Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1209_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
17 Мб
Скачать
☆
222

Pain

Leung et al. demonstrated signifi cantly higher level of pain in SILC group at post­operative day 1 and day 3. However, by post-operative week 1 the pain score became comparable [ 19 ]. Marks et al. demonstrated no difference in pain scores at 1 day, 1 week, and 2 weeks, but on day 3 and day 5 there was a statistically signifi cant increase in pain scores in the SILC group [ 20 ]. Lai et al. reported no difference between the two groups 6 h postoperatively, but 7 days later the SILC group had signifi cantly more pain [ 16 ]. Milas et al. showed high heterogeneity, with no statis- tical signifi cance when it came to pain scores, but had a trend toward higher scores in SILC patients [ 31 ]. Trasuli et al. showed no signifi cant difference in pain scores in the pooled data at any of the early time points out to 48 h. However, there was a small increase in conventional laparoscopy patients without statistical signifi cance after 72 h [ 27 ]. Pisanu et al. found no statistical signifi cance between pain scores at 6 h and 24 h post-operatively [ 26 ]. There is moderate level evidence that there
are higher pain scores in patients that undergo SILC ( Grade 2B recommenda­tion in favor of MPLC ). There is also variability in the post - operative interval at which the difference in pain scores are reported .

Cosmesis, Patient Satisfaction, and Quality of Life Scores

There is high variability between studies looking at patient satisfaction, cosmetic scores, and quality of life scores. Leung et al. showed equivalent quality of life scores at 1 week, 3 weeks and 6 months, and satisfaction scores were similar at 3 weeks and 6 months post-operatively [ 19 ]. Trasulli et al. found no signifi cant differ- ence in cosmetic scores in the early post-operative period, but at 3 months and 6 months there was a trend toward improved cosmetic scores in SILC [ 27 ]. Several other studies found slight differences in favor of SILC for cosmetic outcomes [ 26 , 31 ]. There is moderate level evidence demonstrating equivalent results for cos-
metic outcomes , patient satisfaction scores , and quality of life scores when comparing SILC with MPLC . ( Grade 1B recommendation that the modalities are similar .)

Hernia Rates

There are no studies that compare the specifi c outcome variable of incisional hernia rates between SILC and MPLC. Most of the patients are small subsets from random­ized studies, with inadequate power to reach statistical signifi cance, even in pooled meta-analysis data. However, there are a few studies demonstrating a signifi cant trend toward an increase in incisional hernia rates following cholecystectomy in the
B.R. Luo and N.J. Soper
223
SILC population [ 20 , 27 ]. There are also other studies that show no signifi cant dif- ferences between the two groups, but there may not be adequate long term followup to demonstrate a difference [ 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 ]. There is low level evidence suggesting
that there may be an increased risk of incisional hernia formation after SILC cholecystectomy ; however , long - term studies are necessary . ( Grade 2C recom­mendation in favor of MPLC .)

Recommendations

When compared with multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy , SILC has similar morbidity , conversion rates to open surgery , cosmesis , and quality of life . There are small increases in SILC for pain , cost , and possibly rates of post-operative inci­sional hernia formation. The current recommendation is that MPLC is still the stan­dard of care for patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy .
1. In experienced hands, SILC and MPLC are equivalent with respect to mortality ,
major complications, and biliary complications (evidence quality high, strong recommendation).
2. SILC is associated with a small increase in minor adverse events, postoperative
pain , port site infection, and hernia compared to MPLC (evidence quality low, weak recommendation).
3. Because SILC is more expensive without demonstrable improvement in safety,
cosmesis , quality of life , or patient satisfaction, MPLC remains the preferred minimally invasive approach for routine cholecystectomy (evidence quality moderate, strong recommendation).

A Personal View of the Data

One of the major limitations of all of these studies is the state of the gallbladder pathology itself. To achieve homogenous patients the randomized trials have included only elective gallbladder pathology, usually symptomatic cholelithiasis or gallbladder polyps, without evidence of acute cholecystitis or other more complex conditions. Additional data need to be collected to establish the safety profi le of SILC in acute cholecystitis. Cosmesis is diffi cult to interpret; patients that are more concerned with cosmetic appearance are more likely to seek out a SILC and may be more likely to enroll in a study where they could potentially be randomized to the SILC group, whereas patients who do not place a large emphasis on cosmesis might be more likely to opt out of the randomization. Costs may eventually become more in favor of SILC as dedicated SILS instrumentation is becoming more cost -effective to produce. Post-operative incisional hernia rates can only be truly studied if there is a standardization of technique for SILC platforms, conventional laparoscopic
19 Single-Incision or Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
224
access (Hasson versus Veress), and extraction sites (umbilical versus epigastric), and be powered appropriately for this specifi c outcome variable. All of these are variables that can create bias or confounding factors. There also would need to be long term follow-up, but as demonstrated by most of the studies, the drop-out rates can reach up to 20 % even at 1 year post-operatively [ 20 ] .

