期刊文献+

Biliary leakage after urgent cholecystectomy: Optimization of endoscopic treatment 被引量:3

Biliary leakage after urgent cholecystectomy: Optimization of endoscopic treatment
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM: To investigate the results of endoscopic treatment of postoperative biliary leakage occurring after urgent cholecystectomy with a long-term follow-up.METHODS: This is an observational database study conducted in a tertiary care center. All consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiography(ERC) for presumed postoperative biliary leakage after urgent cholecystectomy in the period between April 2008 and April 2013 were considered for this study. Patients with bile duct transection and biliary strictures were excluded. Biliary leakage was suspected in the case of bile appearance from either percutaneous drainage of abdominal collection or abdominal drain placed at the time of cholecystectomy. Procedural and main clinical characteristics of all consecutive patients with postoperative biliary leakage after urgent cholecystectomy, such as indication for cholecystectomy, etiology and type of leakage, ERC findings and post-ERC complications, were collected from our electronic database. All patients in whom the leakage was successfully treated endoscopically were followed-up after they were discharged from the hospital and the main clinical characteristics, laboratory data and common bile duct diameter were electronically recorded. RESULTS: During a five-year period, biliary leakage was recognized in 2.2% of patients who underwent urgent cholecystectomy. The median time from cholecystectomy to ERC was 6 d(interquartile range, 4-11 d). Endoscopic interventions to manage biliary leakage included biliary stent insertion with or without biliary sphincterotomy. In 23(77%) patients after first endoscopic treatment bile flow through existing surgical drain ceased within 11 d following biliary therapeutic endoscopy(median, 4 d; interquartile range, 2-8 d). In those patients repeat ERC was not performed andthe biliary stent was removed on gastroscopy. In seven(23%) patients repeat ERC was done within one to fourth week after their first ERC, depending on the extent of the biliary leakage. In two of those patients common bile duct stone was recognized and removed. Three of those seven patients had more complicated clinical course and they were referred to surgery and were excluded from long-term follow-up. The median interval from endoscopic placement of biliary stent to demonstration of resolution of bile leakage for ERC treated patients was 32 d(interquartile range, 28-43 d). Among the patients included in the follow-up(median 30.5 mo, range 7-59 mo), four patients(14.8%) died of severe underlying comorbid illnesses.CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the great efficiency of the endoscopic therapy in the treatment of the patients with biliary leakage after urgent cholecystectomy. AIM To investigate the results of endoscopic treatmentof postoperative biliary leakage occurring after urgentcholecystectomy with a long-term follow-up.METHODS: This is an observational database studyconducted in a tertiary care center. All consecutivepatientswho underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiography(ERC) for presumed postoperative biliaryleakage after urgent cholecystectomy in the periodbetween April 2008 and April 2013 were consideredfor this study. Patients with bile duct transection andbiliary strictures were excluded. Biliary leakage wassuspected in the case of bile appearance from eitherpercutaneous drainage of abdominal collection orabdominal drain placed at the time of cholecystectomy.Procedural and main clinical characteristics of allconsecutive patients with postoperative biliary leakageafter urgent cholecystectomy, such as indication forcholecystectomy, etiology and type of leakage, ERCfindings and post-ERC complications, were collectedfrom our electronic database. All patients in whomthe leakage was successfully treated endoscopicallywere followed-up after they were discharged from thehospital and the main clinical characteristics, laboratorydata and common bile duct diameter were electronicallyrecorded.RESULTS: During a five-year period, biliary leakagewas recognized in 2.2% of patients who underwenturgent cholecystectomy. The median time fromcholecystectomy to ERC was 6 d (interquartile range,4-11 d). Endoscopic interventions to manage biliaryleakage included biliary stent insertion with or withoutbiliary sphincterotomy. In 23 (77%) patients after firstendoscopic treatment bile flow through existing surgicaldrain ceased within 11 d following biliary therapeuticendoscopy (median, 4 d; interquartile range, 2-8 d).In those patients repeat ERC was not performed and the biliary stent was removed on gastroscopy. In seven(23%) patients repeat ERC was done within one tofourth week after their first ERC, depending on theextent of the biliary leakage. In two of those patientscommon bile duct stone was recognized and removed.Three of those seven patients had more complicatedclinical course and they were referred to surgery andwere excluded from long-term follow-up. The medianinterval from endoscopic placement of biliary stent todemonstration of resolution of bile leakage for ERCtreated patients was 32 d (interquartile range, 28-43 d).Among the patients included in the follow-up (median30.5 mo, range 7-59 mo), four patients (14.8%) died ofsevere underlying comorbid illnesses.CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the greatefficiency of the endoscopic therapy in the treatmentof the patients with biliary leakage after urgentcholecystectomy.
出处 《World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy》 CAS 2015年第5期547-554,共8页 世界胃肠内镜杂志(英文版)(电子版)
关键词 URGENT CHOLECYSTECTOMY Acute cholecystitischolecystectomy COMPLICATIONS BILIARY leakage Endoscopic RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY Endoscopictreatment Urgent cholecystectomy Acute cholecystitis cholecystectomy complications Biliary leakage Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography Endoscopic treatment
  • 相关文献

参考文献22

  • 1Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ. An analysis of the problem ofbiliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg1995; 180: 101-125 [PMID: 8000648].
  • 2Brugge WR, Rosenberg DJ, Alavi A. Diagnosis of postoperativebile leaks. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 2178-2183 [PMID:7977237].
  • 3Giger UF, Michel JM, Opitz I, Th Inderbitzin D, Kocher T,Kr-henbühl L. Risk factors for perioperative complications inpatients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: analysis of 22,953consecutive cases from the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic andThoracoscopic Surgery database. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203: 723-728[PMID: 17084335 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.07.018].
  • 4Hillis TM, Westbrook KC, Caldwell FT, Read RC. Surgical injuryof the common bile duct. Am J Surg 1977; 134: 712-716 [PMID:596533 DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(77)90308-7].
  • 5Andrén-Sandberg A, Johansson S, Bengmark S. Accidentallesions of the common bile duct at cholecystectomy. II. Results oftreatment. Ann Surg 1985; 201: 452-455 [PMID: 3977446 DOI:10.1097/00000658-198504000-00009].
  • 6Kiviluoto T, Sirén J, Luukkonen P, Kivilaakso E. Randomisedtrial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for acute andgangrenous cholecystitis. Lancet 1998; 351: 321-325 [PMID:9652612 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08447-X].
  • 7Pesce A, Portale TR, Minutolo V, Scilletta R, Li Destri G, PuleoS. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy withoutintraoperative cholangiography: a retrospective study on 1,100selected patients. Dig Surg 2012; 29: 310-314 [PMID: 22986956DOI: 10.1159/000341660].
  • 8Voyles CR, Sanders DL, Hogan R. Common bile duct evaluation inthe era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 1050 cases later. Ann Surg1994; 219: 744-750; discussion 750-752 [PMID: 8203985].
  • 9Brodsky A, Matter I, Sabo E, Cohen A, Abrahamson J, Eldar S.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: can the needfor conversion and the probability of complications be predicted-A prospective study. Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 755-760 [PMID:10954824 DOI: 10.1007/s004640000182].
  • 10Bernard HR, Hartman TW. Complications after laparoscopiccholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1993; 165: 533-535 [PMID: 8480897DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(05)80956-0].

同被引文献31

引证文献3

二级引证文献25

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部