Role of prophylactic endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis due to transient common bile duct obstruction

Timing of cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the risk of recurrent biliary events in the period after mild biliary pancreatitis but before interval cholecystectomy and to determine the safety of cholecystectomy during the index admission.

BACKGROUND

Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy early after mild biliary pancreatitis, consensus on the definition of early (ie, during index admission or within the first weeks after hospital discharge) is lacking.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies published from January 1992 to July 2010. Included were cohort studies of patients with mild biliary pancreatitis reporting on the timing of cholecystectomy, number of readmissions for recurrent biliary events before cholecystectomy, operative complications (eg, bile duct injury, bleeding), and mortality. Study quality and risks of bias were assessed.

RESULTS

After screening 2413 studies, 8 cohort studies and 1 randomized trial describing 998 patients were included. Cholecystectomy was performed during index admission in 483 patients (48%) without any reported readmissions. Interval cholecystectomy was performed in 515 patients (52%) after 40 days (median; interquartile range: 19-58 days). Before interval cholecystectomy, 95 patients (18%) were readmitted for recurrent biliary events (0% vs 18%, P < 0.0001). These included recurrent biliary pancreatitis (n = 43, 8%), acute cholecystitis (n = 17), and biliary colics (n = 35). Patients who had an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography had fewer recurrent biliary events (10% vs 24%, P = 0.001), especially less recurrent biliary pancreatitis (1% vs 9%). There were no differences in operative complications, conversion rate (7%), and mortality (0%) between index and interval cholecystectomy. Because baseline characteristics were only reported in 26% of patients, study populations could not be compared.

CONCLUSIONS

Interval cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis is associated with a high risk of readmission for recurrent biliary events, especially recurrent biliary pancreatitis. Cholecystectomy during index admission for mild biliary pancreatitis appears safe, but selection bias could not be excluded.

Three initial diets for management of mild acute pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare non-liquid and clear-liquid diets, and to assess whether the latter is the optimal treatment for mild acute pancreatitis.

METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, EBM review databases, Science Citation Index Expanded, and several Chinese databases were searched up to March 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared non-liquid with clear-liquid diets in patients with mild acute pancreatitis were included. A meta-analysis was performed using available evidence from RCTs.

RESULTS: Three RCTs of adequate quality involving a total of 362 participants were included in the final analysis. Compared to liquid diet, non-liquid diet significantly decreased the length of hospitalization [mean difference (MD): 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82-1.55; P﹤0.00001] and total length of hospitalization (MD: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.45-2.17; P = 0.003). The subgroup analysis showed solid diet was more favorable than clear liquid diet in the length of hospitalization, with a pooled MD being -1.05 (95% CI: -1.43 to -0.66; P﹤0.00001). However, compared with clear liquid diet, both soft and solid diets did not show any significant differences for recurrence of pain after re-feeding, either alone [relative risk (RR): 0.95; 95% CI: 0.51-1.87; P = 0.88] and (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.69-2.16; P = 0.49), respectively, or analyzed together as non-liquid diet (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.47-1.36; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSION: The non-liquid soft or solid diet did not increase pain recurrence after re-feeding, compared with the clear-liquid diet. The non-liquid diet reduced hospitalization.

Reoperation of biliary tract by laparoscopy: Experiences with 39 cases

AIM: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of biliary tract reoperation by laparoscopy for the patients with retained or recurrent stones who failed in endoscopic sphincterotomy.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data obtained from attempted laparoscopic reoperation for 39 patients in a single institution was performed, examining open conversion rates, operative times, complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS: Out of the 39 cases, 38 (97%) completed laparoscopy, 1 required conversion to open operation because of difficulty in exposing the common bile duct. The mean operative time was 135 min. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 4 d. Procedures included laparoscopic residual gallbladder resection in 3 cases, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary duct closure at choledochotomy in 13 cases, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and choledochotomy with T tube drainage in 22 cases. Duodenal perforation occurred in 1 case during dissection and was repaired laparoscopically. Retained stones were found in 2 cases. Postoperative asymptomatic hyperamylasemia occurred in 3 cases. There were no complications due to port placement, postoperative bleeding, bile or bowel leakage and mortality. No recurrence or formation of duct stricture was observed during a mean follow-up period of 18 mo.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic biliary tract reoperation is safe and feasible if it is performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, and is an alternative choice for patients with choledocholithiasis who fail in endoscopic sphincterectomy.