References

1. Ingrahm AM, Cohen ME, Ko CY, Hall BL. A current profi le and assessment of North American
cholecystectomy: results from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:176–86.
2. Soper NJ. Cholecystectomy: from Langenbuch to natural orifi ce transluminal endoscopic sur-
gery. World J Surg. 2011;35(7):1422–7.
3. Brody F, Vaziri K, Kasza J, Edwards C. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am
Coll Surg. 2010;210(2):e9–13.
4. Valverde A. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the SILS monotrocar. J Visc
Surg. 2012;149:e38–43.

Retrospective Review

5. Podolsky ER, Currillo PG. Single port access (SPA) surgery – a 24 month experience.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:759–67.
6. Rawlings A, Hodgett SE, Matthews BD, et al. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy:
initial experience with critical view of safety dissection and routine intraoperative cholangiog­raphy. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:1–7.
7. Love KM, Durham CA, Meara MP, Mays AC, Bower CE. Single-incision laparoscopic chole-
cystectomy: a cost comparison. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(5):1553–8.
8. Antoniou SA, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a
systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:367–77.
9. Beck C, Eakin J, Dettorre R, Renton D. Analysis of perioperative factors and cost comparison
of single-incision and traditional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):104–8.
10. Joseph S, Moore BT, Sorensen GB, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a
comparison with the gold standard. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:3008–15.
11. Vemulapalli P, Agaba EA, Camacho D. Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single
center experience. Int J Surg. 2011;9:410–3.
12. Chekan E, Moore M, Hunter TD, Gunnarsson C. Costs and clinical outcomes of conventional
single port and micro-laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2013;17(1):30–45.
13. Feinberg EJ, Agaba E, Feinberg ML, Camacho D, Vemulapalli P. Single-incision laparoscopic
cholecystectomy learning curve experience seen in a single institution. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:114–7.
14. Hwang HK, Choi SH, Kang CM, Lee WJ. Single-fulcrum laparoscopic cholecystectomy in
uncomplicated gallbladder diseases: a retrospective comparative analysis with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54(6):1471–7.
15. Hodgett SE, Hernandez JM, Morton CA, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) cholecys-
tectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:188–9.
B.R. Luo and N.J. Soper
225

Randomized Trials

16. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, et al. Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision
laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 2011;202(3):254–8.
17. Aprea G, Coppola BE, Guida F, Masone S, Persico G. Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS)
versus classic video-laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective study. J Surg Res. 2011;166(2):e109–12.
18. Vilallonga R, Barbaros U, Sumer A, et al. Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic cholecystec-
tomy: a prospective randomized comparison of clinical results of 140 cases. J Minim Access Surg. 2012;8(3):74–8.
19. Leung D, Yetasook AK, Carbray J, et al. Single-incision surgery has higher cost with equiva-
lent pain and quality-of-life scores compared with multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystec­tomy: a prospective randomized blinded comparison. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(5):702–8.
20. Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is
associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of signifi cantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional mul­tiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(6):1037–47.
21. Pan MX, Jiang ZS, Cheng Y, et al. Single-incision vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy:
prospective randomized study. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(3):394–8.
22. Deveci U, Barbaros U, Kapakli MS, et al. The comparison of single incision laparoscopic
cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study. J Korean Surg Soc. 2013;85(6):275–82.
23. Garg P, Thakur JD, Singh I, et al. A prospective controlled trial comparing single-incision and
conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: caution before damage control. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:220–5.
24. Kurpiewski W, Pesta W, Kowalczyk M, et al. The outcomes of SILS cholecystectomy in com-
parison with classic four-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Videosurg Miniinv. 2012;7(4):286–93.
25. Lirici MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, Corcione F. Laparo-endoscopic single site cholecystec-
tomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial. Am J Surg. 2011;202:45–52.

Meta-analysis/Systematic Reviews

26. Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G, Uccheddu A. Meta-analysis of prospective randomized stud-
ies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multi­port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1790–801.
27. Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100(2):191–208.
28. Qiu J, Yuan H, Chen S, et al. Single-port versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecys-
tectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(10):815–31.
19 Single-Incision or Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
226
29. Arezzo A, Scozzari G, Famiglietti F, Passero R, Morino M. Is single-incision laparoscopic
cholecystectomy safe? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(7):2293–304.
30. Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Rossi M, Davidson BR. Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for
laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2:CD007109.
31. Milas M, Devedija S, Trkulja V. Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic chole-
cystectomy: up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surgeon. 2014;pii:S1479-666X(14)00015-8.
B.R. Luo and N.J. Soper
227© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 J.M. Millis, J.B. Matthews (eds.), Diffi cult Decisions in Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Diffi cult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27365-5_20
Chapter 20
Management of Recurrent Cholangitis
Steven C. Stain and Ankesh Nigam
Abstract Recurrent cholangitis is inevitably due to biliary obstruction, and the
most frequent causes are either: stones in the common or hepatic bile duct; or intrin­sic stricture(s) of the biliary tract or narrowing at previously constructed bilioenteric anastomoses. The initial treatment is straightforward, and includes fl uid resuscita­tion and antibiotic therapy, and is followed by biliary decompression using any means necessary. Depending upon the etiology and available expertise, this is gen­erally accomplished by retrograde endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic drain­age. Emergent operative therapy is a rare event in current practice. Defi nitive therapy is dependent upon the etiology, and may utilize endoscopic or percutaneous dilation of strictures. However, hepatic resection of diseased segments or operative correc­tion of biliary or anastomotic strictures may be required, with the goal of reestab­lishing uninterrupted fl ow of bile to the gastrointestinal tract to prevent recurrent infection.
Keywords Biliary obstruction • Endoscopic • Percutaneous • Hepaticojejunostomy

Introduction

Cholangitis, the most serious manifestation of biliary tract bacterial infection in the setting of biliary obstruction , is associated with pain , fever, jaundice , hypotension and mental status change. The initial treatment is antibiotics and fl uid resuscitation. Biliary sepsis resolves in most patients with conservative therapy, and this allows the use of noninvasive imaging ( CT scan or MRI ) in order to determine the cause and level of obstruction. However, in the 15 % of patients who fail to respond to conservative treatment, emergent biliary decompression is necessary to avoid the high mortality from cholangitis in this group. With success rate s of 90–98 %,
S. C. Stain (*) • A. Nigam Department of Surgery , Albany Medical College , 50 New Scotland Ave, MC 194 , Albany , NY 12208 , USA e-mail:
stains@mail.amc.edu
228
endoscopic biliary drainage was established as the preferred method of decompres­sion over surgical drainage in the randomized clinical trial by Lai et al. in 1992, in which the mortality in the endoscopic arm was 10 % vs 32 % in surgical group [ 1 , 2 ]. When the endoscopic route is not available due to anatomic considerations or available expertise, percutaneous transhepatic biliary decompression provides reli­able acute treatment of cholangitis. Emergent treatment of cholangitis by operative techniques is seldom necessary in current surgical practice.
Recurrent cholangitis occurs in two distinct clinical settings. The fi rst is in patients with recurrent pyogenic cholangitis characterized by biliary stricture s located in the common bile duct or, more frequently, involving the intrahepatic ducts causing biliary stasis and pigmented stones resulting in choledocholithiasis or hepatolithiasis. This disease entity is more common in East Asia, although it has been reported in other populations. The second common clinical presentation of recurrent cholangitis results from strictures following previous interventions, either after bilioenteric anastomosis or endoscopic biliary procedures. There are several options for treating these patients with recurrent cholangitis and include endoscopic, percutaneous or operative techniques.

Search Strategy

A literature search of English language publications from 2003 to 2014 was used to identity published data on recurrent cholangitis using the PICO outline (Table 20.1 ). Databases searched were PubMed, Cochrane Evidence Based Medicine , American College of Physicians Journal Club, Trip Database. Terms used in the search were “recurrent cholangitis”, “ endoscopic treatment recurrent cholangitis”, “ percutane­ous treatment recurrent cholangitis”, “randomized clinical trial and cholangitis”, “randomized clinical trial and choledocholithiasis ”, “recurrent bile duct stones”, “ choledochoduodenostomy , hepaticojejunostomy and stricture ”. Articles were excluded if they specifi cally addressed patients treated after malignancy, liver trans­plant ation , or sclerosing cholangitis. There were hundreds of citations related to these search terms, and 28 articles were included in our analysis. There were no randomized control trials or multicenter studies, and all reviewed articles were
Table 20.1 PICO table for treatment of management of recurrent cholangitis
P (Patients) I (Intervention)
C (Comparator group) O (Outcomes measured)
Patients who develop recurrent cholangitis after:
Hepatic resection percutaneous therapy
No intervention
Morbidity and mortality Recurrent symptoms
1. Hepatolithiasis Endoscopic therapy Recurrent stone formation
2. Prior Intervention Need for further intervention
S.C. Stain and A. Nigam
229
single institution series with varied lengths of follow up. The data was classifi ed using the GRADE system.

