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
243
variations). These terms were combined with the medical subject headings “postoperative complications” and “treatment outcomes ,” which were ‘exploded’ to also
include specifi c variants of these terms. These terms were also combined with specifi c operative procedures (i.e. “pancreatoduodenectomy,” “ hepatectomy ,” etc.).
Results were limited to human subjects and English language, case reports and letters were eliminated. Reference lists of high impact results were queried to identify
additional results.
Results
PBDS After Complex Hepatobiliary Procedures
Systematic review of biliary stricture s following orthotopic liver transplant (OLT),
extrahepatic biliary tree resection (EBR), and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are
beyond the scope of this chapter; however, a few salient points are noteworthy.
Stricture is a signifi cant complication of OLT, occurring in up to 20 % of cases [ 4 ,
56 , 57 ]. This problem is commonly associated with hepatic artery complications. In
patients with end-to-end biliary reconstruction, most biliary strictures are amenable
to endoscopic therapy (with stenting), while those with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy are commonly approached by percutaneous transhepatic methods.
The incidence of PBDS after PD is approximately 3 % [ 3 , 58 , 59 ], though given
the increasing frequency of pancreatic surgery , surprisingly few data are available
specifi c to postoperative bile duct stricture . The time to stricture formation after PD
averages 13–16 months, and most patients present with cholangitis and/or jaundice .
Recurrent malignancy should be considered as a cause of PBDS in patients having
PD for diagnosis of cancer . Percutaneous therapy is successful in most patients
(95 % in one series [ 59 ]), though depending on local expertise, some authors have
chosen to address these patients surgically with equally good outcomes [ 58 ].
Even fewer data on PBDS are available specifi c to resection of the extrahepatic
biliary tree (for example, for choledochal cyst) [ 5 , 60 ]. As the reconstruction in
these cases is almost universally by Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy , the primary
treatment modality is percutaneous intervention. Most authorities recommend lifelong follow up for these patients, as strictures may present very late (decades) after
defi nitive surgical treatment.
PBDS After Cholecystectomy
Cholecystectomy, both in the pre- laparoscopic era as well as in contemporary time
represents by far and away the most common cause of PBDS. National estimates
suggest as many as 0.5 % of all cholecystectomies have associated bile leak or bile
duct injury , both of which may lead to PBDS [
1 ]. Treatment of PBDS depends on a
21 Management of Postoperative Bile Duct Stricture
244
number of variables. First and foremost is the anatomic level of injury. Additional
considerations include local availability of specialty treatment (i.e. interventional
radiology, endoscopy , and specialized hepatobiliary surgical units), timing of repair,
and presence of major vascular injury [ 11 , 12 ]. Comparison of PBDS treatment
outcomes by different techniques is limited signifi cantly by small sample sizes,
retrospective analyses, and most importantly, diffi culty comparing similar types of
injuries/strictures. For example, injuries of Strasberg type A (consisting simply of
bile leak, either from the cystic duct stump or from a peripheral bile duct in the
gallbladder bed) are easily and durably managed with endoscopic stent ing more
than 95 % of the time. On the other hand, type E injuries, including those proximal
to the hepatic bifurcation, those with major vascular injury, and those with complete
hepatic duct occlusion or transection involve an exponentially greater degree of
complexity and in extreme cases may even require major hepatectomy for defi nitive
treatment [ 61 ]. Nevertheless, patients with both of these types of injuries are often
included in the same analysis and even in comparison studies. No prospective study
exits comparing similar types of PBDS treated by different techniques. Based on
existing retrospective data, however, several general treatment recommendations
may be observed.
Surgical Repair
Select studies reviewing surgical repair of PBDS are shown in Table 21.1 . The
larger series number in the hundreds of patients, though these series often span several decades. Advances in surgical technique (as well as endoscopic and percutaneous techniques) that have evolved over the time of the study should be considered.
