Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Sub Heading
- •Outcomes
- •Study Limitation
- •Inconsistency
- •Directness
- •Precision
- •Publication Bias
- •Features Increasing Quality of Observational Studies
- •Large Magnitude of Effect
- •Introduction
- •Ask the Clinical Question
- •Find the Evidence
- •Appraise the Studies
- •The GRADE System
- •The Header
- •Dose Response Gradient
- •All Plausible Confounding Would Reduce the Demonstrated Effect or Increase it if No Effect Was Observed
- •Summary of Findings
- •Other Resources
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Resection Versus Observation for Giant Hemangiomas
- •Treatment of Giant Hemangiomas: Operative Approaches and Non-surgical Therapies
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Observation vs Surgical Treatment with Hepatectomy
- •Enucleation vs Hepatectomy
- •Minimal Invasive Approach
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cavernous Hemangioma
- •Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •Hepatocellular Adenoma
- •Biliary Hamartoma
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Surgical Considerations
- •Congenital Cysts
- •Neoplastic Cysts
- •Traumatic Cysts
- •Infectious Cysts
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Non-operative Management
- •Angiography and Embolization
- •Outcomes
- •Surgical Strategies
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Expanding the Milan Criteria
- •Salvage Transplantation
- •Treatment Prior to Transplantation
- •Living Donor Liver Transplantation for HCC
- •Comparative Outcomes Between Resection and Transplantation for HCC
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Presentation
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Alternative Therapies
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Clinical Relevance and Risk Factors of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Screening Strategies
- •Serum Alpha-Feto Protein (AFP)
- •Ultrasonography (US) with or Without Serum AFP
- •Cross Sectional Imaging
- •Computed Tomography
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •Long-Term Outcomes in Laparoscopic Liver Resection
- •Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Etiology of Liver Abscesses
- •Predicting Prognosis
- •Treatment Options
- •Antibiotic Therapy
- •Radiologic Intervention
- •Surgical Therapy
- •Liver Abscess After Liver Transplantation
- •Personal Experience
- •Summary
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Recommendations
- •The EASL-EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines
- •Other Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Additional Considerations
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •The Child-Pugh Scoring System
- •The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Score
- •Computed Tomography (CT) Volumetry
- •Transient Elastography
- •The Indocyanine Green (ICG) Clearance Test
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Strategy Discussion
- •Results
- •Risk of Recurrence
- •Conclusion
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Liver Failure Following Liver Resection
- •Evaluation of the Degree of Chronic Liver Disease
- •Search Strategy
- •Liver Resections and the Childs-Turcotte-Pugh Score
- •Liver Resections and the Meld Score
- •Child-Turcotte-Pugh vs. MELD Score
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Retrospective Studies
- •Prospective Studies
- •Summary and Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Operative Time
- •Perioperative Mortality and Morbidity
- •Hospital Length of Stay
- •Long-Term Outcomes
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •Potential Exceptions to Recommendations
- •Utilization of CBDE and Future Directions for Training
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared with Standard Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
- •Peri-operative Morbidity and Mortality
- •Conversion Rates
- •Cost
- •Pain
- •Cosmesis, Patient Satisfaction, and Quality of Life Scores
- •Hernia Rates
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Retrospective Review
- •Randomized Trials
- •Meta-analysis/Systematic Reviews
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Recurrent Cholangitis from Hepatolithiasis
- •Recurrent Cholangitis from Choledocholithiasis
- •Recurrent Cholangitis Following Biliary-Enteric Anastomosis for Benign Disease
- •Recommendations for Treatment of Recurrent Cholangitis
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •PBDS After Complex Hepatobiliary Procedures
- •PBDS After Cholecystectomy
- •Surgical Repair
- •Percutaneous Therapy
- •Endoscopic Therapy
- •Studies with Multiple Treatment Techniques
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Long-Term Success Rate
- •Method of Repair
- •Mortality
- •Health-Related Quality of Life and Cost
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendation Based on the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •LCBDE Versus Postoperative ERCP
- •LCBDE Versus OCBCE