Results

Recurrent Cholangitis from Hepatolithiasis

Recurrent pyogenic cholangitis is associated with hepatolithiasis, and is character­ized by intra and extrahepatic biliary stricture s, the formation of stones, and repeated biliary infections. It is predominantly a disease of the Far East, although there have been several North American series reported. Primary hepatolithiasis refers to stones that are formed de novo in the intrahepatic ducts, and secondary hepatolithia­sis results from retrograde migration of stones from the common bile duct and gall­bladder into the intrahepatic ducts due to distal obstruction [ 3 ]. Chronic proliferative cholangitis, which consists of extensive proliferation of fi brous connective tissue, moderate-to-severe infi ltration by infl ammatory cells, and the proliferation of mucus-producing peribiliary glands in the ductal was has been suggested as a fun­damental histologic lesion of stone-bearing intrahepatic bile ducts [ 4 ]. Patients with either primary or secondary hepatolithiasis have recurrent cholangitis, with recur­rent episodes of abdominal pain , fever and or jaundice . Primary treatments include hepatic resection of the disease liver segment, with or without bilioenteric bypass , percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy (PTCSL), or peroral cholan­gioscopic lithotripsy [ 5 , 6 ]. These procedures can be combined at the time of initial treatment, or utilized in sequence for the frequent recurrence of stones in the biliary tract common in these patients. Even after seemingly effective treatment, patients often suffer from long term complications of recurrent cholangitis, hepatic cirrhosis and cholangiocarcinoma .
The traditional treatment of hepatic resection , most frequently applied in patients with predominantly unilobar hepatic stones, is most appropriate for patients with lobar atrophy. Chen et al. reported that 103 of the 487 patients treated from 1989 to 2001 in their series (21 %) underwent partial hepatectomy [ 7 ]. It is worthwhile to note that hepaticojejunostomy was added to the liver resection in 62 of their 103 patients (60 %). With a mean follow-up of 56 months (range 6–158) only eight patients developed recurrent stones. Ten patients had coexisting cholangiocarci­noma , and three additional patients developed cholangiocarcinoma 7–36 months after the initial procedure. The total of 13 patients who develop cholangiocarcinoma (12.6 %) underscores the long term risk of patients with recurrent pyogenic cholan­gitis associated with hepatolithiasis. Three other reports from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan focused on the outcome of hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis and recurrent cholangitis were included in our analysis in Table 20.2 and showed comparable results [
8 – 10 ]. Cheung emphasized the importance of fl exible choledochoscopy at
the time of resection to ensure stone clearance, and added biliary drainage by
20 Management of Recurrent Cholangitis
230
Table 20.2 Outcomes after treatment of hepatolithiasis
Author
(Year) N Intervention Morbidity Mortality
Recurrent
stones (%)
Recurrent
symptoms
Need for further
intervention
Study type ( quality
of evidence)
Chen
(2004)
103 Hepatic resection with
hepaticojejunostomy in 62 patients
60 %
28 % 2 % 9 % 8 % 5 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
Cheung
(2005)
52 Hepatic resection with biliary
drainage in 5 patients (9.6 %)
44 % 3.8 % 13.5 % 13.3 % 11.5 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
149 Percutaneous choledochoscopy Not
reported
Not
reported
Not
reported
22.2 % 21.5 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
Lee (2007) 123 Hepatic resection and T-Tube
placement
33.3 % 1.6 % 5.7 % 13 % Indicated in 8.9 %,
but 7 of the 11
refused treatment
Retrospective
cohort (low)
Ueneshi
(2009)
87 Hepatic resection and T-tube
placement
Not
reported
3.5 % 20.6 % 32.2 % 20 %: 10 %
immediately post op,
and additional 10 %
long term
Retrospective
cohort (low)
Al-Sukhani
(2008)
10 CBDE, choledochojejunostomy
and Hutson loop
30 % 0 33 % 36 % 21 % Prospective cohort
(low)
17 Hepatic resection; 10 with Huston
loop and 17 without Hutson loop
35 % 0 33 % 36 % 21 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
Kassem
(2014)
42 Hepaticojejunostomy with Hutson
loop; including 5 with hepatic
resection
28.6 % 0 67 % 52 % 67 % Prospective cohort
(moderate)
Tian (2013) 90 Laparoscopic hepatic resection
with CBDE in 81
21 % 0 27.8 % 17 % 17 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
S.C. Stain and A. Nigam
231
Tan (2014) 46 ERCP 34.8 % 4.3 % 37 % 36.9 % Not reported Retrospective
cohort (low)
37 Laparoscopic hepatectomy 32.4 % 0 27 % 10.8 % Not reported Retrospective
cohort (low)
41 Laparoscopic intrahepatic duct
exploration
26.8 % 0 41.5 % 21.9 % Not reported Retrospective
cohort (low)
Huang
(2003)
245 Percutaneous transhepatic
cholangioscopic lithotomy
1.6 %
procedure
related
0.8 %
procedure
related
50 % 52 % 100 % Prospective cohort
(low)
20 Management of Recurrent Cholangitis