Reasonable follow up is measured in multiples of years; most PBDS will manifest
with some combination of pain , jaundice , and cholangitis within the fi rst 5 years of
operation, though as many as 10 % of PBDS may present quite late (decades) [ 2 ].
Lifelong follow up of patients after surgical repair of PBDS therefore seems quite
prudent.
Most surgical series document excellent (>90 %) durable long-term success
when following basic tenets of repair: utilizing a tension-free anastomosis of
healthy, well-perfused bile duct s to similarly well-perfused intestine. Most authorities recommend repair either very early (within 48 h of the injury, particularly if no
major hepatic artery injury is coincident) or waiting for 4–6 weeks to permit patient
optimization [ 2 , 15 , 42 ]. Optimizing patient physiology includes controlling biliary
sepsis, supplementing nutrition as necessary, and defi ning the level of biliary injury
and presence of hepatic arterial injury. Many studies have shown less than optimal
outcomes for PBDS repaired in the 2–4 week time period post injury; these poor
outcomes have been attributed to poor bile duct perfusion in the presence of evolving ischemia.
Several technical considerations are worth discussion. First, the level of repair
has been debated: some authorities suggest that routine use of the Hepp-Couinaud
N.J. Zyromski and J.R. Butler
245
technique may be associated with improved outcomes [ 7 , 10 , 63 ]. Second, while
most biliary surgeons prefer Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy , some have advocated
choledochoduodenostomy as defi nitive repair [ 25 – 27 ]. Table 21.2 summarizes out-
comes of choledochoduodenostomy for repair of PBDS. Potential advantages of
choledochoduodenostomy include subjecting the patient to a less complex operation (fewer anastomoses) and maintenance of continuity with the upper gut, permitting endoscopic biliary evaluation if necessary. Detractors of this technique impugn
the sump syndrome (foodstuffs lodged in the distal/intrapancreatic common bile
duct ) as a cause of recurrent cholangitis and liver abscess . Dividing the bile duct
completely and performing end-to-side choledochoduodenostomy may avoid the
sump syndrome. Most post- cholecystectomy biliary injuries are high, and therefore
Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy may be the preferable approach in these
situations.
Table 21.1 Surgical repair of postoperative bile duct stricture s
Author (ref) Year N F/U Success
Addeo [
24 ] 2013 46 97 93 %
Perera [
22 ] 2011 200 60 77 %
Mercado [
23 ] 2011 312 52 96 %
Pottakrat [
21 ] 2010 364 61 92 %
Sahaspal [
20 ] 2010 69 a 86 %
Jablunsca [
19 ] 2009 94 62 85 %
Stewart [
18 ] 2009 307 40 91 %
Walsh [
17 ] 2007 84 67 89 %
DeReuver [
16 ] 2007 151 63 91 %
Thompson [
15 ] 2006 47 n/s 89 %
Sicklick [
14 ] 2005 208 b b
Schmidt [
13 ] 2005 54 62 81 %
Stewart [
11 ] 2004 261 b b
Alves [
12 ] 2004 55 59 97 %
Mercado [
10 ] 2003 30 56 87 %
Johnson [
9 ] 2000 27 55 95 %
Lillemoe [
8 ] 2000 156 58 91 %
Murr [
7 ] 1999 59 42 91 %
n/s not stated
a
“Long-term”
b
Immediate postoperative outcomes
Table 21.2 Surgical repair of postoperative bile duct stricture s by choledochoduodenostomy
Author (ref) Year N F/U Success
Luu [
27 ] 2013 55 29 98 %
Rose [
26 ] 2013 59 28 88 %
Leppard [
25 ] 2011 79 74 98 % a
a
Included patients with chronic pancreatitis bile duct stricture s
21 Management of Postoperative Bile Duct Stricture
246
Most would agree that preoperative placement of transhepatic biliary stent s
greatly facilitates operative conduct. In contrast, the issue of transhepatic stenting in
the postoperative period is a topic of ongoing debate. Historically, two camps have
included routine stenters and routine non-stenters. Many experienced biliary surgeons have come to a middle ground, maintaining transhepatic stents in the situation of a small caliber bile duct or high reconstruction, while avoiding stents in the
case of large diameter biliary-enteric anastomoses. The duration of stenting postoperatively is not consistent; however, a time period of 3–6 months at minimum seems
reasonable to attenuate stricture formation. Over-the-wire transhepatic cholangiography with either manometry or a “ clinical trial ” may be used before removing
stents. Biliary manometry (the Whittaker test) is used infrequently; the alternative,
“clinical trial” involves maintaining the transhepatic stent at a level proximal to the
anastomosis for a short period of time while monitoring the patient for symptoms of
pain or cholangitis .