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Epidemiology
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Literature Search
- •Results
- •Treatment of Tis and T1a Tumors
- •Treatment of T1b Tumors
- •Treatment Options for Stage T2/T3
- •Common Bile Duct Resections
- •Port Site Resections
- •Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Expert View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Enterolithotomy vs Enterolithotomy with Cholecystectomy and Cholecysto-Enteric Fistula Closure
- •Recurrent Gallstone Ileus
- •Minimally Invasive Techniques
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Summary of Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Studies Comparing Endoscopic and Surgical Intervention
- •Outcomes of Surgical Intervention
- •Outcomes of Endoscopic Intervention
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Routine Versus Selective Cholangiography
- •Near Infrared Fluorescent Cholangiography
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Endoscopic Therapy
- •Biliary Resection and Biliary Bypass
- •Risk of Malignancy
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA)
- •Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA)
- •Distal Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
- •Novel Endoscopic Techniques
- •Personal View
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Transcatheter Arterial Embolization
- •Biliary Stenting
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Importance of a Negative Resection Margin for Prognosis After Curative-Intent Surgery for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Achieving a Negative Bile Duct Margin: Hepatectomy Versus Bile Duct Resection
- •Impact of Caudate Lobectomy in Hepatectomy for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Preoperative Assessment of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Assessment of the Bile Duct Margin and Operative Outcome
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Clinical Relevance of PVT After Liver Transplantation
- •Treatment Strategies
- •Anticoagulation
- •Surgical Revascularization
- •Thrombolysis Without Mechanical Methods
- •Mechanical Methods with Thrombolysis
- •Mechanical Methods Without Thrombolysis
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •First Line Therapy
- •Rescue Therapies
- •Balloon Tamponade
- •TIPS
- •Early TIPS
- •Complications of TIPS
- •Surgical Shunt
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search
- •Results
- •Esophageal Varices
- •Ascites
- •Other Manifestations of Portal Hypertension
- •Non-esophageal Varices
- •Hepatic Hydrothorax
- •Hepatorenal Syndrome
- •Other
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Prevalence and Clinical Importance
- •Risk Factors
- •Detection and Evaluation
- •Natural History
- •Treatment Indications and Outcomes
- •Recommendations
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Patients with Interstitial, Edematous, or Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis
- •Patients with Severe or Necrotizing Pancreatitis
- •The Role for Endoscopic Sphincterotomy
- •Cost Implications
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Feeding in Severe Acute Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Necrosis-EN vs. PN
- •Route of Enteral Feeding in Acute Pancreatitis-NG vs. NJ
- •Type of TF
- •Timing of Feeding Initiation- Early vs. Late
- •Future Directions
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Surgical Versus Endoscopic Management
- •Laparoscopic Management
- •Endoscopic Management
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Early Studies: Prophylaxis and Decreased Infected Necrosis
- •Recent Randomized Trials: Prophylaxis Reconsidered
- •A Review of Disparate Results
- •Antimicrobial Resistance and Atypical Organisms
- •Evidence-Based Protocol for “On-Demand” Antibiotics
- •Summary and Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Management of Symptomatic Walled-Off Necrosis (WON)
- •Indication of Drainage
- •Which Modality to Choose
- •The Diminishing Role of Open Necrosectomy
- •Minimally Invasive Necrosectomy (MIN)
- •Laparoscopic Necrosectomy
- •Retroperitoneal Necrosectomy
- •Percutaneous Drainage
- •Endoscopic Necrosectomy
- •Step-Up Approach
- •Conclusion/Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Open Procedure
- •Endoscopic Drainage
- •Laparoscopic Procedures
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Pain Relief
- •Morbidity and Mortality
- •Repeated Interventions, Hospitalizations, and Costs
- •Timing of Intervention
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Randomized Clinical Trials
- •Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Patient Selection
- •Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality
- •Islet Function
- •Pain Relief/Narcotic Requirement
- •QOL/Durability
- •Cancer Risk
- •Expert Consensus
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data

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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
