Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage: what is the best intervention strategy?

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100968547 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-230X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 1471230X NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Gastroenterol Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-
    • Subject Terms:
      Choledocholithiasis*/surgery ; Cholangitis*/surgery ; Cholangitis*/complications; Humans ; Drainage/adverse effects ; Choledochostomy/adverse effects ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde/adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; Retrospective Studies
    • Abstract:
      Background: The best intervention approach for residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage remains controversial, especially during the period of indwelling T tube and the formation of a sinus. The purpose of the study was to estimate the effects of two therapeutic modalities, namely endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and choledochfiberscope via the T-tube sinus tract (CDS) on residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage.
      Methods: A total of 112 patients with residual choledocholithiasis after choledochotomy were included in the study, 50 of which underwent ERCP and 62 patients experienced choledochoscopy via the T-tube sinus tract. The primary outcome measures included the success rate of remove biliary stones, T-tube drainage time, and the average length of hospital stay. The secondary objective was to consider incidence of adverse events including cholangitis, bile leakage, T-tube migration, pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation. After hospital discharge, patients were followed up for two years and the recurrence of choledocholithiasis was recorded.
      Results: There was no significant difference in the success rate of stone removal between the two groups. Compared to CDS group, T-tube drainage time and the average length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERCP group. The incidence of complications (cholangitis and bile leakage) in the ERCP group was lower than that in the CDS group, but there was no statistically significant difference. When the T-tube sinus tract is not maturation, ERCP was the more appropriate endoscopic intervention to remove residual choledocholithiasis, particularly complicated with cholangitis at this time period.
      Conclusions: ERCP is a safe and effective endoscopic intervention to remove residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube Drainage without the condition of T-tube sinus tract restriction.
      (© 2022. The Author(s).)
    • References:
      Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 30;9(1):5101. (PMID: 30504769)
      World J Gastroenterol. 2021 Jul 28;27(28):4536-4554. (PMID: 34366622)
      J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 Aug 1;91(2):e46-e49. (PMID: 33951025)
      Dig Endosc. 2009 Jul;21(3):170-5. (PMID: 19691764)
      JAMA Surg. 2018 Jul 18;153(7):e181167. (PMID: 29847616)
      J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Oct;23(10):1590-5. (PMID: 18554235)
      Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 10;10(1):11477. (PMID: 32651446)
      Prim Care. 2017 Dec;44(4):575-597. (PMID: 29132521)
      BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Aug 5;19(1):139. (PMID: 31382888)
      Int J Surg. 2017 Aug;44:269-273. (PMID: 28668286)
      Int J Med Sci. 2021 Jan 1;18(4):1067-1074. (PMID: 33456365)
      Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012 Jul;94(5):363. (PMID: 22943240)
      World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep 28;17(36):4118-23. (PMID: 22039327)
      Surg Endosc. 2020 Dec;34(12):5211-5222. (PMID: 32710213)
      JSLS. 2019 Jan-Mar;23(1):. (PMID: 30675097)
      Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Jul;94(26):e1043. (PMID: 26131813)
      Med Sci Monit. 2019 Dec 20;25:9770-9775. (PMID: 31857570)
      Ann Surg. 2018 Aug;268(2):247-253. (PMID: 29533266)
      Surg Endosc. 2014 Dec;28(12):3451-7. (PMID: 24939161)
      Surg Endosc. 2010 Mar;24(3):547-53. (PMID: 19585071)
      J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2022 Jun;32(6):612-619. (PMID: 34520269)
      World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr 7;25(13):1531-1549. (PMID: 30983814)
      Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015 Oct;19(19):3649-54. (PMID: 26502855)
      Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018 Apr 18;30:13-17. (PMID: 29946453)
      Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2015 Mar 24;95(11):853-6. (PMID: 26080920)
      Surg Endosc. 2015 May;29(5):1030-8. (PMID: 25154888)
      BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 26;19(1):135. (PMID: 31349795)
      World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec 28;23(48):8597-8604. (PMID: 29358868)
      Int J Surg. 2018 May;53:53-58. (PMID: 29555524)
      World J Surg. 2010 Mar;34(3):574-80. (PMID: 20049439)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Choledochoscopy; Clinical effect; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Residual choledocholithiasis; T-tube sinus tract
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20221210 Date Completed: 20221216 Latest Revision: 20221220
    • Publication Date:
      20240104
    • Accession Number:
      PMC9733260
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/s12876-022-02601-6
    • Accession Number:
      36494797