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

232
hepaticojejunostomy or sphincteroplasty in only fi ve patients [ 8 ]. All six patients
with cholangiocarcinoma died during their median follow-up of 40.3 months.
Moderate sized series of hepatolithiasis and recurrent pyogenic cholangitis have
been published from hepatobiliary surgical centers in the North America and Middle
East [ 11 , 12 ]. These two series both advocate the use of subcutaneous hepaticojeju-
nal access loops (Hutson loop) as a means to treat removal of recurrent stones. In the
Toronto General Hospital series, the majority of patients (67 %) had East Asian
ethnicity [ 11 ]. Twenty seven of their 42 patients underwent surgery after failed
endoscopic or percutaneous intervention, and 20 patients had Hutson loops. Only 4
of their 27 patients had stone-related symptoms requiring percutaneous intervention
compared to 4 of the 11 surviving nonoperative patients. The series from Kassem
et al., from Egypt was the only surgical series with a post intervention prospective
follow up protocol [ 12 ]. All patients were reviewed at 6 weeks after surgery, at
3 month intervals for the fi rst year, and a 6 month intervals thereafter. Accordingly,
they had the highest incidence of postoperative symptoms, recurrent stones, and
interventions. All patients with suspicion of residual or recurrent stones were investigated, which may explain their high rates. Symptom free was defi ned as patients
who were symptom free 1 year after last intervention. However, after their repeat
interventions, only seven patients (17 %) failed to benefi t from the access loop.
Three included series focused on the laparoscopic technique for treating recurrent hepatolithiasis associated with recurrent pyogenic cholangitis Table 20.2 [ 13 –
15 ]. Tian reported laparoscopic hepatic resection in 90 patients which consisted of
67 left hepatic resections and 23 right hepatic resections [ 15 ]. This was combined
with common bile duct exploration for 81 of their patients with extrahepatic stones.
Nonoperative approaches have also been employed for treatment of hepatolithiasis. In a series of 124 patients, Tan reported the results of 46 patients with intrahepatic stones treated by ERCP [ 16 ]. The mortality was 4.3 %, and the stones recurred
in 17 of the 46 patients (37.0 %). Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy is another approach for primary treatment of hepatolithiasis or for those
patients with recurrent stones after prior operation. Huang reported a large series of
245 patients with a mean follow up of 10.3 year [ 17 ]. These were patients that were
either considered poor surgical risks, refused surgery , or had previous biliary operations. Initial complete stone clearance was achieved in 209 patients (85.3 %), but
required a mean of 4.7 sessions (range 1–20). Even after complete stone clearance,
52 % of the patients developed symptoms and 50 % had recurrent stones. Over the
duration of their follow up, the overall recurrence rate of hepatolithiasis and/or
symptoms was 63.2 %. Twenty-seven patients died ( cirrhosis – 18, cholangiocarcinoma – 5 or other causes – 4), highlighting the long term complications of recurrent
biliary obstruction .
S.C. Stain and A. Nigam

233
Recurrent Cholangitis from Choledocholithiasis
Experienced hepatobiliary surgeons are profi cient at performing bilioenteric anastomoses for a variety of indications, including pancreaticoduodenectomy , repair of
bile duct injuries, or transplantation. Biloenteric bypass ( hepaticojejunostomy , cholechochojejunostomy or choledochoduodenostomy ) was the standard treatment for
patients with primary common bile duct stones or for patients who failed endoscopic stone removal. Advances in laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques have
made open operation infrequently necessary. It was diffi cult to fi nd a recent reference of open cholechoenterostomy for common bile duct stones. The title, Open
Choledocho - Enterostomy for Common Bile Duct Stones : Is it Out of Date in Laparo Endosocopic Therapy , indicates the infrequency that open surgical biliary bypass is
performed for retained or recurrent bile duct stones in the absence of bile duct stricture [ 18 ]. Abdelmajid et al., performed 51 biliary enteric bypasses with excellent
results between 2005 and 2009 for elderly patients, most of whom had multiple
stones (at least fi ve), or unextractable calculi (Table 20.3 ). Li studied the results of
193 patients treated by open cholecholithotomy and T-tube drainage – 81, cholechoduodenostomy – 41, or choledochojejunsotomy – 71 [ 19 ]. This series include
patients with primary common bile duct stones – 81, and those with secondary bile
stones that presumably originated in the gallbladder – 112. The authors found a
signifi cantly lower rate of recurrent symptoms in patients treated by choledochoduodenostomy than those with either T-tube drainage or choledochojejuonostomy.