Percutaneous Therapy
Exclusive percutaneous management of PBDS has been used at select centers with
experienced interventional radiology groups [ 28 – 31 ]. Table 21.3 summarizes results
of these studies, and Table 21.5 includes patients with percutaneous transhepatic
stenting reported in trials that include surgical repair and/or endoscopic treatment.
In general, fewer studies of percutaneous biliary stent ing as defi nitive treatment for
PBDS have been reported when compared to the surgical or endoscopic approaches.
This observation perhaps highlights the rarity of expertise in biliary interventional
radiology nationwide. Studies of percutaneous biliary stenting for PBDS are all
hampered by small sample sizes and relatively short follow up. Most of these series
count patients who have required multiple stent exchanges and prolonged duration
of stenting as successfully treated. The duration of stenting is variable, but may last
more than 1–2 years. Most of these series document success rate s signifi cantly
lower than those reported in surgical series, though the defi nition of success (i.e.
radiological vs clinical) varies considerably. Noteworthy is the fact that most of
these series contain at least some patients who have failed either surgical or endoscopic treatment. Also noteworthy in the big picture is the substantial technical
expertise necessary to access a non-dilated biliary system by the percutaneous transhepatic approach.
Table 21.3 Percutaneous treatment of postoperative bile duct stricture s
Author Year N F/U Success
Cantwell [
31 ] 2008 75 96 52 %
Kocher [
30 ] 2007 21 12 94 %
Mesra [
29 ] 2004 51 76 59 %
Bonnell [
28 ] 1997 25 55 72 %
N.J. Zyromski and J.R. Butler
247
Endoscopic Therapy
Table 21.4 documents select series of patients with PBDS treated exclusively by
endoscopic dilation and stenting. Follow up in these series is on par with surgical
series. Success rates generally range above 90 % overall, with the caveat that
patients with Type A injuries (i.e. bile leak s) are included in many of these series.
Improved outcomes have been observed over time, as may be expected with
advances in endoscopic technology, technique, and experience. More recently, trials
of multiple plastic versus larger caliber metallic endobiliary stents have been undertaken; some authorities feel that covered metallic endobiliary stents may provide the
most expeditious and durable treatment.
Again, it is important to reiterate that no one technique is suitable to treat all
PBDS. A good practice for hepatobiliary surgeons interested in managing these
patients is to work closely with their endoscopy (and interventional radiology) colleagues, reviewing the imaging studies early in the treatment course. With experience, one is often able to get a sense of which PBDS will respond to endotherapy
alone, and which may require earlier surgical intervention (avoiding protracted periods of stent changes).
Studies with Multiple Treatment Techniques
Table 21.5 lists studies in which patients have been treated by multiple techniques.
These studies span the broadest time frame of the current review, and also represent
the most heterogeneous group of patients in terms of injury level, treatment selection, and outcome defi nitions. While many of these studies purport comparison of
two groups of patients, great care must be taken drawing conclusions regarding
superiority of any one technique.
Table 21.4 Endoscopic treatment of postoperative bile duct stricture s
Author Year N F/U-mos Success
Canena [
41 ] 2014 20 44 100 %
Ghazanfar [
40 ] 2012 97 N/S 88 %
Artifon [
39 ] 2012 31 N/S 72 %
Draganon [
34 ] 2012 14 48 62 %
Kuroda [
38 ] 2010 21 121 95 %
Sakai [
37 ] 2009 24 N/S 94 %
Katsinelos [
36 ] 2008 63 N/S 95 %
DeReuver [
35 ] 2007 203 54 84 %
Constamanga [
33 ] 2001 45 49 89 %
Dumonceau [
32 ] 1998 48 50 73 %
N/S not stated
21 Management of Postoperative Bile Duct Stricture
248
In general, treatment outcomes in this group of reports mirror those observed in
studies of individual treatment modality: relatively less durable success by percutaneous approach, with approximately 90+ percent success seen in both endoscopic
and surgical treatment groups. Reasonable follow up has been achieved in many of
these groups. Again, many studies of endoscopic treatment include patients with
Strasberg type A injuries ( bile leak s), in whom excellent results are expected.
The paper reported by Pitt and his colleagues from Indiana University is noteworthy [ 2 ]. This large series is the only report to date to include surgical, percutane-
ous , and endoscopic treatment of PBDS in a large number of patients. The outcomes
achieved by these experienced hepatobiliary surgeons, interventional radiologists,
and endoscopists essentially mirrors outcomes described above: moderates success
with transhepatic stenting, excellent success with surgical and endoscopic (including type A injury) therapy. Better success in more recent years was attributed to
increased experience and stent maintenance for more than 6 months (all treatment
modalities). An important observation corroborating prior surgical studies was the
poorer outcomes in those patients repaired surgically during “intermediate” time
period (i.e. 2–4 weeks post injury) compared to immediate (<48 h) or delayed (>4
week) repair.
Recommendations Based on the Data
• Patients with Strasberg type A injury/PBDS (i.e. bile leak alone) are best treated
by endoscopic therapy with stenting (evidence quality moderate, strong
recommendation)
Table 21.5 Reports including multiple treatment modalities applied to postoperative bile duct
stricture s
Author Year N
F/Umos
Surgery
(success)
Endo
(success) Perc (success)
Pitt [
2 ] 2013 45 58 25 (88 %) – 20 (55 %)
Benkabbou [
55 ] 2013 528 60 (88 %) (76 %) (50 %)
Pottakrt [
53 ] 2010 57 27 25 (N/S) 5 (N/S) –
Abel-Raouf [
52 ] 2010 260 N/S 16 (NS) 234 (82 %) –
Fatima [
51 ] 2010 159 45 63 (95 %) 92 (95 %) –
Ozturk [
30 ] 2009 31 a 24 (67 %) 5 (100 %) –
Nuzzo [
50 ] 2008 77 N/S 41 (78 %) 17 (74 %) 6 (74 %)
DeSantibanes [
49 ] 2006 142 78 106 (86 %) – 36 (47 %)
Depalma [
48 ] 2003 157 N/S 77 (73 %) 80 (54 %) –
Tucchi [
47 ] 2000 42 91 22 (77 %) 20 (80 %) –
Born [
46 ] 1999 40 44 21 (43 %) 31 (90 %) –
Davids [
45 ] 1993 101 46 35 (83 %) 66 (83 %) –
Pitt [
44 ] 1989 42 58 25 (88 %) 20 (55 %)
N/S not stated
a
“Long-term”
N.J. Zyromski and J.R. Butler
249
• Surgical therapy appears to be the most durable treatment modality overall for
patients with Strasberg type B-E injury/PBDS (evidence quality moderate, strong
recommendation)
• Timing of surgical repair should be either immediate (<48 h) or delayed for >4–6
weeks from the time of injury (evidence quality moderate, strong recommendation)
• Hepaticojejunostomy Roux-en-Y may be preferable to choledochoduodenos-
tomy for repair of high PBDS (evidence quality weak, weak recommendation).
A Personal View of the Data
Multidisciplinary evaluation of patients with PBDS including experienced endoscopists, interventional radiologists, and hepatobiliary surgeons is ideal to determine
the best technique with which to approach specifi c clinical situations, and therefore
achieve optimal outcomes in these complex patients. The location and type of
injury/PBDS dictates therapeutic approach (i.e. surgical, percutaneous , endoscopic ).
In real practice, multiple approaches often provide complimentary information and
therapeutic benefi t for individual patients.
Surgical management of PBDS demands knowledge of biliary anatomy and the
presence of concomitant hepatic artery injury. Timing of repair should be based on
the clinical situation, and in most cases delayed 4–6 weeks to control biliary sepsis
and permit physical and nutritional optimization. While specifi c techniques such as
high repair (Hepp-Couinaud technique) [ 62 ], choledochoduodenostomy , and dura-
tion of transhepatic stenting may be debated, it appears clear that the best surgical
outcomes come in the hands of experienced biliary units. In patients with PBDS
after Roux-en-Y repair, percutaneous stenting is a very reasonable fi rst approach
when local expertise is available.
Patient quality of life , time lost from work, overall cost of treatment, and litigation were not addressed in this review; however, each of these issues plays an important role in managing PBDS patients. Long-term (lifetime) follow up of these
patients after PBDS repair is ideal.
In this era of evidence-based medicine, it is highly unlikely that a prospective,
randomized trial will ever be performed comparing surgical repair to endoscopic or
percutaneous treatment of a specifi c PBDS. Nevertheless, as in other practical medical practice, reasonably solid retrospective analyses inform rational management of
this problem [ 63 ] .
References
1. Flum DR, Cheadle A, Prela C, Dellinger EP, Chan L. Bile duct injury during cholecystectomy
and survival in medicare benefi ciaries. JAMA. 2003;290(16):2168–73.
2. Pitt HA, Sherman S, Johnson MS, Hollenbeck AN, Lee J, Daum MR, Lillemoe KD, Lehman
GA. Improved outcomes of bile duct injuries in the 21st century. Ann Surg. 2013;258:490–9.
21 Management of Postoperative Bile Duct Stricture
250
3. House MG, Cameron JL, Schulick RD, et al. Incidence and outcome of biliary strictures after
pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;243(5):571–6.
4. Tector AJ, Mangus RS, Chestovich P, et al. Use of extended criteria livers decreases wait time
for liver transplantation without adversely impacting posttransplant survival. Ann Surg.
2006;244:493–50.
5. Ziegler KM, Pitt HA, Zyromski NJ, et al. Choledochoceles: are they choledochal cysts? Ann
Surg. 2010;25(4):683–90.
6. Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ, et al. An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during
laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180(1):101–25.
7. Murr MM, Gigot JF, Nagorney DM, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup DM, Farnell MB. Long-term results
of biliary reconstruction after laparoscopic bile duct injuries. Arch Surg. 1999;134:604–9;
discussion 609–10.
8. Lillemoe KD, Melton GB, Cameron JL, Pitt HA, Campbell KA, Talamini MA, Sauter PA,
Coleman J, Yeo CJ. Postoperative bile duct strictures: management and outcome in the 1990s.
Ann Surg. 2000;232:430–41.
9. Johnson SR, Koehler A, Pennington LK, Hanto DW. Long-term results of surgical repair of
bile duct injuries following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery. 2000;128:668–77.
10. Mercado MA, Chan C, Orozco H, Tielve M, Hinojosa CA. Acute bile duct injury. The need for
a high repair. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1351–5.
11. Stewart LG, Robinson TN, Lee CM, et al. Right hepatic artery injury associated with laparo-
scopic bile duct injury: incidence, mechanism, and consequences. J Gastrointest Surg.
2004;8(5):523–30.
12. Alves A, Farges O, Nicolet J, Watrin T, Sauvanet A, Belghiti J. Incidence and consequence of
an hepatic artery injury in patients with postcholecystectomy bile duct strictures. Ann Surg.
2003;238:93–6.
13. Schmidt SC, Langrehr JM, Hintze RE, Neuhaus P. Long-term results and risk factors infl uenc-
ing outcome of major bile duct injuries following cholecystectomy. Br J Surg.
2005;92:76–82.
14. Sicklick JK, Camp MS, Lillemoe KD, Melton GB, Yeo CJ, Campbell KA, Talamini MA, Pitt
HA, Coleman J, Sauter PA, Cameron JL. Surgical management of bile duct injuries sustained
during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: perioperative results in 200 patients. Ann Surg.
2005;241:786–92; discussion 793–5.
15. Thomson BN, Parks RW, Madhavan KK, Wigmore SJ, Garden OJ. Early specialist repair of
biliary injury. Br J Surg. 2006;93:216–20.
16. de Reuver PR, Grossmann I, Busch OR, Obertop H, van Gulik TM, Gouma DJ. Referral pat-
tern and timing of repair are risk factors for complications after reconstructive surgery for bile
duct injury. Ann Surg. 2007;245:763–70.
17. Walsh RM, Henderson JM, Vogt DP, Brown N. Long-term outcome of biliary reconstruction
for bile duct injuries from laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Surgery. 2007;142:450–6; discussion 456–7.
18. Stewart L, Way LW. Laparoscopic bile duct injuries: timing of surgical repair does not infl u-
ence success rate. A multivariate analysis of factors infl uencing surgical outcomes. HPB (Oxf).
2009;11:516–22.
19. Jablonska B, Lampe P, Olakowski M, Gorka Z, Lekstan A, Gruszka T. Hepaticojejunostomy
vs. end-to-end biliary reconstructions in the treatment of iatrogenic bile duct injuries.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:1084–93.
20. Sahajpal AK, Chow SC, Dixon E, Greig PD, Gallinger S, Wei AC. Bile duct injuries associated
with laparoscopic cholecystectomy timing of repair and long-term outcomes. Arch Surg.
2010;145:757–63.
21. Pottakkat B, Vijayahari R, Prakash A, Singh RK, Behari A, Kumar A, Kapoor VK, Saxena
R. Factors predicting failure following high bilio-enteric anastomosis for post- cholecystectomy
benign biliary strictures. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1389–94.
22. Perera MT, Silva MA, Hegab B, Muralidharan V, Bramhall SR, Mayer AD, Buckels JA, Mirza
DF. Specialist early and immediate repair of post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy bile duct injuries is associated with an improved long-term outcome. Ann Surg. 2011;253:553–60.
N.J. Zyromski and J.R. Butler
251
23. Mercado MA, Franssen B, Dominguez I, Arriola-Cabrera JC, Ramirez-Del Val F, Elnecave-
Olaiz A, Aramburo-Garcia R, Garcia A. Transition from a low: to a high-volume centre for
bile duct repair: changes in technique and improved outcome. HPB (Oxf). 2011;13:767–73.
24. Addeo P, Oussoultzoglou E, Fuchshuber P, Rosso E, Nobili C, Souche R, Jaeck D, Bachellier
P. Reoperative surgery after repair of postcholecystectomy bile duct injuries: is it worthwhile?
World J Surg. 2013;37:573–81.
25. Leppard WM, Shary TM, Adams DB, Morgan KA. Choledochoduodenostomy: is it really so
bad? J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(5):754–7.
26. Rose JB, Bilderback P, Raphaeli T, Traverso W, Helton S, Ryan Jr JA, Biehl T. Use the duode-
num, it’s right there: a retrospective cohort study comparing biliary reconstruction using either
the jejunum or the duodenum. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:860–5.
27. Luu C, Lee B, Stabile BE. Choledochoduodenostomy as the biliary-enteric bypass of choice
for benign and malignant distal common bile duct strictures. Am Surg. 2013;79:1054–7.
