaluation by ERCP. The argument could be made that in patients with an abnormal IOC, less invasive methods such as endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography could be used postoperatively if symptoms arise to assess for possible retained stone.

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. Everhart JE. Digestive diseases in the United States: Epidemiology and impact. Bethesda, MD: NIH, NIDDK; 1994; publication no. 94-1447.

  2. McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, et al. Laparoscopic versus mini laparotomy cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 1994;343:135–138.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ammori BJ, Birbas K, Davides D, et al. Routine vs “on demand” postoperative ERCP for small bile duct calculi detected at intraoperative cholangiography: Clinical evaluation and cost analysis. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:1123–1126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Besten LD, Doty JE. Choledocholithiasis. Surg Clin North Am. 1981;61:893–907.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cranley B, Logan H. Exploration of the common bile duct: The relevance of the clinical picture and the importance of preoperative cholangiography. Br J Surg. 1980;67:869–872.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hawasli A, Lloyd L, Cacucci B. Management of choledocholithiasis in the era of laparoscopic surgery. Am Surg. 2000;66:425–430.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hunter JG. Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration. Am J Surg. 1992;163:53–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin IG, Curley P, McMahon MJ. Minimally invasive treatment for common bile duct stones. Br J Surg. 1993;80:103–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ryberg AA, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Tseng A, et al. Abnormal cholangiograms during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:456–459.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman ML. Adverse outcomes of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56(6 Suppl):S273–S282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: A prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Korman J, Cosgrove J, Furman M, et al. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and cholangiography in the laparoscopic era. Ann Surg. 1996;223:212–216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Levine SB, Lerner HJ, Leifer ED, et al. Intraoperative cholangiography: A review of indications and analysis of age–sex groups. Ann Surg. 1983;198:692–697.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Perret RS, Sloop GD, Borne JA. Common bile duct measurements in an elderly population. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19:727–730.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sackier JM, Berci G, Edward Phillips E, et al. The role of cholangiography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 1991;126:1021–1025.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stuart SA, Simpson TIG, Alvord LA, et al. Routine intraoperative laparoscopic cholangiography. Am J Surg. 1998;176:632–637.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clair DG, Carr-Locked DL, Becker JM, et al. Routine cholangiography is not warranted during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 1993;128:551–555.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pietra N, Sarli L, Maccarini PU, et al. Five-year prospective audit of routine intravenous cholangiography and selective endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with or without intraoperative cholangiography in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg. 2000;24:345–352.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hauer-Jensen M, Karesen R, Nygaard K, et al. Predictive ability of choledocholithiasis indicators. A prospective evaluation. Ann Surg. 1985;202:64–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lacaine F, Corlette MB, Bismuth H. Preoperative evaluation of the risk of common bile duct stones. Arch Surg. 1980;115:1114–1116.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Prat F, Meduri B, Ducot B, et al. Prediction of common bile duct stones by noninvasive tests. Ann Surg. 1999;229:362–368.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Abboud PA, Malet PF, Berlin JA, et al. Predictors of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:450–455.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Trondsen E, Edwin B, Reiertsen O, et al. Prediction of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: A prospective validation of a discriminant analysis function. Arch Surg. 1998;133:162–166.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Byrne MF, McLoughlin MT, Mitchell RM, et al. For patients with predicted low risk for choledocholithiasis undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, selective intraoperative cholangiography and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is an effective strategy to limit unnecessary procedures. Surg Endosc. 2008;Epub Dec 31.

  26. Phillips EH. Laparoscopic transcystic duct common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:365–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Urbach DR, Khajanchee YS, Jobe BA, et al. Cost-effective management of common bile duct stones: A decision analysis of the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), intraoperative cholangiography, and laparoscopic bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:4–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liberman MA, Phillips EH, Carroll BJ, et al. Cost-effective management of complicated choledocholithiasis: Laparoscopic transcystic duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;182:488–494.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lilly MC, Arregui ME. A balanced approach to choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:467–472.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Duensing RA, Williams RA, Collins JC, et al. Managing choledocholithiasis in the laparoscopic era. Am J Surg. 1995;170:619–623.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lezoche E, Pagamimi A, Guerrieri M, et al. Technique and results of routine dynamic cholangiography during 528 consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Surg Endosc. 1994;8:1443–1447.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hainsworth PJ, Rhodes M, Gompertz RH, et al. Imaging of the common bile duct in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gut. 1994;35:991–995.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Frossard JL, Hadengue A, Amouyal G, et al. Choledocholithiasis: A prospective study of spontaneous common bile duct stone migration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;50:175–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Varadarajulu S, Eloubeidi MA, Wilcox CM, et al. Do all patients with abnormal intraoperative cholangiogram merit endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Surg Endosc. 2006;20:801–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bose SM, Mazumdar A, Prakash VS, et al. Evaluation of the predictors of choledocholithiasis: Comprehensive analysis of clinical, biochemical, radiological, radionuclear, and intraoperative parameters. Surg Today. 2001;31:117–122.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Katz D, Nikfarjam M, Sfakiotaki A, et al. Selective endoscopic cholangiography for the detection of common bile duct stones in patients with cholelithiasis. Endoscopy. 2004;36:1045–1049.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Onken JE, Brazer SR, Eisen GM, et al. Predicting the presence of choledocholithiasis in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91:762–767.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TCK, et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:652–656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Phillips EH, Liberman M, Carroll BJ, et al. Bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era: Is preoperative sphincterotomy necessary? Arch Surg. 1995;130:880–886.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sherman S, Ruffolo TA, Hawes RH, et al. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: A prospective series with emphasis on the increased risk associated with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and nondilated bile ducts. Gastroenterology. 1991;101:1068–1075.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dexter SPL, Martin IG, Marton J, et al. Long operation and the risk of complications from laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997;84:464–466.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Phillips EH. The importance of intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg. 1990;56:792–795.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW, et al. Half-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography in 300 subjects. Radiology. 1998;207:21–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Palazzo L, Girollet P-P, Salmeron M, et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones: Comparison with surgical exploration and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:225–231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Soto JA, Barish MA, Alvarez O, et al. Detection of choledocholithiasis with MR cholangiography: Comparison of three-dimensional fast spin-echo and single- and multisection half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement sequences. Radiology. 2000;215:737–745.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. Endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosing choledocholithiasis: A prospective comparative study with ultrasonography and computed tomography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45:143–146.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Medical School Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 4.234, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Matthew P. Spinn, David S. Wolf, Dharmendra Verma & Frank J. Lukens

Authors
  1. Matthew P. Spinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David S. Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dharmendra Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank J. Lukens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank J. Lukens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spinn, M.P., Wolf, D.S., Verma, D. et al. Prediction of Which Patients with an Abnormal Intraoperative Cholangiogram Will Have a Confirmed Stone at ERCP. Dig Dis Sci 55, 1479–1484 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-0894-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-0894-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation