[Clinical relevance of a routinely performed magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) prior to cholecystectomy]

The Influence of Pre-Procedural Imaging and Cystic Duct Cholangiography on Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage in Acute Cholecystitis

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) for acute cholecystitis is challenging. We evaluated the influence of pre-procedural imaging and cystic duct cholangiography on ETGBD. Patients who underwent ETGBD for acute cholecystitis were retrospectively examined. The rate of gallbladder contrast on cholangiography, the accuracy of cystic duct direction and location by computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and the relationship between pre-procedural imaging and the technical success of ETGBD were investigated. A total of 145 patients were enrolled in this study. Gallbladder contrast on cholangiography was observed in 29 patients. The accuracy of cystic duct direction and location (proximal or distal, right or left, and cranial or caudal) by CT were, respectively, 79%, 60%, and 58% by CT and 68%, 55%, and 58% by MRCP. Patients showing gallbladder contrast on cholangiography underwent ETGBD with a significantly shorter procedure time and a lower rate of cystic duct injury. No other factors affecting procedure time, technical success, and cystic duct injury were identified. Pre-procedural evaluation of cystic duct direction and location by CT or MRCP was difficult in patients with acute cholecystitis. Patients who showed gallbladder contrast on cholangiography showed a shorter procedure time and a lower rate of cystic duct injury.

Effectiveness of near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography in the identification of cystic duct-common hepatic duct anatomy in comparison to magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography: a preliminary study

INTRODUCTION

Bile duct injury represents the most serious complication of LC, with an incidence of 0.3-0.7% resulting in a significant impact on quality-of-life, overall survival, and frequent medico-legal litigations. Near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (NIRF-C) represents a novel intra-operative imaging technique that allows a real-time enhanced visualization of the extrahepatic biliary tree by fluorescence. The role of routine use of pre-operative magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP) to better clarify the biliary anatomy before laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still a matter of debate. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of NIRF-C in the detection of cystic duct-common hepatic duct anatomy intra-operatively in comparison with pre-operative MRCP.

METHODS

Data from 26 consecutive patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis or chronic cholecystitis, who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intra-operative fluorescent cholangiography and pre-operative MRCP examination between January 2018 and May 2018, were analyzed. Three selected features of the cystic duct-common hepatic duct anatomy were identified and analyzed by the two different imaging methods: insertion of cystic duct, cystic duct-common hepatic duct junction, and cystic duct course.

RESULTS

Fluorescent cholangiography was performed successfully in all twenty-six patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The visualization of cystic duct was reported in 23 out of 26 cases, showing an overall diagnostic accuracy of 86.9%. The level of insertion, course, and wall implantation of cystic duct were achieved by NIRF-C with diagnostic accuracy values of 65.2%, 78.3%, and 91.3%, respectively in comparison with MRCP data. No bile duct injuries were reported.

CONCLUSION

Fluorescent cholangiography can be considered a useful imaging diagnostic tool comparable to MRCP for detailed intra-operative visualization of the cystic duct-common hepatic duct anatomy during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.