This difference was more pronounced in those patients with primary common bile
duct stones (cholechochoduodenostomy – 2.6 %; choledochojejunostomy – 14.7 %;
T-tube drainage – 36.4 %). Small series have been reported using laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy for biliary obstruction [ 20 , 21 ]. The paper by Chander had
27 patients with dilated common bile ducts (>15 mm) with multiple stones, recurrent stones or primary common bile duct stones. Details of patient follow up are
limited, but they report no deaths, with minimal morbidity and no recurrence of
symptoms [ 21 ]. For historical purposes, we have included a paper from Johns
Hopkins during the open cholecystectomy era, in our analysis [ 22 ]. The authors
treated 30 patients with primary common bile duct stones, defi ned as patients with
a 2 year symptom free interval following cholecystectomy in the absence of a long
cystic duct remnant or biliary stricture . Most patients presented with acute cholangitis , and the mean interval to developing symptoms was 12 years. Twenty six of the
30 patients had simple stone extraction and T-Tube placement, with no recurrent
stones in 82 %. Four patients had biliary drainage by choledochoduodenostomy (3)
or sphincteroplasty (1) without recurrent symptoms or stones.
Due to advances in therapeutic endoscopy , there are a multitude of techniques to
remove persistent common bile duct stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy , papillary large balloon dilatation of the papilla, or lithotripsy. It is infrequent that the
most patients are even evaluated by surgeons [ 23 – 25 ]. The results of endoscopic
treatment are reasonably good, and although not quite comparable to surgical series,
large or multiple calculi can usually be removed by endoscopic means [ 24 – 26 ]. The
20 Management of Recurrent Cholangitis

234
Table 20.3 Recurrent cholangitis due to choledocholithiasis
Author (Year) N Intervention Morbidity Mortality
Recurrent
stones (%)
Recurrent
symptoms
Need for further
intervention
Study type ( quality
of evidence)
Abdelmajid
(2014)
51 Choledochoduodenostomy (50) 11.7 % 3.9 % 0 0 0 Retrospective
cohort (low)
Hepaticojejunostomy (1)
Li (2007) 81 CBDE with T-tube Not
reported
Not
reported
8.6 % 8.6 % Not reported Retrospective
cohort (moderate)
41 Choledochoduodenostomy Not
reported
Not
reported
2.4 % 2.4 % Not reported Retrospective
cohort (moderate)
71 Choledochojejunostomy Not
reported
Not
reported
8.5 % 8.5 % Not reported Retrospective
cohort (moderate)
Chander
(2012)
27 Laparoscopic
choledochochoduodenostomy
3.7 % 0 0 0 0 Retrospective
cohort (very low
quality)
Kajanchee
(2012)
20 Laparoscopic
choledochoduodenostomy
35 % 5 % 0 5 % 0 Retrospective
cohort (low)
Saharia
(1977)
30 CBDE with T-tube (26) Not
reported
0 13 % 13 % 13 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
Choledochoduodenostomy (3)
Sphincteroplasty (1)
Sugiyama
(2004)
84 Endoscopic transpapillary stone
extraction using basket, balloon or
lithotripsy
2 % 0 30.9 % 41.6 % 42.8 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
Swahn (2010) 44 Endoscopic intraductal
electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy
9 % 2.3 % 29.5 % 36.3 % 56.8 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
Yoon (2014) 52 Endoscopic papillary balloon
dilation with mechanical,
electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy
7.6 % 0 30 % 7.7 % 30 % Retrospective
cohort (low)
S.C. Stain and A. Nigam

235
2004 article by Sugiyama reported 84 patients who had initial successful clearance
of common bile duct stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy a median of 4.4 years
earlier (range 0.9–17.2 years) [ 26 ]. Bile duct clearance was achieved in 74 patients,
and 10 patients required 2–3 procedures. Twenty six patients had stone recurrence,
but 25 of these 26 were successfully treated by transpapillary stone extraction, and
only one patient required choledochojejunostomy . The referral for subsequent surgery (14 %) was higher in the paper from Swahn et al., which employed endoscopic
intraductal electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy for diffi cult bile duct stones in
octogenarians [ 25 ]. The results of endoscopic treatment refl ect that additional ses-
sions to remove stones were considered a reintervention (Table 20.3 ).