28. Bonnell DH, Liguory CL, Lefgebvre JF, Cornud FE. Placement of metallic stents for treatment of
postoperative biliary strictures: long term outcome in 25 patients. AJR. 1997;169(6):1517–22.
29. Misra S, Melton GB, Geschwind JF, Venbrux AC, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD. Percutaneous
management of bile duct strictures and injuries associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy:
a decade of experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:218–26.
30. Kocher M, Cerna M, Havlik R, Kral V, Gryga A, Duda M. Percutaneous treatment of benign
bile duct strictures. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62:170–4.
31. Cantwell CP, Pena CS, Gervais DA, et al. Thirty years’ experience with balloon dilation of
benign postoperative biliary strictures: long term outcomes. Radiology. 2008;249(3):1050–7.
32. Dumonceau JM, Deviere J, Delhaye M, Baize M, Cremer M. Plastic and metal stents for post-
operative benign bile duct strictures: the best and the worst. Gastrointest Enosc.
1998;47(1):8–17.
33. Costamagna G, Pandolfi M, Mutignani M, Spada C, Perri V. Long-term results of endoscopic
management of postoperative bile duct strictures with increasing numbers of stents. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2001;54:162–8.
34. Draganov P, Hoffman B, Marsh W, Cotton P, Cunningham J. Long-term outcome in patients
with benign biliary strictures treated endoscopically with multiple stents. Gastrointest Endosc.
2002;55:680–6.
35. de Reuver PR, Rauws EA, Vermeulen M, Dijkgraaf MG, Gouma DJ, Bruno MJ. Endoscopic
treatment of post-surgical bile duct injuries: long term outcome and predictors of success. Gut.
2007;56:1599–605.
36. Katsinelos P, Kountouras J, Paroutoglou G, Chatzimavroudis G, Germanidis G, Zavos C,
Pilpilidis I, Paikos D, Papaziogas B. A comparative study of 10-Fr vs. 7-Fr straight plastic
stents in the treatment of postcholecystectomy bile leak. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:101–6.
37. Sakai Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Ishihara T, et al. The usefulness of endoscopic transpapillary procedure
in post-cholecystectomy bile duct stricture and post-cholecystectomy bile leakage.
Hepatogastroenterology. 2009;56(92):978–83.
38. Kuroda Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y, et al. Long-term follow-up evaluation for more than 10 years
after endoscopic treatment for postoperative bile duct strictures. Surg Endosc.
2010;24(4):834–40.
39. Artifon EL, Coelho F, Frazao M, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing partially
covered metal stent versus plastic multistent in the endoscopic management of patients with
postoperative benign bile duct strictures: a follow up above 5 years. Rev Gastroenterol Peru.
2012;32(1):26–31.
40. Ghazanfar S, Qureshi S, Leghari A, Taj MA, Niaz SK, Quraishy MS. Endoscopic management
of post operative bile duct injuries. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62:257–62.
41. Canena J, Liberto M, Coutinho AP, et al. Predictive value of cholangioscopy after endoscopic
management of early postcholecystectomy bile duct strictures with an increasing number of
plastic stents: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(2):279–88.
42. Iannelli A, Paineau J, Hamy A, Schneck AS, Schaaf C, Gugenheim J. Primary versus delayed
repair for bile duct injuries sustained during cholecystectomy: results of a survey of the
Association Francaise de Chirurgie. HPB (Oxf). 2013;15:611–6.
21 Management of Postoperative Bile Duct Stricture
252
43. Stewart L, Way LW. Bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Factors that infl u-
ence the results of treatment. Arch Surg. 1995;130:1123–8; discussion 1129.
44. Pitt HA, Kaufman SL, Coleman JA, et al. Benign postoperative biliary strictures: operate or
dilate? Ann Surg. 1989;210:417–25.
