Kim SY, Lee S, Cho Y, Park SJ, Lee HN. Transcholecystic management of extrahepatic duct stones in poor candidates for endoscopic or transhepatic approaches.
Eur Radiol 2021. [PMID:
34505194 DOI:
10.1007/s00330-021-08259-0]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2021] [Revised: 07/25/2021] [Accepted: 08/10/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To investigate transcholecystic management of extrahepatic duct (EHD) stones using balloon ampulloplasty in patients who are poor candidates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and assess its efficacy and safety.
METHODS
Forty-one patients who were unable to undergo ERCP or had failed ERCP with non-dilated intrahepatic ducts (IHD) between February 2019 and October 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. After clinical improvement with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), EHD stones were managed through cystic duct passage, guidewire unwinding, sheath insertion, and EHD stone removal using balloon ampulloplasty. If the transcholecystic route failed, a transhepatic approach was used according to the pre-existing cholangiogram obtained via PC. We evaluated the technical success rate and complications of each step.
RESULTS
The technical success rate for the transcholecystic-only approach was 80.5%. The remaining cases were successfully managed with transhepatic conversion. Multiple stone removal sessions were required in 22% of the cases. One patient with combined IHD stones was initially converted to a transhepatic approach without any transcholecystic removal trial. The technical success rates for each step were as follows: cystic duct passage (38/40, 95%), guidewire unwinding (36/38, 94.7%), sheath insertion (36/36, 100%), and stone removal using balloon ampulloplasty (33/36, 91.7%). The overall clinical success was 97.6% (40/41) without major procedure-related complications. Thereafter, cholecystectomy was successfully performed in patients with concomitant gallstones (n = 20). No postprocedural complications occurred during the follow-up (1-70 days).
CONCLUSIONS
Percutaneous EHD stone removal through transcholecystic and transhepatic routes after PC is effective and safe in poor candidates for PTBD or ERCP.
KEY POINTS
• This study shows the safety and efficacy of extrahepatic duct (EHD) stones in patients who are poor candidates for initial percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. • The overall technical success for the transcholecystic-only approach was 80.5% (33/41). Including transhepatic conversions, it was 100% (41/41). Stone removal was successful in one session in 78% (32/41) of the patients and in multiple sessions in 28.1% (9/41) of the patients. • Balloon ampulloplasty with stone expulsion using an occlusion balloon catheter is also a safe and effective method for removing EHD stones.
Collapse