Recurrent Cholangitis Following Biliary-Enteric Anastomosis for Benign Disease
Major bile duct injuries are generally treated successfully by hepaticojejunostomy .
In an analysis of 144 patients with bile duct injuries at the Cleveland Clinic, 84
major bile duct injuries required a biliary enteric reconstruction (hepaticojejunostomy – 73; hepatoduodenostomy – 11) [ 27 ]. Eleven of these patients (13 %) had
long term major biliary complications, and all occurred after high bile duct injuries
(Strasberg E3, E4 or E5) and were the focus of our analysis. Eight of the 11 patients
were treated by transhepatic stenting of biliary anastomotic stenting for a mean of
10 weeks, and fi ve required repeat treatment, only one of which eventually had
operative revision. Another study looked at patients who developed biliary stricture s after pancreaticoduodenectomy [ 28 ]. Anastomotic strictures occurred in 10 of
392 patients (2.6 %) who had Whipple resections for benign disease and all were
treated with percutaneous catheters and balloon dilation. Only one patient required
operative revision of the bile duct anastomosis. A large series of 110 patients treated
by percutaneous balloon dilation of benign bilioenteric anastomotic strictures was
successful in most patients, but required multiple sessions (mean 5; range 2–30)
[ 29 ]. Only 13 patients (15 %) developing recurrent biliary obstruction , that were
treated by repeat dilation (4), lithotripsy (3), or surgery (4). However, a high number
of patients were lost to follow up (21 %). These results are summarized in Table 20.4 .
Recommendations for Treatment of Recurrent Cholangitis
There have been no randomized clinical trial s for the treatment of recurrent cholangitis . Recommendations are based on observational cohort studies that report experience at single institutions, primarily with a single therapy. A few series do report
their results using two or three different treatment options.
20 Management of Recurrent Cholangitis

236
Table 20.4 Recurrent cholangitis after biliary-enteric anastomosis for benign disease
Author
(Year) N Intervention Morbidity Mortality
Recurrent
stones (%)
Recurrent
symptoms
Need for further
intervention
Study type ( quality of
evidence)
Walsh
(2007)
8 Transhepatic
stenting of biliary
anastomosis
Not reported 0 None 87.5 % 62.5 % Retrospective cohort
(low)
House
(2006)
10 Transhepatic
stenting of biliary
anastomosis
Not reported 0 None 100 % 100 % Retrospective cohort
(moderate)
Bonnel 110 Transhepatic
stenting of biliary
anastomosis
10 % 0 None 15 % 100 % Retrospective cohort
(moderate)
S.C. Stain and A. Nigam

237
Recommendations
1. Recurrent cholangitis from hepatolithiasis
(a) Hepatic resection for patients with unilateral hepatic stones and lobar atro-
phy (evidence quality low; strong recommendation)
(b) Bilioenteric anastomosis for patients with recurrent disease and consider-
ation of hepaticojejunal access loop (evidence quality low; strong
recommendation)
(c) Patients considered high risk for surgery may be treated percutaneous chol-
angioscopy or repeat endoscopic treatment. Either modality may be combined with lithotripsy. (evidence quality low; weak recommendation)
2. Recurrent cholangitis from choledocholithiasis
(a) Transpapillary endoscopic treatment using available techniques such as
sphincterotomy , papillary balloon dilation and/or lithotripsy. Surgical bilioenteric anastomosis is reserved for patients that have failed multiple endoscopic attempts. (evidence quality high; strong recommendation)
3. Recurrent Cholangitis Following Biliary-enteric Anastomosis for Benign
Disease
(a) Balloon dilation of the anastomosis with temporary stenting, including a
second attempt, especially for a short stricture (evidence quality low; weak
recommendation)
(b) Operative revision of failed anastomotic balloon dilation (evidence quality
low; strong recommendation)
A Personal View of the Data
Recurrent cholangitis secondary to hepatolithiasis should be considered a surgical
disease, and the best outcomes result from hepatic resection of involved segments
(especially when there is lobar atrophy) with biliary enteric anastomoses above
intrahepatic strictures after surgical clearance of the biliary tree, with consideration
of a hepatojejunal access loop. In the modern era of minimally invasive medicine
with highly effective nonoperative techniques of managing recurrent cholangitis in
the setting of common bile duct or hepatic duct strictures with resulting choledocholithiasis , there has been a growing tendency to use endoscopic or percutaneous
methods to manage this disease process. This is certainly appropriate given the high
success rate of these procedures that can be done with less morbidity and mortality
compared to operative techniques. Although frequently requiring repeated episodes
of treatment, the long-term results of these nonsurgical options have been found to
be comparable to surgical procedures. However, if these techniques are unsuccessful, the options of surgical management involving biliary enteric anastomosis should
20 Management of Recurrent Cholangitis

238
be considered. Moreover, the possibility of underlying malignancy must always be
remembered so as not to lose the patient to unsuspected cancer . Similarly, in the
patients presenting with recurrent cholangitis after previous biliary interventions,
nonoperative techniques are appropriate and useful. However, when such interventions fail or when suspicion of malignancy rises, surgical options must be
entertained.
References
1. Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, Lo CM, Fan ST, You KT, Wong J. Endoscopic biliary drainage for
severe acute cholangitis. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(24):1582–6.
2. Yusoff IF, Barkun JS, Barkun AN. Diagnosis and management of cholecystitis and cholangitis.
Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2003;32(4):1145–68.
3. Tsui WM, Chan YK, Wong CT, Lo YF, Yeung YW, Lee YW. Hepatolithiasis and the syndrome
of recurrent pyogenic cholangitis: clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features. Semin Liver
Dis. 2011;31(1):33–48.
4. Li FY, Cheng NS, Mao H, Jiang LS, Cheng JQ, Li QS, Munireddy S. Signifi cance of control-
ling chronic proliferative cholangitis in the treatment of hepatolithiasis. World J Surg.
2009;33(10):2155–60.
5. Chen C, Huang M, Yang J, Yang C, Yeh Y, Wu H, Chou D, Yueh S, Nien C. Reappraisal of
percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy for primary hepatolithiasis. Surg Endosc.
2005;19(4):505–9.
6. Tsuyuguchi T, Miyakawa K, Sugiyama H, Sakai Y, Nishikawa T, Sakamoto D, Nakamura M,
Yasui S, Mikata R, Yokosuka O. Ten-year long-term results after non-surgical management of
hepatolithiasis, including cases with choledochoenterostomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.
2014;21(11):795–800. doi:
10.1002/jhbp.134 .
7. Chen DW, Tung-Ping Poon R, Liu CL, Fan ST, Wong J. Immediate and long-term outcomes of
hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis. Surgery. 2004;135(4):386–93.
8. Cheung MT, Kwok PC. Liver resection for intrahepatic stones. Arch Surg.
2005;140(10):993–7.
9. Lee TY, Chen YL, Chang HC, Chan CP, Kuo SJ. Outcomes of hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis.
World J Surg. 2007;31(3):479–82.
10. Uenishi T, Hamba H, Takemura S, Oba K, Ogawa M, Yamamoto T, Tanaka S, Kubo
S. Outcomes of hepatic resection for hepatolithiasis. Am J Surg. 2009;198(2):199–202.
11. Al-Sukhni W, Gallinger S, Pratzer A, Wei A, Ho CS, Kortan P, Taylor BR, Grant DR,
McGilvray I, Cattral MS, Langer B, Greig PD. Recurrent pyogenic cholangitis with hepatolithiasis – the role of surgical therapy in North America. J Gastrointest Surg.
2008;12(3):496–503.
12. Kassem MI, Sorour MA, Ghazal AH, El-Haddad HM, El-Riwini MT, El-Bahrawy
HA. Management of intrahepatic stones: the role of subcutaneous hepaticojejunal access loop.
A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2014;12(9):886–92.
13. Tang CN, Tai CK, Siu WT, Ha JP, Tsui KK, Li MK. Laparoscopic treatment of recurrent pyo-
genic cholangitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12(3):243–8.
14. Han HS, Yi NJ. Laparoscopic treatment of intrahepatic duct stone. Surg Laparosc Endosc
Percutan Technol. 2004;14(3):157–62.
15. Tian J, Li JW, Chen J, Fan YD, Bie P, Wang SG, Zheng SG. The safety and feasibility of reop-
eration for the treatment of hepatolithiasis by laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc.
2013;27(4):1315–20.
S.C. Stain and A. Nigam

239
16. Tan J, Tan Y, Chen F, Zhu Y, Leng J, Dong J. Endoscopic or laparoscopic approach for hepa-
tolithiasis in the era of endoscopy in China. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(1):154–62.
17. Huang MH, Chen CH, Yang JC, Yang CC, Yeh YH, Chou DA, Mo LR, Yueh SK, Nien
CK. Long-term outcome of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy for hepatolithiasis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(12):2655–62.
18. Abdelmajid K, Houssem H, Rafi k G, Jarrar MS, Fehmi H. Open choldecho-enterostomy for
common bile duct stones: is it out of date in laparo-endoscopic era? N Am J Med Sci.
2013;5(4):288–92.
19. Li ZF, Chen XP. Recurrent lithiasis after surgical treatment of elderly patients with choledo-
cholithiasis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2007;6(1):67–71.
20. Chander J, Mangla V, Vindal A, Lal P, Ramteke VK. Laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy
for biliary stone disease: a single-center 10-year experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Technol
A. 2012;22(1):81–4.
21. Khajanchee YS, Cassera MA, Hammill CW, Swanström LL, Hansen PD. Outcomes following
laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy in the management of benign biliary obstruction.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(4):801–5.
22. Saharia PC, Zuidema GD, Cameron JL. Primary common duct stones. Ann Surg.
1977;185(5):598–604.
23. Hong WD, Zhu QH, Huang QK. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoprostheses in the treat-
ment of large or multiple common bile duct stones. Dig Endosc. 2011;23(3):240–3.
24. Yoon HG, Moon JH, Choi HJ, Kim DC, Kang MS, Lee TH, Cha SW, Cho YD, Park SH, Kim
SJ. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for the management of recurrent diffi cult bile
duct stones after previous endoscopic sphincterotomy. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(2):259–63.
25. Swahn F, Edlund G, Enochsson L, Svensson C, Lindberg B, Arnelo U. Ten years of Swedish
experience with intraductal electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy for the treatment
of diffi cult bile duct stones: an effective and safe option for octogenarians. Surg Endosc.
2010;24(5):1011–6.
26. Sugiyama M, Suzuki Y, Abe N, Masaki T, Mori T, Atomi Y. Endoscopic retreatment of recur-
rent choledocholithiasis after sphincterotomy. Gut. 2004;53(12):1856–9.
27. Walsh RM, Henderson JM, Vogt DP, Brown N. Long-term outcome of biliary reconstruction
for bile duct injuries from laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Surgery. 2007;142(4):450–6.
28. House MG, Cameron JL, Schulick RD, Campbell KA, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Lillemoe KD,
Yeo CJ. Incidence and outcome of biliary strictures after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg.
2006;243(5):571–6.
29. Bonnel DH, Fingerhut AL. Percutaneous transhepatic balloon dilatation of benign bilioenteric
strictures: long-term results in 110 patients. Am J Surg. 2012;203(6):675–83.
20 Management of Recurrent Cholangitis

241© 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_21
Chapter 21
Management of Postoperative Bile Duct
Stricture
Nicholas J. Zyromski and James R. Butler
Abstract Postoperative bile duct strictures are relatively rare, but challenging
problems to manage. Multiple techniques to treat bile duct strictures exist, including
endoscopic, percutaneous, and surgical approaches. The optimal technique for individual patients is best determined by a multidisciplinary team composed of experienced endoscopists, interventional radiologists, and hepatobiliary surgeons. The
location and type of injury (i.e. Bile leak, bile duct transection, etc.) dictate therapeutic approach. The underlying hepatic artery anatomy must be understood.