45. Davids PH, Tanka AK, Rauws EA, van Gulik TM, van Leeuwen DJ, de Wit LT, Verbeek PC,
Huibregtse K, van der Heyde MN, Tytgat GN. Benign biliary strictures. Surgery or endoscopy? Ann Surg. 1993;217:237–43.
46. Born P, Rosch T, Bruhl K, Sandschin W, Allescher HD, Frimberger E, Classen M. Long-term
results of endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic treatment of benign biliary strictures.
Endoscopy. 1999;31:725–31.
47. Tocchi A, Mazzoni G, Liotta G, Costa G, Lepre L, Miccini M, De Masi E, Lamazza MA, Fiori
E. Management of benign biliary strictures: biliary enteric anastomosis vs endoscopic stenting.
Arch Surg. 2000;135:153–7.
48. De Palma GD, Persico G, Sottile R, Puzziello A, Iuliano G, Salvati V, Donisi M, Persico F,
Mastantuono L, Persico M, Masone S. Surgery or endoscopy for treatment of postcholecystectomy bile duct strictures? Am J Surg. 2003;185:532–5.
49. de Santibanes E, Palavecino M, Ardiles V, Pekolj J. Bile duct injuries: management of late
complications. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1648–53.
50. Ozturek E, Can MF, Yagci G, et al. Management and mid-to long-term results of early referred
bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology.
2009;56(89):17–25.
51. Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I, Murazio M, D’Acapito F, Ardito F, Vellone M, Gauzolino
R, Costamagna G, Di Stasi C. Advantages of multidisciplinary management of bile duct injuries occurring during cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 2008;195:763–9.
52. Fatima J, Barton JG, Grotz TE, Geng Z, Harmsen WS, Huebner M, Baron TH, Kendrick ML,
Donohue JH, Que FG, Nagorney DM, Farnell MB. Is there a role for endoscopic therapy as a
defi nitive treatment for post-laparoscopic bile duct injuries? J Am Coll Surg.
2010;211:495–502.
53. Abdel-Raouf A, Hamdy E, El-Hanafy E, El-Ebidy G. Endoscopic management of postopera-
tive bile duct injuries: a single center experience. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:19–24.
54. Fathy O, Wahab MA, Hamdy E, et al. Post-cholecystectomy biliary injuries: one center experi-
ence. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58(107–08):719–24.
55. Benkabbou A, Castaing D, Salloum C, Adam R, Azoulay D, Vibert E. Treatment of failed
Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy after post-cholecystectomy bile ducts injuries. Surgery.
2013;153:95–102.
56. Kobayashi N, Kubota K, Shimamura T, Watanabe S, Kato S, Suzuki K, Uchiyama T, Maeda S,
Takeda K, Nakajima A, Endo I. Complications of the treatment of endoscopic biliary strictures
developing after liver transplantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:202–10.
57. Gaman G, Geley F, Doros A, et al. Biliary complications after orthotopic liver transplantation:
the Hungarian experience. Transplant Proc. 2013;45(10):3695–7.
58. Prawdzik C, Belyaev O, Chromik AM, et al. Surgical revision of hepaticojejunostomy stric-
tures after pancreatectomy. Langembecks Arch Surg. 2015;400(1):67–75.
59. Ammori BJ, Joesph S, Attia M, et al. Biliary strictures complicating pancreaticoduodenec-
tomy. Int J Pancreatol. 2000;28(1):15–21.
60. Kim JH, Choi TY, Han JH, et al. Risk factors for postoperative anastomotic stricture after exci-
sion of choledochal cysts with hepaticojejunostomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;243(5):571–6.
61. Laurant A, Sauvant A, Farges O, et al. Major hepatectomy for the treatment of complex bile
duct injury. Ann Surg. 2008;248(1):77–83.
62. Hepp J. Hepaticojejunostomy using the left biliary trunk for iatrogenic biliary lesions: the
French connection. World J Surg. 1985;9:507–11.
63. Smith GCS, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational
challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327:1459–61.
N.J. Zyromski and J.R. Butler