Successful treatment of percutaneous transhepatic papillary dilation in patients with obstructive jaundice due to common bile duct stones after Billroth II gastrectomy: report of two emergent cases

Percutaneous Transhepatic Papillary Balloon Dilation versus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is recommended by major guidelines for the removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones but is technically challenging in patients with low cardiopulmonary reserve and anatomic abnormalities of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Purpose To compare percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation (PTPBD) with ERCP for CBD stone removal. Materials and Methods Participants with one to three CBD stones (largest stone ≤30 mm) and without intrahepatic bile duct or gallbladder stones were eligible for this prospective cohort study. PTPBD was recommended in participants with low cardiopulmonary reserve or definitive anatomic abnormalities of the upper GI tract. Otherwise, both procedures were offered without preference. Follow-up, including abdominal CT, was conducted at 1-week and 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up, and every 6 months thereafter. US and MR cholangiopancreatography were conducted if recurrence could not be confirmed with CT. Technical success rate was the primary outcome. Results A total of 531 participants were analyzed: there were 360 undergoing PTPBD (median age, 76 years; interquartile range [IQR], 64-82 years; 163 men) and 171 undergoing ERCP (median age, 66 years; IQR, 57-74 years; 94 men). The technical success rate was 99% (355 of 360) in the PTPBD group and 98% (167 of 171) in the ERCP group (relative risk, 1.02; P = .12). The incidence of overall complications was 4% (13 of 360) for PTPBD and 8% (13 of 171) for ERCP (relative risk, 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.61; P < .001). The PTPBD group showed a longer fluoroscopy time and a higher radiation exposure, with adjusted differences of 28.7 minutes (95% CI: 22.2, 35.2) and 384.3 mGy (95% CI: 296.5, 472), respectively. A propensity score-matching analysis (n = 123 per group) indicated that PTPBD had a slightly higher technical success rate and significantly fewer complications. Conclusion When compared with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation has a similar technical success rate and fewer perioperative complications but a higher radiation exposure. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by van Sonnenberg and Mueller in this issue.

Modified percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation for patients with refractory hepatolithiasis

BACKGROUND

Some patients with hepatolithiasis cannot tolerate surgery due to severe cardiac or pulmonary comorbidities, or cannot be endoscopically treated because of altered gastrointestinal anatomies.

AIM

To propose a modified percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation procedure, and evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of this modality.

METHODS

Data from 21 consecutive patients who underwent modified percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation with hepatolithiasis were retrospectively analyzed. Using auxiliary devices, intrahepatic bile duct stones were pushed into the common bile duct and expelled into the duodenum with an inflated balloon catheter. The outcomes recorded included success rate, procedure time, hospital stay, causes of failure, and procedure-related complications. Patients with possible long-term complications were followed up for 2 years.

RESULTS

Intrahepatic bile duct stones were successfully removed in 20 (95.23%) patients. Mean procedure time was 65.8 ± 5.3 min. Mean hospital stay was 10.7 ± 1.5 d. No pancreatitis, gastrointestinal, or biliary duct perforation was observed. All patients were followed up for 2 years, and there was no evidence of reflux cholangitis or calculi recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Modified percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation was feasible and safe with a small number of patients with hepatolithiasis, and may be a treatment option in patients with severe comorbidities or in patients in whom endoscopic procedure was not successful.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous transhepatic balloon dilation in removing common bile duct stones: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is widely regarded as the first choice in the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, for some patients, this treatment is not possible. The percutaneous transhepatic balloon dilation (PTBD) technique has been suggested as an alternative but has yet to gain wide acceptance.

AIM

To review cases of PTBD for removing CBD stones and explore the safety and efficacy of this treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science for cases of PTBD that underwent CBD stone removal from 1981 to January 2019. We analyzed all relevant articles available in full text. We extracted data on patient’s age, gender, overall technique success rate, reasons for technique failure, and the presence and type of major and minor complications. We analyzed the data and reported the results in a table and text. Altogether, we retrieved 12 case series and 6 case reports, for a total of 1347 patients. Thirty cases were excluded due to a lack of patient data.

RESULTS

The overall technique success rate for removing a CBD stone was 98.5% (1327/1347) and 98.1% (109/111) for removing concurrent CBD and gallbladder stones. Based on available data (n = 1312), mean age of all patients (687 males and 625 females) was 68.9 years. The total number of procedures in the remaining 1317 patients (after exclusion) was 3237 (average 2.4 procedures per patient). The total number of failures for eliminating a CBD stone was 20, and the reasons for failure included: Stone impaction (n = 10), intrahepatic bile duct stricture (n = 5), large stone (n = 2), severe CBD dilation (n = 1), multiple stones (n = 1), and duodenal perforation (n = 1). Various major complications related to the procedure were reported, but the incidence rate was low (1.4%). No pancreatitis or procedure related mortality was reported. Minor complications including transient hyperamylasemia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, and mild hemobilia were reported. For 218 patients (88 patients with unsuccessful endoscopic removal due to anatomical change and large or impacted stone and 130 cases who refused endoscopic procedure due to poor general condition or other additional disease), the CBD stones were successfully pushed into the duodenum by performing the PTBD procedure.

CONCLUSION

PTBD is a safe and effective approach in the nonoperative management of CBD stones. PTBD provides an alternative treatment when endoscopic procedures fail or are unsuitable for the patient.

The Use of a Hemostasis Introducer for Percutaneous Extraction of Bile Duct Stones

Background

Choledocholithiasis is defined as presence of at least one gallstone in the bile duct. Those bile duct stones (BDS) usually are extracted by ERCP. In case the bile duct is not accessible endoscopically (e.g. after major abdominal surgery), PTCD has to be performed. Extraction of the stones via PTCD has several risks as are hemorrhage, pancreatitis and injuries of the liver tissue.

Methods

We here report about our experience with a significant modification of this technique by use of a 13-french hemostasis introducer as a sheath to track the transhepatic access to the bile ducts in order to reduce time and risk.

Results

Three patients were treated by use of the reported modification. In all cases, the stones were successfully removable without complications.

Conclusion

We demonstrate that the use of a hemostasis introducer for percutaneous extraction of common bile duct stones seems to be promising in terms of shortening hospital stay and increasing patient safety.