Excellent outcomes are expected from experienced centers; these patients are ideally followed life-long, as a small percentage will develop late recurrent stricture.
Keywords Bile duct stricture • Bile duct injury • Bile duct • Stricture • Bile leak •
Cholangitis • ERCP
Introduction
Postoperative bile duct stricture (PBDS) occurs most commonly after cholecystectomy [ 1 ], but may also complicate other complex hepatobiliary operations including
liver transplant , pancreatoduodenectomy, hepatectomy , and resection of the extrahepatic biliary tree (i.e. for choledochal cyst, cholangiocarcinoma , or primary sclerosing cholangitis ) [ 2 – 5 ].
Bile duct strictures represent a broadly heterogeneous pathology; a major challenge when attempting to collate and summarize best therapeutic practice lies in
segregating and comparing treatment outcomes of similar strictures. Perhaps the
most widely accepted classifi cation of PBDS was proposed by Strasberg [ 6 ].
N. J. Zyromski (*) • J. R. Butler
Department of Surgery , Indiana University School of Medicine ,
545 Barnhill Dr EH 519 , Indianapolis , IN 46202 , USA
e-mail:
nzyromsk@iupui.edu

242
Importantly, this classifi cation recognizes more than simple anatomic level of injury,
and also includes factors such as partial versus complete bile duct transection, presence of ongoing bile leak , and presence of complete bile duct occlusion.
Multiple treatment strategies have been applied to postoperative bile duct stricture , including surgical repair ( hepaticojejunostomy , choledochoduodenostomy ) [ 2 ,
7 – 27 ], percutaneous dilation and/or stenting [ 28 – 31 ], and endoscopic dilation (most
commonly with stenting) [ 32 – 41 ]. The location (level) of bile duct injury is obvi-
ously of major importance when choosing treatment strategy. Therapy of PBDS
also depends on many other factors including timing of injury recognition [ 42 , 43 ],
presence of ongoing bile leak or biliary sepsis, presence of concomitant vascular
(hepatic artery) injury, and availability of local expertise and experience. In many
patients, multiple therapeutic approaches (or repeated application of a single therapeutic approach) may be required to achieve durable resolution.
Further complicating analysis of PBDS treatment is the fact that no one consistent outcome measure has been accepted to defi ne treatment failure or success.
Recurrent stricture is typically apparent on imaging studies ( cholangiography or
cross sectional images); however, patients with modest strictures may remain
asymptomatic. Similarly, while liver chemistry biochemical abnormality (particularly alkaline phosphatase) may be the fi rst sign of impending stricture, abnormal
liver chemistry may be observed without obvious morphologic stricture. The occurrence of cholangitis is somewhat subjective, diffi cult to accurately compile retrospectively, and inconsistently reported. Repeated percutaneous and endoscopic
interventions are commonly necessary; the question of how many interventions
defi nes success or failure remains unanswered. In addition, the use of surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopically placed biliary stent s is common in PBDS treatment.
The timing and number of stent exchanges, however, is widely variable. Finally, it
has been recognized that as many as 10 % of post-operative biliary stricture s may
develop 10 years or more after the original operation; however, very few studies
have the appropriate length of follow up (some authorities suggest 20 years) to
document all strictures [ 2 , 23 ].
With all of the above in mind, the goal of this review is to compare the success
of PBDS treatment strategies (surgical versus percutaneous and endoscopic ) based
on the outcomes of recurrent stricture and cholangitis . The review will focus primarily on bile duct injury /strictures sustained after cholecystectomy . Many studies
highlight one specifi c treatment approach; a few series compare surgical repair with
endoscopic and/or percutaneous treatment [ 21 , 44 – 55 ], and importantly, no pro-
spective trials comparing different treatment strategies have been performed.
Search Strategy
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from 1946 to
September 2014, using the following strategy: bile duct stricture *, bile duct leak*,
bile duct injury * (where * retrieves word variants such as plurals and other
N.J. Zyromski and J.R. Butler
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
