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
☆
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