Skip to main content

Abstract

The management of common bile duct stones has changed dramatically in the past 50 years. What used to involve laparotomy with common bile duct exploration has evolved into a much less invasive endoscopic treatment. Despite the differences in definitions of high-volume and low-volume centers and endoscopists, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography should be thought of as a high-risk procedure. However, adequate training and experience decrease the overall complication and failure rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hochberger J, Tex S, Maiss J, Hahn EG. Management of difficult common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;13(4):623–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Demling L, Koch H, Classen M, Belohlavek D, Schaffner O, Schwamberger K, et al. Endoscopic papillotomy and removal of gall-stones: animal experiments and first clinical results (author’s transl). Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1974;99(45):2255–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cotton PB. Non-operative removal of bile duct stones by duodenoscopic sphincterotomy. Br J Surg. 1980;67(1):1–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Worthley CS, Watts JM, Toouli J. Common duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis? Aust N Z J Surg. 1989;59(3):209–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, Spirito F, et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(8):1781–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Folkers MT, Disario JA, Adler DG. Long-term complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a North-American perspective. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(11):2868–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kageoka M, Watanabe F, Maruyama Y, Nagata K, Ohata A, Noda Y, et al. Long-term prognosis of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis. Dig Endosc. 2009;21(3):170–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cotton PB. ERCP. Gut. 1977;18(4):316–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Staritz M, Ewe K, Meyer zum Buschenfelde KH. Endoscopic papillary dilatation, a possible alternative to endoscopic papillotomy. Lancet. 1982;1(8284):1306–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Baron TH, Harewood GC. Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(8):1455–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanaka S, Sawayama T, Yoshioka T. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: long-term outcomes in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59(6):614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ersoz G, Tekesin O, Ozutemiz AO, Gunsar F. Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57(2):156–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chung JW, Chung JB. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of choledocholithiasis: indications, advantages, complications, and long-term follow-up results. Gut Liver. 2011;5(1):1–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cipolletta L, Costamagna G, Bianco MA, Rotondano G, Piscopo R, Mutignani M, et al. Endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy of difficult common bile duct stones. Br J Surg. 1997;84(10):1407–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Raijman I. Intracorporeal lithotripsy in the management of biliary stone disease. Semin Laparosc Surg. 2000;7(4):295–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas M, Howell DA, Carr-Locke D, Mel Wilcox C, Chak A, Raijman I, et al. Mechanical lithotripsy of pancreatic and biliary stones: complications and available treatment options collected from expert centers. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(9):1896–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. DiSario J, Chuttani R, Croffie J, Liu J, Mishkin D, Shah R, et al. Biliary and pancreatic lithotripsy devices. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65(6):750–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yasuda I, Itoi T. Recent advances in endoscopic management of difficult bile duct stones. Dig Endosc. 2013;25(4):376–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aslan F, Arabul M, Celik M, Alper E, Unsal B. The effect of biliary stenting on difficult common bile duct stones. Prz Gastroenterol. 2014;9(2):109–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, Kato N, Kamijima T, Graham DY, et al. Biliary stenting in the management of large or multiple common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(7):1200–1203.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fan Z, Hawes R, Lawrence C, Zhang X, Zhang X, Lv W. Analysis of plastic stents in the treatment of large common bile duct stones in 45 patients. Dig Endosc. 2011;23(1):86–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kalaitzakis E, Toth E. Hospital volume status is related to technical failure and all-cause mortality following ERCP for benign disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:1793.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cote GA, Imler TD, Xu H, Teal E, French DD, Imperiale TF, et al. Lower provider volume is associated with higher failure rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Med Care. 2013;51(12):1040–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F, Kerstan E, Vogel W, Schreiber F. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy. 2008;40(8):625–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mohammad H. Shakhatreh M.D., M.P.H. or J. Royce Groce M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shakhatreh, M.H., Groce, J.R. (2016). Gastroenterologic Treatment and Outcomes. In: Hazey, J., Conwell, D., Guy, G. (eds) Multidisciplinary Management of Common Bile Duct Stones. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22765-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22765-8_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22764-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22765-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics